[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8689-S8775]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2260, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2260) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Bumpers modified amendment No. 3243, to amend the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to counsel for 
     witnesses in grand jury proceedings.
       Graham/DeWine amendment No. 3244, to modify the definition 
     of the term ``public aircraft''.


                    Amendment No. 3243, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate prior to the vote in relation to the Bumpers 
amendment numbered 3243.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, this amendment, for the edification of people who 
didn't hear any of the debate last night, is to make a very minor 
change in the grand jury system. Now, bear in mind, the grand jury 
system is about as outdated, as big an anachronism as there is in this 
country.
  For openers, all this amendment does is to say that an innocent 
person who is called before the grand jury--not as a target, not as a 
defendant, but an absolutely innocent witness, an absolutely innocent 
witness who is terrified because he or she is appearing before the 
grand jury for the first time in his or her life, and they know that if 
they misspeak, if their memory doesn't satisfy the prosecutor, they 
face the possibility of being charged with perjury.
  Right now when that innocent person goes to testify before the grand 
jury, let's make it easy, let's assume, as I did last evening, that it 
is a Senator's wife; that might be understandable around here. The 
Senator's wife goes in after having paid some lawyer $5,000 or $10,000 
just as a retainer to make sure she doesn't get charged with something 
for which she is innocent. She goes in and sits in the chair and they 
start asking her all kinds of personal questions that are totally 
irrelevant to why she is there: Have you been faithful to your spouse? 
Do you have a child charged with smoking pot? I understand your 
daughter is gay.
  Those things are not stretches of my imagination. But her lawyer is 
seated outside the door, because under the Federal rules he cannot come 
into the same room in which his client, the witness, is testifying. 
Think of that. Think about how we bash China and their criminal justice 
system and their violation of human rights. That Senator's wife might 
be called back again tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the 
next day. You have seen it happen.
  All we are saying is, don't make her crawl down off of the witness 
stand to

[[Page S8690]]

go outside and talk to her lawyer about how she should answer these 
questions. If she does that three times, do you know what the grand 
jury does? They start nudging each other. ``She must be hiding 
something; she is sure going out to talk to her lawyer a lot.''
  That is a woefully inadequate system for a great nation like this. 
All I am saying, let the lawyer come into the room.
  The Justice Department opposes this amendment. Now, doesn't that 
shock you? Of course they oppose it. They are in the business of 
putting notches on their belt. They want to be able to say this grand 
jury has never refused to return an indictment that I asked for. A New 
York judge said, ``Of course, they return those indictments. A grand 
jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks them to.''
  All I am saying, let's follow what 27 States have already done. They 
have abolished the grand jury system.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I ask that the time run equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry, I didn't understand the distinguished floor 
manager's request.
  Mr. GREGG. I asked that the time that is now running be allocated 
equally against both sides.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I object to that. I reserved the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will happen whether or not there is a 
unanimous consent. If neither side yields time, the clock will run and 
will be charged equally against both sides.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am glad the opponents to this amendment 
don't have anything to say this morning, and I am happy to use up the 
rest of my time. Perhaps we can get a unanimous consent agreement that 
they will yield back the balance of their time and we will vote.
  All I want to say is we are talking about a criminal justice system 
of the greatest nation on Earth, which is terrible. We are not talking 
about the mob, we are not talking about the mafioso, we are talking 
witnesses.
  Here is a classic case of a fulfillment of what everybody in this 
Senate has said at one time or another, and that is criminals have a 
better deal than do ordinary citizens. A criminal gets an attorney 
hired for him if he doesn't have one. A criminal is advised to remain 
silent. The Senator's wife can't remain silent. She has been subpoenaed 
to come down and testify.
  All I am saying, don't make her go outside the room. The attorney in 
the courtroom, he is not going to file motions. He is not going to make 
objections. But I tell you what it will do. It will have a salutary 
effect on the conduct of the attorney prosecuting the case.
  He won't be asking redundant, personal questions that have nothing to 
do with the case. This is not a game of ``gotcha,'' a game of seeing 
how many scalps you can put on your belt, how many notches you can put 
on your gun barrel. This is American justice we are talking about. We 
haven't addressed the grand jury system in 10 years. It is 500 years 
old, and it is 10 times worse now than it was 500 years ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the Senator's side has expired.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe that under the unanimous consent 
request we are functioning under, we were to vote at 9:40. I yield back 
our time and suggest that we move to a vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have been.
  All time has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--59

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3243) as modified, was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 3244

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). There are now 2 minutes 
equally divided on the Graham amendment.
  Who yields time on the Graham amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an amendment which has been 
requested by the National Sheriffs' Association.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend while we get order 
in the Chamber.
  There is a short debate before the vote.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment has been requested by the 
National Sheriffs' Association, the Western States Sheriffs' 
Association, sheriffs' associations from the largest States. It relates 
to a very narrow issue of the use of surplus aircraft, primarily 
helicopters, which have been made available to a local law enforcement 
agency. Today, there are serious restraints on the ability of a local 
jurisdiction which has an aircraft to make it available to an adjacent 
jurisdiction for things like search and rescue, overflights for drug 
control purposes, and a variety of other issues. This has been a major 
issue, an irritant to local law enforcement.
  It serves, in my opinion, no legitimate national purpose to impose 
these restraints on the use of donated surplus property aircraft to 
local law enforcement. I urge adoption of this amendment which will 
comply with the requests of American law enforcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute in opposition. Who seeks 
recognition?
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  The Senator will suspend while we get order in the Chamber.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment poses significant safety 
concerns as to what the legitimate role of the FAA should be. I might 
point out, I don't know of any hearing that has been held on this 
issue. There is legitimate concerns from the FAA as well as other 
organizations such as the Helicopter Association International and 
others.
  I oppose this amendment on the grounds there has not been sufficient 
scrutiny of the safety implications of this kind of action.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 
3244 of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

[[Page S8691]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Bond
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3244) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama be willing, 
on an unrelated matter, on the vote we just had, to yield me 2 minutes 
to make a brief comment before he begins?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2 
minutes.


                Explanation of Vote--Amendment No. 3243

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on the Bumpers amendment, I voted against 
the position of Senator Bumpers, not because I disagree with the 
substance of it. For the last 25 years and for the years I was chairman 
and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have adhered to the 
notion that the Judicial Conference, a system that we set up in the 
Congress years ago, is the appropriate vehicle to make recommendations 
for changes in the Federal rules. The reason I voted against the 
Bumpers amendment is not because I don't think prosecutors are out of 
hand, not because I don't think there is abuse of the grand jury 
system, which, by the way, for hundreds of years has relied upon the 
proposition that good judgment, sound judgment would be exercised by 
prosecutors and not be abused. Obviously, it is being abused.
  My hope is, regardless of what the outcome of this is legislatively, 
I am going to propose at a future time that the Senate ask the Judicial 
Conference to consider changes in the Federal rules relative to the 
conduct of grand juries and make recommendations to the Senate. That is 
the way we have done it since the Judicial Conference has been set up. 
That is the more appropriate way to deal with the Federal rules.
  I conclude by complimenting Senator Bumpers for pointing out an abuse 
of the system and the need for change. I think the appropriate way to 
do it is through the Federal rules.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator from Alabama has control of the time, I say to 
my friend from Vermont. I yield the floor and thank the Senator from 
Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, the prime sponsor of the Juvenile Justice Act and chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, is here. I will be glad to yield to him any time 
he wants on the amendment, and then I will talk on the amendment.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 3245

  (Purpose: To increase funding for Juvenile Accountability Incentive 
                             Block Grants)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the amendment is 
going to be offered on our behalf by the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama, Senator Sessions.
  I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Alabama to 
balance the approach between prevention and law enforcement. At the 
outset, let me commend the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, 
for his outstanding commitment to reducing juvenile crime. His work, I 
think, has made an outstanding contribution to our efforts.
  All of us have been shocked over the past several months as our 
Nation has witnessed a series of atrocious crimes committed by 
juveniles. These incidents bring home to all of us the reality of 
juvenile crime. The reality is that we can no longer sit silently by as 
children kill children, as teenagers commit truly heinous offenses, as 
our juvenile drug abuse rate continues to climb.
  FBI data confirms the national problem of rampant juvenile violent 
crime. In 1996, juveniles accounted for nearly one-fifth--19 percent--
of all criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18 
committed 15 percent of all murders, 17 percent of all rapes, and 32.1 
percent of all robberies. These disturbing figures show the need to fix 
a broken juvenile justice system that is failing too many of our young 
people and ultimately failing to protect the public.
  Last year, Congress began the process of addressing this serious 
national problem. The fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided 
$250 million for a block grant that promotes a commonsense approach to 
intervene at the earliest signs of trouble.
  A juvenile's first brush with the law is the most important, because 
it sends a strong signal of what he or she can get away with. 
Governments cannot afford to wait until a youngster is 16 or 17 years 
old, and has committed a half a dozen or more violent crimes, before 
getting serious.
  The block grant funded last year has also promoted making a 
juvenile's criminal record accessible to police, courts, prosecutors, 
and schools so that we can know and ascertain who are the serious 
repeat offenders. Right now, these records simply are not available in 
NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal records.
  We all recognize the value of programs that intervene in the lives of 
juveniles to prevent crime before it starts. The Federal Government 
already spends about $4.1 billion a year on programs aimed at 
delinquent and at-risk youth. We are doing some great things through 
public-private partnerships, through youth groups like the Boys and 
Girls Clubs, and we are going to continue to do this.
  I commend Senator Gregg for doubling our effort for this program to 
$40 million in the bill before us.
  I do not believe, however, that these programs alone can address the 
sickness that led to some of these recent tragedies. What we need is to 
ensure that the prevention programs that we have are backed up by a 
juvenile justice system that takes crime seriously, and imposes real 
sanctions for juvenile crime.
  Congress has given extensive support to delinquency prevention 
programs, especially since the Republicans took control of Congress. 
Congress spent over $200 million on the Office of Juvenile and 
Delinquency Prevention, OJDP, programs in fiscal year 1998. Compared 
with fiscal year 1991 funding of $75 million, Congress has increased 
prevention funding by over two and a half times. The Senate can be 
proud of its support of prevention programs. We increased prevention 
funding from $107 million in 1994, up to $144 million in fiscal year 
1995. Since then we have steadily increased funding up to its FY 1998 
level of over $201 million.
  In fact, there is no shortage in prevention funding. According to a 
November 1997, General Accounting Office, GAO, report entitled ``At-
Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated 
Approach,'' the Federal Government currently spends over $4 billion 
annually in prevention money for juveniles in 127 different Federal 
programs. In contrast, the Federal Government spends little money on 
law enforcement and detention for juvenile offenders.

[[Page S8692]]

  The bill before us provides an appropriation for the Juvenile 
Accountability Incentive Block Grants of $100 million for fiscal year 
1999. This funding level is far too low to meet the needs of our State 
and local law enforcement. For fiscal year 1998, the grant was set for 
$250 million. The Senator from Alabama's amendment will help restore 
funding to critical areas of the juvenile justice system, by 
reallocating $50 million from what I believe to be an excessive 
increase in appropriations for the incentive grants for prevention 
programs under Title V of the JJDPA. This program, funded at $20 
million in FY 1998, has been increased over fourfold, to $95 million in 
the bill before us.
  Senator Sessions' amendment will shift a part of that increase back 
to the block grant, so that the Senate will be funding this important 
program at the same level as it proposed in FY 1998. I must say that, 
in my view, even this amount will still be inadequate, because the need 
is so great. First, these incentive block grants fund the construction 
of permanent juvenile corrections facilities. Such facilities are 
needed to protect law abiding citizens from violent and repeat 
offenders. Space in secure detention facilities for serious and violent 
juvenile offenders is in critically short supply in many of our States.

  Second, this amendment will provide to aid State and local 
governments for the integration of serious juvenile criminal records 
into the national criminal history database, making these delinquency 
adjudication records available to law enforcement and courts as adult 
criminal records are now. Right now, these records simply are not 
available in NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal 
records. As any judge, police officer, or prosecutor will tell you, 
information is the lifeblood of the criminal justice system. With 
respect to juvenile criminal records, the system is anemic. Let me 
provide my colleagues with an example from just one State of what 
integrating these records into the adult records system can accomplish. 
Integrating juvenile offender's fingerprints into the records system in 
Virginia resulted in a significant improvement in identifying crime 
suspects. In fact, prints of juveniles make up only one percent of 
Virginia's automated fingerprint identification system, but this one 
percent accounts for 18 percent of latent crime scene fingerprint 
identifications.
  Third, this amendment helps States provide drug testing for 
appropriate categories of juvenile offenders. This testing will help 
authorities to know what crimes are drug driven, to better target 
treatment, services, and punishment as appropriate.
  For too long, the Federal Government has neglected to give adequate 
support to juvenile law enforcement programs. This amendment will help 
place much needed resources to the law enforcement side of the juvenile 
justice system. Our current juvenile justice system intervenes too late 
in the lives of juvenile offenders. All too often, juveniles break the 
law several times before they are held accountable. Unfortunately, this 
delay in justice fails to teach youthful offenders the seriousness of 
their crimes. This chain of events often lead to the tragic juvenile 
crime newspaper headlines we read in the newspapers nearly every day. 
We can do better, and the restoration of funds to the juvenile 
accountability incentive block grant is an important first step. For 
these reasons, I strongly urge the support of my colleagues for this 
amendment.
  I believe the Senator from Alabama has a good amendment here that 
would go a long way toward solving some of these problems we have in 
juvenile crime. I do believe that we will bring up the juvenile justice 
bill shortly after we return in September. At that time, we can debate 
all of these issues in full specific form.
  I thank the majority leader for, I think, being willing to do that. I 
thank my colleague for being willing to bring this amendment up, which 
I think pushes us down that road toward better juvenile justice than we 
have had in the past. He has done a terrific job in this area. He has 
been singular in his dedication and drive and forthrightness in this 
area. I think we ought to all listen to him and do our best to back him 
in the things that he is trying to do, as a former prosecutor, as a 
former U.S. attorney, as somebody who really knows this area very well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I call up amendment No. 3245 and ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hatch be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and 
     Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 3245.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 page 30, line 7, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$150,000,000''.
       On page 36, line 20, strike ``$95,000,0000'' and insert 
     ``$45,000,000''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say how much I have 
appreciated the opportunity to work with Chairman Hatch. He is an 
outstanding leader, a terrific lawyer, an outstanding constitutional 
scholar, and a champion for bringing order and discipline to ending 
crime in America. There is no one here who has contributed more over 
the years to that effort than Senator Hatch. And his advice and 
friendship, as we have gone forward, has been very, very helpful to me.
  Mr. President, let me just say this. I am going to go right to the 
heart of this matter. I came here to work on juvenile crime after 
serving as a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and attorney general of 
Alabama for 2 years. I care about juvenile crime. I have studied it. I 
have talked to juvenile crime experts--prosecutors, probation officers, 
judges--who have worked with it on a regular basis.
  I have concluded that we have a juvenile justice system that is 
overwhelmed by the flood of more and more cases, more and more serious 
cases. According to a New York Times article, in Chicago they spend 5 
minutes per case. That shows you what is happening in America, around 
the country.
  You talk to police officers in every town and they are frustrated by 
what is happening in juvenile justice. They tell me, ``Jeff, we can't 
do anything to them, and they know it. They are laughing at us.'' I 
have heard that all over. It is not the fault of the judges. But it is 
really the fault of all of us who have allowed the adult criminal 
justice system--and rightly so--to be strengthened significantly.
  We have gone to three times as many adult people in jail, for 
example, as we had just 18 years ago. And now we have had very little 
increase in the number of youngsters who have been detained under any 
kind of detention program than we had before. And we have had the most 
serious increase in the most violent type criminal activity by that 
younger group.
  So what do we do about it? They say we need a balance between 
prevention and law enforcement. And I agree with that. What we want to 
do--and my amendment does--is seek to have balance.
  Look at this chart. We have $4.3 billion dedicated to prevention 
programs in this budget already. That is what this Government is 
spending. This is from a study done by the General Accounting Office 
that was just completed in May of this year. We found that there is no 
money dedicated solely for juvenile law enforcement--unless perhaps we 
count the money that was funded in the block grant that I am supporting 
today from last year. Otherwise, there is none. I think we need to 
think seriously about what we are doing.
  Under this bill, this appropriations bill, the amount of money that 
was to be expended for the block grant program to increase and support 
juvenile justice in our local communities to help our States do that--
we have gone from $250 million in last year's budgetary authority, cut 
to $100 million this year.
  In addition to that, in the program that the President has supported, 
we have gone from $20 million to $95 million. I want to share with you 
what that program spends the money on. This is the prevention program 
that

[[Page S8693]]

has gone from $20 million to $95 million in this year's budget.
  It says it is to provide juvenile justice system programs for 
children, youth, and families, these things: Recreational services. 
Now, that is No. 1 listed on the plan--recreational services. I am for 
recreation, but I am not sure in a juvenile crime bill, in an effort to 
fight crime, we ought to be promoting recreation.
  Tutoring and remedial education. I am going to show you here in a 
minute a list of 129 programs that are filled with those kinds of 
activities. What we do not have is any help for our juvenile judges and 
probation officers and drug treatment personnel in the court systems.
  Here is the third one: Assistance. This is what it says: ``Assistance 
in the development of work awareness skills.'' That is on what we are 
spending $50 million. I don't know what that means.

  Child and adolescent health and mental health services. We have a 
host of those already funded by this Government.
  Alcohol and prevention programs. We have that pending legislation 
right now to a tremendous degree, and we already have programs spending 
moneys on that.
  Leadership and development activities. Now, I don't know what that 
means.
  Finally, teaching that people are and should be held accountable for 
their actions. I agree with that. But how do you teach people to be 
accountable for their actions if you arrest a youngster in a household 
burglary and he is taken to the police station and released that very 
night and sent home and nothing happens to him? Is that the way you 
teach it? I say that is what they are hearing. That is what people are 
hearing and that is what you will find if you talk to your law 
enforcement officer.
  What are we already funding in this governmental program? We are 
spending $4 billion in 129 programs for at-risk delinquent youth, 
according to the General Accounting Office. Here, under Department of 
Treasury, gang resistance education and training projects, $8 million; 
juvenile justice delinquency prevention and mentoring, $4 million; 
juvenile justice prevention allocation of the States, $70 million.
  Under Department of Labor, employment and training research and 
development projects; job training for the homeless demonstration 
program; and so on and so on, program after program after program, 
designed with good intentions to deal with kids who are at risk.
  Now, let's go back to square one. Let me tell you what I think ought 
to be done. Who are the most at-risk children? Those are the ones who 
are going to court now. According to a Newsweek article, 70 percent of 
the young people who murder someone have taken a gun to school 
previously. That is a stunning number. What that says does not surprise 
me in the sense that most of the young people in America who are 
committing serious crimes--the armed robberies, the assault with intent 
to murder, the murders, the rapes--have been in trouble with the judge 
and the courts before. They have been there before. If the courts are 
spending only 5 minutes to deal with them, no wonder they are coming 
back time and time and time again.
  As Senator Hatch said, our goal must be to make that first brush with 
the law the last. How can we do that? That is what we are saying. What 
should this Senate do? I am telling you, based on my experience and the 
hearings we have had for the last 2 years, what we need to do is 
strengthen the juvenile justice system. That is what we need to do.
  Now, that does not mean you put people in jail every time they get 
caught. It means when you arrest them, the first thing you should do is 
drug test them. Is this criminality being driven by drugs? If it is, 
then we ought to have them in a treatment program. They ought to be 
drug tested and monitored to make sure they get off drugs. That is the 
first thing you do. If this is the third, fourth, or fifth offense and 
they have committed a serious crime, they ought to be detained. We 
cannot continue to allow repeat offenders to run at large, even though 
they are 16 or 17 years of age.
  There was a murder in Montgomery, AL. Three youngsters killed a night 
watchman. I called the police department to ask about the prior record 
of those offenders. This is what they told me: 7, 7, and 15 prior 
arrests. That is what they had, each one of them. One 7, one 7, and 
another 15 prior arrests. They were still on the street. The revolving 
door was still operating and they murdered somebody. We would have done 
them a favor had they been detained, sent to an alternative school, 
sent to a boot camp. Perhaps we could have intervened in that lifestyle 
and stopped that murder from occurring. As it is, they were certified 
as an adult, will now be convicted as an adult, and sent off to an 
adult jail for a very long sentence. Who benefited from that?
  The reason is that juvenile court system in Alabama, and all over 
America, is overwhelmed. Our bill provides an incentive grant to the 
States for the purposes of strengthening that. It will give those 
juvenile judges the authority they need to crack down on juvenile crime 
and to change that life direction that is heading in the wrong 
direction, to the right direction.
  Let me tell you what this money can be used for. It will be used for 
programs to enhance prosecution and confinement of juvenile criminals 
as part of the graduated sanctions proposal. Everyone, on both sides of 
the aisle, agrees that we need graduated sanctions. When you are caught 
for one offense and you do another one, you go up a punishment level. 
The sanction is a punishment increase. That sends an important message 
that crime does not pay.
  It would fund programs that require juvenile delinquents to pay 
restitution to victims of juvenile crime. It would fund programs that 
require juvenile offenders to complete school or vocational training. 
That is what our proposal would do. It would require juvenile criminals 
to pay child support. If they have a child, they ought to be supporting 
that child. There would be programs to curb truancy. We need to get 
these kids back in school promptly. As soon as we can identify truants, 
they need to be apprehended and sent back to school before they get so 
far behind that they are hopelessly behind their contemporaries.

  Programs need to be designed to collect, record, and disseminate 
information on their criminal history. It would provide drug testing, 
programs for antidrug youth programs and the like. It would have a 
serious habitual offender program. It would have programs targeted 
toward youth gangs, and the construction and remodeling of short-term 
facilities for juvenile offenders. You have to have someplace to put 
them or you are just releasing them the very day they are caught. That 
is what is happening. They are being released the day they are caught. 
We need more juvenile facilities so there can be some detention. This 
would allow the States to apply for a grant, for matching money, to 
have detention facilities, alternative schools and boot camps and 
whatever they think is necessary to strengthen their court system.
  As a policymaker, recognize we have a limited amount of money. How do 
we apply that money most effectively? Who do we use it on? We use it 
on, I suggest, those people who are already coming into contact with 
the criminal justice system. Routinely, they are being arrested in 
America today for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth time, 
and nothing serious has happened. The reason is we have not given 
enough attention and support to those juvenile judges, those 
prosecutors, those probation officers, who are out every day trying to 
change lives. If we can strengthen that group, that is what we should 
do.
  Now, I am not opposed to general programs, after-school programs. I 
am not opposed to alternative schools. In fact, I would support those. 
Our proposal and our need today, the most critical need, is to identify 
those young offenders who are heading to a life of serious criminality, 
who have the potential to kill somebody, maybe your son or daughter, 
maybe my son or daughter. We see in the headlines every day young 
people committing those kinds of crimes.
  The answer to it is to find out who is capable of that at the 
earliest possible stage and do something about it. Most of those are 
going to be coming through the juvenile court system. In that juvenile 
court system, most good

[[Page S8694]]

ones--and I have visited them around the country; they have mental 
health treatment, drug treatment, counseling, incarceration, 
alternative schools, evaluations to determine whether or not they have 
learning disabilities and those kinds of problems--try to get those 
children on the right road.
  That is where we need to spend our money if we want to reduce serious 
juvenile crime. Spending it on every child in America in after-school 
programs may be a good decision for America to pursue but we have not 
had hearings on it and analyzed it. But it is an education function, 
primarily. This bill--our effort, our block grant--is designed to 
assist the juvenile justice system in performing their function of 
identifying and confronting those young offenders when they first brush 
up against the law, and to make sure that first brush is their last 
brush.

  If we do that, we will be investing our money wisely. I submit that 
the program that is in this bill that I just shared with you is vague, 
unspecific, and does not deal primarily with the kids that we need to 
deter from crime; and taking the money from that program and shifting 
it to this block grant and increasing it will focus our resources on 
the kids that need it the most.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I admire and applaud the interest of my 
friend from Alabama in the criminal justice system. He is a former 
prosecutor and is dedicated to law enforcement. I stand not to disagree 
with his concern; I disagree with his solution. There is on old 
expression where I come from--I think the Senator is ``in the right 
church, but he is in the wrong pew.''
  I will explain what I mean by that. My friend has not misrepresented 
any facts, but it is a matter of presentation here. I want to make sure 
that I deal with 3 major issues. I want to lay out to my colleagues 
what I am going to do. First of all, I want to applaud the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee here. I think they 
did one heck of a job on this legislation. I start off by rising to 
defend--not that they need any defense--what the appropriations bill 
does in this area. So I am going to first make sure we all understand, 
and our colleagues' staffs who are listening understand, what the 
amendment of my friend from Alabama actually does, in specific terms. 
Then I want to speak to the issue he has raised, which is that there 
are already a sufficient number of programs dealing with prevention. He 
cites the GAO study. I want to go into some detail, quite frankly, for 
the first time. These figures keep being offered and this assertion 
keeps being stated. I think, although it accurately says what the GAO 
report says, it does not accurately reflect what is actually being done 
relative to prevention. Lastly, I am going to conclude by laying out 
what I believe to be the larger prescription to putting into context 
what I think we should be doing to deal with the problem the Senator 
from Alabama and I--and I suspect every Senator--agrees that we have to 
attend to now.
  I respectfully suggest that, at the outset, about 5 years ago when 
the crime bill passed--the comprehensive crime bill--it was called the 
Biden crime bill. That is when it didn't look like it was going to 
work, so the President liked it that way. Well, it started to work, and 
then it was the Clinton crime bill. So it started out as the Biden 
crime bill. The point is that it's working, so it is the Clinton crime 
bill. And it is now the bipartisan crime bill, which everybody 
supported.
  That was the first time in the 25 years I have been here that, on a 
large scale, we learned to walk and chew gum at the same time when we 
dealt with crime. We had a very heavy dose of enforcement, a very heavy 
dose of prevention, and a very heavy dose of medicine relating to 
incarceration after the conviction. And I think that is the way we have 
to approach the issue of juvenile justice. It is the last unattended-to 
criminal justice issue of consequence that we have not come up with a 
comprehensive plan on.
  The Senator from Alabama and I have been cooperating, debating, 
disagreeing, and working with one another in the Judiciary Committee 
for the last year and a half, with differing points of view on how to 
deal with a comprehensive juvenile justice approach. He indicates this 
is not that comprehensive approach. He is doing what is within his 
rights and what he is limited to be able to do on this appropriations 
bill, and that is deal specifically with what is in the bill.
  So the committee reported a bill that now includes $95 million for 
title V grants under the juvenile justice office. The way the committee 
broke it down, wisely, was $20 million for prevention efforts, aimed at 
tribal youth--that is in the Indian nations; $25 million for the 
enforcement of under-age drinking laws and efforts, championed 
particularly by Senator Byrd of West Virginia; $50 million for the 
remainder, which supports a variety of community-based locally 
developed crime prevention programs, targeted to school violence, drug 
abuse, and truancy, which I think is the first thing the Senator from 
Alabama and the Senator from Delaware agree on. If you look at all the 
data, the single most significant, predictable precursor of youth 
violence is truancy. If you give me a list of all the truants and a 
list of all the other attributes relating to activities and conduct of 
students in American schools, I will bet you I will be able to pick any 
school district, any school, and identify for you 85 to 95 percent of 
the troubled youth, violent youth, just by being able to identify 
truancy. So we all know that, like the Senator from South Carolina who 
has spent a great deal of time dealing in this area, as has the Senator 
from New Hampshire. We all know that. They made a very wise allocation.

  What would my friend from Alabama do with his amendment? He would cut 
the $95 million for prevention by $50 million. Then he would take that 
$50 million for so-called youth block grants. I am not opposed to youth 
block grants. In the Biden juvenile justice bill, which is the 
alternative on our side of the aisle to S. 10 by my friend from Alabama 
and others, what we do--we believe we have to have enforcement as well. 
The Senator from Alabama takes $50 million out, which is basically the 
$50 million dealing with after-school, community-based programs and 
puts it into enforcement efforts. Last year, $45 million was 
appropriated for this, and the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, 
is cutting the program back to last year's level--that is, $45 
million--for all of the nonenforcement provisions relating to 
prevention.
  Now, I note parenthetically that the Democratic youth violence bill 
has $100 million for after-school prevention, $400 million for youth 
violence block grants, which is enforcement, and $250 million relating 
to existing programs, about one-half enforcement and one-half 
prevention, and $150 million for juvenile prosecutors in courts. So I 
want to put this into context. I don't speak for either of the managers 
of the bill, but my guess is that this is not a case where they 
attempted to write an entire juvenile justice bill. They were dealing 
with provisions within that. So I don't disagree with the proposition 
of my friend from Alabama that we have to do more on the enforcement 
side as well.
  The bill I have written, in concert with my Democratic colleagues--
and many Republicans as well support it--relates to both prevention and 
enforcement. When I say enforcement, I mean prosecution and the courts, 
and we have already taken care of provisions and have more provisions 
relating to juvenile justice detention and the facilities relating to 
that.
  So let's get this straight as this debate is underway here. I am not 
suggesting, in taking on what I am about to do regarding the specifics 
of the present specific amendment of my friend from Alabama, that we 
don't need more for enforcement. Again, I go back to my opening 
statement. I said it is nice when we have learned--and it works--to 
walk and chew gum at the same time. That is what we did on the master 
crime bill, the major crime bill. I don't know of anybody saying that 
crime bill is a bad bill now. What we did there is we committed, over a 
5-year period, billions of dollars--$30 billion. It did not break down 
a third, a third, and a third, but it was not far off that. I am 
overstating it in the interest of time. Roughly 30 percent was for 
prisons, 30 percent was for cops, and 30

[[Page S8695]]

percent for related programs that keep people from going into prison. 
That makes sense.
  Now, we should do that on a wholesale basis for juvenile justice with 
a different focus. Let me specifically respond and again make the 
point--and I realize I am being somewhat pedantic here. But this is not 
about whether you are for enforcement or for prevention. We should do 
both, and we do both. It is about whether or not the skewed alteration 
of the allocation of prevention and enforcement proposed by the Senator 
from Alabama is the right way to go. Obviously, I think it is the wrong 
way to go. Let me explain why. First, in explaining why, let me respond 
to the specific underlying, and on its face compelling rationale my 
friend from Alabama offers with his blue charts.
  Let me explain what I mean by that.
  The Senator makes the statement that has been made many, many times--
not just by him but by others--that we don't need to go anymore into 
the prevention side. In large part, the basic premise rests upon the 
notion that we don't need to provide them with safe havens, et cetera, 
because we already have out there 131 programs for at-risk youth with 
an annual appropriations of $4 billion.
  The Senator from Illinois actually knows about this subject. But if I 
am the Senator from Illinois and I come on the floor and listen to the 
debate, and I say, ``Look, the Senator from Illinois is one of these 
guys who is always talking about cutting wastes from programs that we 
don't need''--overlapping programs--I stand up, and I say, ``By the 
way, we don't need to spend more money, we just need to spend the money 
better.''
  The GAO report says there are 131 Federal programs and $4 billion. So 
I ask the Senator from Illinois why he would agree with Senator Biden--
or, in this case, with the committee--in putting $50 million of the $95 
million they have in the prevention program. That is kind of 
compelling. Then I say the GAO said that, not me--the GAO. But the GAO 
does say that.
  I am going to take a few moments to bore you with some of the data 
underlying the GAO report. Maybe we can get an agreement here as to 
what the facts are underscoring the basis upon which the GAO report was 
filed. My colleagues on the other side--some, and a few on this side--
have been saying we don't need to do more to steer our children away 
from gangs and drugs; we don't need to provide more safe havens from 
the streets; we are already doing enough. I am supportive of the 
argument. GAO identifies 131 programs for at-risk youth with annual 
appropriations of $4 billion. And the claim is that after-school 
prevention programs that have been proposed by me and others included 
in the youth violence bill but included in this case in the 
appropriations bill are just more of the same.
  Let's take a closer look at the 131 programs being criticized over 
and over again and see what we are really talking about.
  I apologize to my colleagues. The ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee has been kind enough to allow me to continue to be the 
ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, and I feel like I let him 
down a little bit, because he has been doing about 500 other things out 
there in that committee, and I should have been calling what I am about 
to say to the attention of our colleagues 6 months ago, to be honest 
with you. And I didn't. I didn't. Let's take a look at it.
  The GAO report says that based on fiscal year 1995--to start with, 
many of the 131 programs have already been eliminated since then. In 
fact, 15 of the programs listed didn't even receive any funds in 1995. 
The report doesn't indicate whether any funds were expended on 22 
others. What you had to start with is that a total of 37 of the 131 
programs either didn't receive funds or weren't listed. The number of 
131 is already inflated, No. 1. You are talking about maybe around 
100--less than 100 programs.
  According to the GAO report, the Federal Government was spending 
about $4 billion per year on programs for delinquent and at-risk youth, 
a target that all of us on the floor are concerned about, from the 
Senator from Alabama to the Senator from New York to the Senators from 
New Hampshire and South Carolina. But when you take a close look at the 
actual programs, only a portion of these funds and programs are 
targeted specifically at preventing violence and drug abuse for young 
people.

  Let me give you two examples: $1.2 billion of the $4 billion--let's 
get this straight.
  You can tell I have been here 25 years because I am not a chart guy. 
I was kidding one of my Democratic colleagues saying that he does this 
so well when he debates. But guys like Bumpers, I, and Hollings are not 
so big on charts. We haven't learned the chart deal yet. I guess I 
should learn it to get into the mainstream, because if I had a chart, 
it would be clear. What I do is just talk longer and probably confuse 
things. But I am going to give it a shot without charts.
  Let's start off with 131 programs being offered saying we have $34 
billion spent on at-risk youth. The truth is, it is 97 programs, and 
that is 1995. The truth is, in 1995 you really only had, at most, about 
97 programs that got funded at all. OK?
  Then you have a second piece. Of those 97 programs that allegedly are 
targeted at at-risk youth--roughly 97--what you have is, $1.2 billion 
out of the $4 billion that is spent on those programs goes to the Job 
Training and Partnership Act. That was a program championed by a lead 
contender for the Presidential nomination of the Republican side, Dan 
Quayle, and the leading Democrat on the Senate side, Ted Kennedy. That 
is their program. When they introduced the program--and most of us were 
here--I don't remember any Member standing up saying this is for at-
risk youth, designed to prevent crime. Hopefully, it has the spinoff 
benefit of providing jobs for kids and they don't go into crime. But 
this is not to deal with 36 million latchkey children who walk home 
after school without a mother or father there because both have to work 
and have from 2 in the afternoon or 3 in the afternoon until dinnertime 
with no supervision. That is not what the Job Training and Partnership 
Act was. But GAO counts $1.2 billion of that against the $4 billion 
they say we are spending on at-risk youth, violent youth.
  I am sure I don't have to remind anybody that the so-called JTPA is a 
program, as I said, championed by Dan Quayle and Ted Kennedy, that 
while job training is important, it is not what most of us think of as 
targeting at-risk, violent juveniles.
  Now we are down from $4 billion to $3.8 billion on 97 programs. There 
is another quarter of a billion dollars--not quite. To be precise, $245 
million goes for vocational education programs. Most of the kids my 
friend from Alabama and I are concerned about are not signing up for 
vocational education, an important program. I strongly support it, as I 
do the job training program. But, again, no 13-year old with a key 
hanging around his neck after the school bell rings, walking through a 
bad neighborhood and by 12 junkies to get home, says, ``My way out of 
this is job training; my way out of this is vocational education.'' It 
is an important program, but it is not what we are talking about.
  Now we are down to about $2.75 billion and 97 programs. Actually, if 
you take vocational education, job training, and the related programs, 
it is about $1.5 billion the Federal Government spends. We are really 
down to about $2.35 billion and 97.
  Let's talk about some of the other programs. They go to very worthy 
activities. I am not in any way criticizing them. I voted for them, and 
I would vote for them again. I think they make sense. But they are not 
targeted programs for violent youth or at-risk youth.
  Let me go on.
  If we are going to talk about focus--that is what I am talking about 
here--7 of the programs listed are assistance for homeless youth, 9 of 
the programs--now we are down to about 90--9 others are very important, 
but they are for a variety of activities directed at Indian youth, for 
mental health and physical health programs. Now we are down to about 80 
programs.
  Three other programs are dedicated specifically to mental health 
services for the general population. Now we are heading down into the 
mid seventies. Four programs deal with child abuse. Still we are in the 
seventies--below 70. And one of the programs is for migrant health 
services. So now you are down to around 70 programs from the 131.

[[Page S8696]]

  I will give you one example. The GAO list includes the HHS Child 
Welfare Grant Program which provides one-third of a billion dollars, 
$292 million, for foster care and services for abused and neglected 
children--very important services but not what we are talking about.
  So now we are getting down to the $2 billion area with about 70 
programs. Other programs have little or nothing to do with crime and 
drug prevention. While any line drawing that I am making here--and I am 
doing that--is somewhat arbitrary, at least I hope this puts it in 
context for my colleagues.
  Let me give a couple other examples of programs that I don't think 
any of us--if we had a list of all the programs that I want, all the 
programs any of us want here to deal with youth prevention, if we 
listed them all on a board and I said, ``Pick the top 50 that deal with 
violent youth and preventing crime,'' I doubt whether you would add the 
Foster Parent Grant Program, the Food Stamp Employment Program, the 
Youth Impaired Driving Project, four programs for promoting art with 
youth--all important programs, all important, none of which I disagree 
with, but they do not have a darned thing to do with the center of the 
debate the Senator from Alabama and I have.
  I want programs. I want the States to be able to say, ``We will keep 
the school open until 5 o'clock. We are going to have baseball teams 
for ninth graders and football teams and basketball teams for the 
girls.'' None of the school districts you all live in do that, unless 
you send your kid to a private school. These kids have nothing to do. 
Kids need an excuse to tell that junkie they have to walk by on the 
corner to get to their home; they need an excuse to stay out of 
trouble.
  Let's go back home to your own school districts, many of which are 
strapped, and ask yourself, ``Why is it there is Little League in the 
summer but no baseball teams after school for boys and girls in sixth, 
seventh, eighth, and ninth grades?'' Well, the school districts don't 
want to spend the money.
  I am the guy who came to this floor 8 years ago and said, ``The 
majority of the violent crime committed by young people is not when you 
all think it is.'' Everybody thought it was done in the heat of the 
night. It is done in broad daylight, in the sunlight between the hours 
of 2:30 and 6.
  I remember when I brought that report from the Judiciary Committee--
actually, the credit goes to the joint staff then of the Judiciary 
Committee--when I brought it to the floor. ``Oh, there goes those 
liberal guys again, talking about this coddling stuff.'' Now there is 
not a cop in America, there is not a criminal justice person in America 
who doesn't say that is the problem.
  My mom has an expression, as she would say, God love her--my mother 
is an Irish Catholic woman with 6,000 expressions. I went to Catholic 
grade school with the nuns. I think my mother, when she wasn't having 
children, was a nun. She remembers all the expressions. And one of her 
favorite expressions is, ``An idle mind is the devil's workshop.''
  An idle mind is the devil's workshop. You get a ninth grade kid 
living in a tough neighborhood without supervision of any adult in a 
school, in a family, for 4 hours every day after school, and good kids, 
good kids do bad things; it is called maturation. What the heck do we 
expect these kids to do? They lack good judgment. Even when they know 
and care about right and wrong, they have bad judgment because they are 
14 years old; they are not 24 or 54.
  I ask all of you--you may be, and probably all are, a better person 
than I am, but I wonder how I would have been if every day after school 
for 4 hours a day I was on my own, on my own. I was a pretty good 
athlete, and I was a pretty good student, and I never got myself in 
trouble with the law. But I want to tell you something. I will bet you, 
if I was on my own, with all of the values my family instilled in me, I 
am not so sure I would have had the courage to say no to the guy who 
was 17 who says, ``Hey, jump in the car and take a ride with me. It's 
only Charlie's car. We borrowed it.'' I would like to think I would 
have said, ``No problem. That's wrong. You guys are doing the wrong 
thing. I am not going to participate.''
  Let me tell you something, Jack. You are a better person than I am if 
you are certain how you would have done it. And that is how this 
incrementally starts. It doesn't start with a 13-year-old kid waking up 
saying, ``You know, I am going out and get a MAC-9, walk into the 7-
Eleven, blow away the guy behind the counter, and get $17 in cash so I 
can go buy myself some dope.'' That is not how it works.
  And so what are we doing here? Well, once you winnow out the programs 
for problems like child abuse and mental illness, once you exclude the 
programs directed at narrow populations, I believe that only 41 of the 
131 programs in the GAO list, spending out at about $1.1 billion in 
appropriations a year, are targeted specifically at juvenile crime and 
drug prevention. And of that total of $1.1 billion, $639 million, over 
half, went to just two programs, one of which I am responsible for 
coauthoring, so I obviously support it, and the other which I support 
as well--over half went to just two programs; $467 million went to the 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act and community programs.
  Now, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act is the act we passed here, 
got funded. Then 1 day I guess the Speaker woke up and said, ``We think 
that's a bad idea,'' and they cut it. The public went bananas, and they 
put it back in; it is OK. Of the $1.1 billion for at-risk youth, $467 
million goes to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, and my Republican 
colleagues boosted that appropriation last year to $556 million, a move 
I fully support and compliment the Republican leadership for doing, 
particularly since the House wanted to eliminate it.
  So now you are talking, of the $1.1 billion, $639 million of it, over 
half of it, is going for programs that, again, are not about after 
school. Then $172 million of the remaining roughly $400 million went to 
the Upward Bound Program--important. It provides mentoring, tutoring, 
and life skill training. If my friend does not understand what work 
awareness is, work awareness is a lot of these kids grow up in a family 
with no sense, no notion, no responsibility, no image, no example of 
what work means. Unless something has happened, birds learn to fly by 
watching their parents, ducks learn to paddle in my pond watching their 
parents, snakes learn to slither, turtles learn to swim. Where the heck 
do you think we learn? Where do you think our kids learn? It is a good 
program, but it is directed at disadvantaged high school students, this 
$172 million in the Upward Bound Program, to encourage children--
targeted at economically disadvantaged children--to continue their 
education. That is very important. It indirectly has an impact on 
crime. But, again, it certainly is not a targeted crime prevention 
program.

  Then, of course, the GAO attributes about $146 million to 11 programs 
in the juvenile justice office, only a few of which are proposed to be 
consolidated in the Republican crime bill.
  That is roughly $400 million for about 27 crime and drug prevention 
programs, some of which are tiny demonstration or pilot projects that 
cover no more than a handful of sites across the country and are 
designed to study what works and what does not. For example, in the 
list of that $400 million, $200,000 is for a demonstration grant 
program for residential drug treatment for women with young children--
important, but, again, not what we are talking about.
  So the impression given here that there are more than 130 Federal 
prevention programs designed to target at-risk youth is simply not an 
accurate reflection. In all of the cities and towns across America, and 
serving every child we can help, there are fewer than 40 programs for 
about $400 million. And what my friend from Alabama is saying, relying 
on the GAO report, is: You know, that is about as much as we can do. 
Government is already doing all it can and should do to stop kids from 
turning to gangs, crime, and drugs. But we have just seen many of the 
programs that are listed as targeted that, in fact, do not do that at 
all.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. I do want to finish this at some point, but I will be 
happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator not agree with me that one thing we have

[[Page S8697]]

heard, talking with law enforcement people--not somebody who just looks 
at this from a theoretical point of view, but law enforcement people--
is that the issue of prevention comes up over and over again? The 
Senator from Delaware, of course, addressed this in his original 
legislation. It was, as the Senator from Delaware will recall, a matter 
of some debate, both in the committee and on the floor. As I recall, in 
some of the conference committees we went to 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in 
the morning several times, discussing the issue of prevention.
  I believe the Senator from Delaware will recall, as I do, the number 
of police officers and police officials who came to us and said stay 
with prevention programs.
  In many ways, it just makes such great sense. As a former prosecutor, 
I remember that it was always the prevention programs that worked the 
best. So I ask the Senator from Delaware, does he not agree with what 
the President of the National Sheriffs Association says, in an open 
letter?
  After he speaks of the problems of juvenile crime, the President of 
the National Sheriffs Association says:

       So what is the answer? We must adopt a three-pronged 
     approach to juvenile violence--prevention, intervention and 
     enforcement. These recent statistics indicate the need for a 
     comprehensive prevention strategy that includes education and 
     community involvement, and addresses the root causes of 
     delinquency. We can no longer afford to focus only on 
     treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. Sheriffs 
     offices, through prevention programs . . . [the letter lists 
     a number of them] can make a difference in the lives of 
     children who still have a choice ahead of them as to whether 
     or not to try drugs, join a gang, steal a car, or otherwise 
     start on the slippery slope of a life of crime.

  Wouldn't the Senator from Delaware agree with the head of the 
National Sheriffs Association and me and so many others who say keep 
these prevention programs going, do not take money away from the 
prevention programs, but accept the fact that they are now beginning to 
work and work very well? This is not the time to cut them off. This is 
not the time to change these prevention programs into some kind of a 
block grant program that would not be aimed at prevention. Would not my 
friend from Delaware agree with that?
  Mr. BIDEN. The answer is, I absolutely do. I thank my friend for 
calling that to my attention.
  Let me not just mention the sheriffs. I am going to quote, now, from 
a few of the leading police officers of America.
  By the way, let's put this in context again. When the overall crime 
bill was drafted by me years ago, the way it got drafted was, I did not 
sit down with any sociologists or academics or welfare workers or, you 
know, liberal think tanks. I literally called in the presidents of the 
seven leading police organizations in America, from NAPO to NOBLE, FOP, 
et cetera. They sat around my conference table for the better part of 4 
months.
  I said: You tell me what you need. What do you think you need to 
fight crime?
  In the overall crime bill, they said they needed about a third of it 
going to prevention.
  When I sat down to draft the juvenile justice bill for our side of 
the aisle, with my colleagues, as a follow-on, I called the same people 
back in. Some of the presidents were changed. They were not all the 
same officers, the same people. To a person, they reinforced what the 
Senator from Vermont just said.
  Let me give an example. Mr. President, 170 police chiefs, sheriffs, 
prosecutors, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
International Union of Police Associations, and the leaders of the 
Crime Victims Organization, came out with a call for action. They title 
it ``A Call For Action From America's Front Line Against Crime,'' made 
up of those organizations I just named. On February 5, 1998, here is 
what they said:

       As police, prosecutors, crime survivors, we struggle every 
     day against crime and its devastating impact. We are 
     determined to see that dangerous criminals are arrested and 
     put behind bars. But anyone who thinks that jailing the 
     criminal is enough to undo the agony that crime leaves in its 
     wake hasn't seen crime up close. That is why no one knows 
     better than we that the most important weapons against crime 
     are investments that keep kids from becoming criminals, 
     investments which enable all children to get the right start 
     they need to become contributing citizens, and would show 
     them that as adults they would be able to meet their 
     families' basic needs through hard work.

  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I enjoyed listening to the Senator. I think he 
suggested something that, maybe indirectly, he didn't mean to.
  First, I want to say I am aware of and respect and appreciate what 
the Senator has done over the years on crime prevention and law 
enforcement. But the Senator is not suggesting, I don't think, that any 
one of these programs is targeted for reduction in any fashion by this 
amendment, is he? This amendment would simply take a new program and 
not increase it as much as my colleague and others may prefer to, but 
none of these programs is threatened. It is not a block grant of any 
existing programs?
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator for his question. He is absolutely 
accurate. I am not suggesting in any way that any of the 131 programs 
listed by GAO would fall to his amendment in any way.
  What I am suggesting is, the very compelling argument he makes, when 
examined, is not as compelling as it appears. And that is, I believe he 
offered those charts as evidence that we were already doing a great 
deal on the prevention side.
  He is not against prevention. I am not suggesting that either. But he 
is basically suggesting, as many others have, that we are already doing 
this massive effort, totaling about $4 billion and 131 programs, to 
deal with prevention. He believes that what my friends from South 
Carolina and New Hampshire did by adding $50 million for more 
prevention is misplaced and it should be placed on the enforcement side 
of the equation.
  The reason I went through in great detail why it is really only about 
40 programs and really only about $400 million is to make the point 
that we are not doing nearly enough on prevention, and to take this 
paltry sum of $50 million out of prevention, as proposed by my friends 
on the Appropriations Committee, and put it into enforcement would be a 
misallocation of a limited number of resources. That is the overall 
point.
  Secondly, I should point out, which I didn't, to put together this 
little syllogism, that my friend from South Carolina and the chairman 
of the committee, in fact, allocate $3.5 billion to enforcement just in 
the Justice Department. Our friends who are the managers of this bill 
are not--if one listened only to this debate, one would think this 
debate were about $400 million in youth prevention Federal Government-
wide, all the programs I just said. It is not.
  My friends are putting $50 million into prevention and $3.5 billion 
in this bill, in their appropriations bill, into enforcement. It breaks 
down: On Byrne grants, \1/2\ billion dollars; local law enforcement 
grants, $460 million; prison grants, $711 million; reimbursement of 
prison costs for aliens, $350 million; juvenile block grants--that is 
all enforcement money--$100 million; and $1.4 billion for cops who 
don't make a distinction between enforcing the law against juveniles 
and adults.
  Again, what the Senator from Alabama and I are really debating about, 
when you put it all aside, is not whether we should spend money on 
prevention and not whether we should spend money on enforcement, but 
the allocation: Are the limited dollars we have being appropriately 
allocated?
  My argument is, my friends from the Appropriations Committee have 
appropriately allocated the limited number of dollars and that the 
amendment my friend from Alabama is proposing would misallocate that 
money by taking $50 million out of prevention and putting it into 
enforcement, which already has, as it should, the lion's share of the 
money.
  Let me get back to this prevention issue. The vast majority of the 
police in America not only do not disagree with the notion that we 
should be spending money on prevention, not only do not want us to cut 
existing prevention programs, but want us to spend

[[Page S8698]]

more money on prevention. They are not in here asking that prevention 
money be taken and spent on enforcement.
  Let me give you one anecdotal piece of evidence before I go to the 
major organizations. In Seaford, DE, a relatively small community, I 
asked a question that was--and in Dover, DE, 20,000 people, my State 
capital, I went to the police officers. I am going to be very blunt 
about this. I have a great relationship with the law enforcement 
community. They have always supported me. They have supported me 
overwhelmingly as long as I have been in the Senate. I pay attention to 
their concerns. I suppose that is why they support me so strongly.
  I went down and met with a very conservative former chief of police 
in Delaware. He raises steers on the side, and he is a cowboy. I think 
he thinks my view on a lot of things may be too liberal. We had a 
debate on how we should treat gays in America, and I think we should 
treat them no differently than others. I am not so sure he and others 
would think my view is so good and makes sense, et cetera. This is not 
a guy who is a liberal law enforcement officer.
  I said to him, ``If I can do anything for you--get you more cops, get 
you more equipment--what would you have me do?'' Do you know what he 
said to me? No malarkey. He said to me, ``Build me another Boys & Girls 
Club.'' This is a hardnosed cop in the southern part of my State. My 
friend from South Carolina knows the southern part of my State well, 
and I think he would tell you, it is not a lot different from Virginia 
or North Carolina or South Carolina. They view themselves as southern, 
they view themselves as conservative, and they are.
  Do you know what he asked me for? He asked me for no more cops, no 
more money for squad cars, equipment, radios. He said, ``Build me a 
Boys & Girls Club.'' That is what he said, I say to my friend from 
South Carolina.
  Seaford, DE, had a serious problem with drugs. I said, ``What do you 
want me to do? What do you need?'' They said, ``We need a Boys & Girls 
Club. Build us one.''
  Well, we did. I didn't. We didn't. The local community, with some 
Federal help, did.
  Let me give you a few statistics. This is a letter from the executive 
director of the Boys & Girls Club in Delaware. He said:

       I would like to share with you some recent statistics --

  This dated April 30, 1998. It is not about this debate.

       I would like to share with you some recent statistics 
     compiled by the Seaford Police Department on juvenile 
     complaints from the period February through March of the last 
     three years.
       The statistics revealed:
       In 1996, seventy-eight (78) juvenile complaints were 
     logged.
       In 1997, eighty-eight (88). . ..
       In 1998, only thirty-five (35) juvenile complaints were 
     logged.
       The statistics show a 151 percent drop in complaints in 
     1998 as compared to . . . 1997.

  It is no coincidence that the drop in complaints directly corresponds 
to the opening of the western Sussex Club for Boys and Girls on 
February 1, 1998.
  I say to my colleagues, this ``ain't'' rocket science. This is not 
rocket science. There was a study done in the mid-eighties involving 
three cities, I believe it was New York, Pittsburgh, and Denver. Which 
took some Boys & Girls Clubs. First of all, there were housing projects 
in the same demographic areas, same number of people. They put a Boys & 
Girls Club in the basement of these mostly high-rise public housing 
projects.
  Guess what? Over a period of 2 years, all the indices of crime--
rearrests, initial arrest rate, drug use, et cetera--dropped about 30 
percent.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter, 
Mr. President.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware,

                                   Wilmington, DE, April 30, 1998.
     Senator Joseph Biden,
     Federal Building,
     Wilmington, DE.
       Dear Senator Biden: I would like to share with you some 
     recent statistics compiled by the Seaford Police Department 
     on juvenile complaints for the period February through March 
     of the last three years.
       The statistics revealed:
       In 1996, seventy-eight (78) juvenile complaints were 
     logged.
       In 1997, eighty-eight (88) juvenile complaints were logged.
       In 1998, only thirty-five (35) juvenile complaints were 
     logged.
       The statistics show a 151% drop in complaints in 1998 as 
     compared to the same period in 1997.
       I believe it is no coincidence that the drop in complaints 
     directly corresponds to the opening of the Western Sussex 
     Club on February 1, 1998.
       I am sharing these statistics with you because your support 
     was critical in the development of the Western Sussex Club. 
     Your support of $300,000 through the Bureau of Juvenile 
     Assistance was instrumental in the construction of the new 
     Western Sussex Boys & Girls Club facility in Seaford.
       The following are a few additional statistics concerning 
     the Western Sussex Club operations:
       The Club's membership has grown from 600 to more than 2,000 
     in three months.
       More than 400 boys & girls are using the facility on a 
     daily basis.
       The Senior program which is also housed in the facility has 
     dramatically increased both its membership and program 
     service units.
       Senator Biden, we sincerely appreciate your strong support 
     of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware and our Clubs 
     throughout the country. We both know that the Clubs work.
       Again, I want to thank you for your support and thank you 
     for joining with us in our efforts to do more for even more 
     kids.
           Sincerely,
                                                 George Krupanski,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, prevention works. Giving kids an option 
works. It works in my State of Delaware, and it works nationwide. The 
people who recognize it most are the law enforcement community.
  Let me give you a quote from William Bratton, former New York and now 
Boston Police Commissioner. Boston has had a phenomenal--phenomenal--
success in controlling murder rates, handguns with youth, and violent 
crime. Here is what he said:

       Those of us who have been on the front lines know that, in 
     the long run, winning the war on crime also will require 
     cutting the enemy's key supply line: its ability to turn kids 
     into criminals. Each day gangs and drug dealers assiduously 
     recruit our children for their army. To fight back, we have 
     to utilize other powerful crimefighting weapons--the proven 
     ``right-start'' programs and strategies that give kids the 
     armor of values, skills, and positive experiences to ward off 
     crime and violence.

  This is one of the toughest cops in the Nation. He is saying the way 
we keep this from happening is to go out there and engage in prevention 
activities.
  The Buffalo Police Commissioner--I will not go through it --eight 
juvenile justice directors, the National Association of Counties, say:

       Be it resolved that not less than 25 percent of block grant 
     funds be set aside for prevention programs.

  Prevention programs.
  Police Executive Research Forum; the Catholic Charities of the United 
States of America; Mark Klaas of the Klaas Foundation for Kids; Patrick 
Murphy, former police commissioner of New York, Detroit, Washington DC, 
and Syracuse; the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, 
who is a tough crime-fighting guy --he says:

       It's time to invest in the programs proven to cut the 
     enemy's most important supply line--its ability to turn kids 
     into criminals.

  Prevention.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors; Los Angeles County District Attorney--
the list goes on. I will not take my colleagues' time, but I ask 
unanimous consent that their statements be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 What Police, Prosecutors, Crime Victims and Other Experts are Saying 
                   About How To Fight Youth Violence

     170 Police Chiefs, Sheriffs & Prosecutors, the Presidents of 
         the Fraternal Order of Police and International Union of 
         Police Associations, and Leaders of Crime Victim 
         Organizations
       As police, prosecutors, and crime survivors, we struggle 
     every day against crime and its devastating impact. We are 
     determined to see that dangerous criminals are arrested and 
     put behind bars. But anyone who thinks that jailing a 
     criminal is enough to undo the agony that crime leaves in its 
     wake hasn't seen crime up close. That is why no one knows 
     better that we--that the most important weapons against crime 
     are the investments which keep kids from becoming criminals--
     investments which enable all children to get the right start 
     they need to become contributing citizens, and which

[[Page S8699]]

     show them that as adults they will be able to meet their 
     families' basic needs through honest hard work.--Source: A 
     Call For Action From America's Front Line Against Crime 
     (February 5, 1998).
     William Bratton, Former New York and Boston Police 
         Commissioner
       Those of us who have been on the front lines know that, in 
     the long run, winning the war on crime also will require 
     cutting the enemy's key supply line: it's ability to turn 
     kids into criminals. Each day gangs and drug dealers 
     assiduously recruit our children for their army. To fight 
     back, we must utilize other powerful crime fighting weapons--
     the proven ``right-start'' programs and strategies that give 
     kids the armor of values, skills, and positive experiences to 
     ward off crime and violence.--Source: Boston Herald (November 
     4, 1996).
     Buffalo Police Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske
       If Congress is serious about fighting crime, it won't 
     pretend just building more jails is going to solve the 
     problem. Those on the front lines know we'll win the war on 
     crime when Congress boosts investments in early childhood 
     programs. Head Start, health care for kids, after-school and 
     mentoring and recreational programs. We'll win when we're 
     ready to invest our tax dollars in America's most 
     vulnerable kids, instead of waiting until they become 
     America's most wanted kids.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest 
     in Kids, News Release (July 24, 1997).
     Sheriff Fred W. Scoralick, President, National Sherrifs 
         Association
       It is becoming ever more apparent that increasing law 
     enforcement, increasing prosecution of juveniles, and 
     building more jails and prisons is neither sufficient nor 
     adequately effective in stemming the tide of youth violence 
     and crime . . .  We must adopt a three-pronged approach to 
     juvenile violence--prevention, intervention, and enforcement. 
     . . . We can no longer afford to focus only on treating the 
     symptoms while ignoring the disease. . . . The challenge 
     facing us as sheriffs, parents, and community residents in 
     America, is to take what is known about youth violence and 
     apply it now to reach at-risk youth before they take their 
     first step into the world of crime, and to deal firmly with 
     those who are already in trouble.--Source: Sheriff Magazine, 
     President's Message: Addressing Youth Violence (January-
     February 1998).
     Eight State Juvenile Justice Directors
       At-risk juveniles and juvenile delinquents are at a crucial 
     turning point in their lives. Crime-prevention programs that 
     target this age group are not only essential but also cost-
     effective when considering the alternative--a person who 
     spends part of all of his adulthood in the state prison 
     system. The success of federally-supported programs in each 
     of the states in our region prove, convincingly, the value of 
     investing in prevention efforts aimed at juveniles.--Source: 
     Letter from Juvenile Justice Directors of Delaware, New York, 
     New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 
     Puerto Rico, and Vermont (March 5, 1998).
     National Association of Counties
       Be it resolved, That not less than 25 percent of block 
     grant funds be set aside for primary prevention programs.--
     Source: Resolution on Senate Bill (S. 10), the Violent and 
     Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997 (February 28, 1998).
     Police Executive Research Forum
       [I]nvestment in prevention can mean tremendous savings to 
     the criminal justice system. . . . PERF supports the need for 
     improvements in prosecuting and incarcerating dangerous 
     youths, but believes those measures must be balanced by 
     effective prevention programs that will minimize the need for 
     back-end solutions.--Source: Police Executive Research Forum 
     Juvenile Justice Guilding Principles.
     Catholic Charities USA
       We know prevention programs work. We ask that funds for 
     prevention be set aside to guarantee funding for prevention 
     programs. Our children, even our troubled and at-risk 
     children, are our future. Shouldn't we make the investment to 
     keep today's children from becoming tomorrow's criminals?--
     Source: Letter from Catholic Charities USA (September 23, 
     1997).
     American Red Cross
       The American Red Cross believes that at least 30% of any 
     funds block granted to the states should be allocated 
     specifically to fun on-going, experienced, non-profit, and 
     community based youth development, prevention, and after-care 
     programs.--Source: Letter from Maria Smith, National 
     Volunteer Specialist, Government Relations (July 7, 1997).
     Mark Klaas, Klaas Foundation for Kids
       Congress should invest in the proven programs that can help 
     kids get the right start, not wait for more innocent 
     Americans to get hurt or killed and then pretend that prisons 
     are a substitute for prevention. No punishment can undo a 
     crime. It is a tragedy--and a travesty--that too few 
     politicians are even talking about making investments that 
     help children become caring citizens instead of brutal 
     criminals.--Source: Fight Crime; Invest in Kids, News Release 
     (July 24, 1997).
     Patrick Murphy, Former Police Commissioner in New York, 
         Detroit, Washington, D.C. and Syracuse
       When police chiefs hear someone say we can't afford 
     investments in programs that help kids get the right start, 
     we see more bright yellow crime scene tape, more prisons, and 
     thousands of good men and women and boys and girls lying in 
     pools of blood.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, New 
     Release (July 3, 1997).
     Gilbert Gallegos, National President, Fraternal Order of 
         Police
       Its time to invest in the programs proven to cut the 
     enemy's most important supply line--its ability to turn kids 
     into criminals.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, New 
     Release (February 5, 1998).
     United States Conference of Mayors
       We stand ready to support juvenile crime legislation which 
     is flexible both in terms of the requirements states must 
     meet to receive funds and the purposes for which the funds 
     may be used. Specifically, we believe that the legislation 
     should . . . increase the portion of the funds which may be 
     used for prevention and treatment, and assure that there is 
     sufficient funding available for these purposes.--Source: 
     Letter from Jerry Abramson, Chair, Task Force on Youth 
     Violence, February 11, 1998.
     Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti
       We need a multi-pronged approach. We must attack juvenile 
     crime before it starts by using effective crime prevention 
     programming. We also must recognize that there are violent 
     juvenile criminals, particularly gang members, whose crimes 
     are very serious, whose punishment should be severe and for 
     whom lengthy incarceration is appropriate.--Source: Testimony 
     Before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and 
     Families, April 7, 1997.
     Winston-Salem Chief of Police George Sweat
       Our fight against crime needs to start in the high chair, 
     not wait for the electric chair. When Congress and state 
     legislatures ignore child care and after-school programs, 
     they force police to fight crime with one hand tied behind 
     our backs.
     Mecklenburg County District Attorney Peter Gilchrist
       Prosecutors know America will never win the war on crime 
     until it invests more in getting kids the right start. We can 
     pay now or pay later.--Source: Charlotte Observer (October 
     28, 1996).
     Raleigh Police Chief Mitchell Brown
       Politicians need to decide if they'd rather just strut like 
     gang members out to prove they're the toughest on their turf, 
     or pay attention to all the overwhelming proof that they 
     could dramatically cut crime if they'd only invest in 
     programs for kids.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, News 
     Release (July 24, 1997).
     Jean Lewis, President, National Organization of Parents of 
         Murdered Children
       To make America safe, we need to be as willing to guarantee 
     our kids space in child care or an after-school program as we 
     are to guarantee a criminal room and board in a prison cell. 
     If we want to do more than flex our muscles and talk about 
     crime--if we want to really keep Americans safe--we must 
     start investing in the programs we know can steer kids down 
     the right path.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Quality 
     Child Care and After-School Programs (February, 1998).
     Knoxville Police Chief Phil Keith
       When we know the peak hours for juvenile crime are between 
     3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon, it's just common sense to 
     provide after school programs. When studies show that denying 
     at-risk kids participation in a high school enrichment 
     program quadrupled the chance that they would be arrested, 
     and that excluding them from early childhood programs made 
     them five times more likely to become chronic lawbreakers as 
     adults, it's just common sense to include those programs in 
     our juvenile crime strategy.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in 
     Kids, News Release (July 24, 1997).
     Ellen Halbert, Crime Victim, Former Vice-Chair Texas Board of 
         Criminal Justice
       When politicians focus only on closing jail doors after a 
     crime has been committed, they're leaving the door wide open 
     for more innocent people to become crime victims. 
     Shortsighted policies like these are a prescription for 
     disaster.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, News Release 
     (July 24, 1997).
     Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan
       Politics aside, what's important is to do what's best for 
     kids, and the best way to fight crime is to prevent it from 
     happening in the first place.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in 
     Kids (Illinois), News Release (April 30, 1997).
     Bloomingdale Police Chief Gary Schira, President of the 
         Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
       Our most powerful weapons to make Illinois safe for our 
     families are investments in the proven programs that help 
     kids get the right start, so they become contributing 
     citizens instead of criminals.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest 
     in Kids (Illinois), News Release (April 30, 1997).
     McClean County States Attorney Charles Reynard
       I work every day to see that dangerous criminals are behind 
     bars. But we'll just be on a treadmill, with new kids being 
     recruited to take the place of the ones we lock up until we 
     invest in the child development and parenting support and 
     health care programs that have been proven to keep kids from 
     becoming criminals in the first place. These

[[Page S8700]]

     programs really work, and they dramatically reduce crime.--
     Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids (Illinois), News Release 
     (April 30, 1997).
     Gordon Rondeau, Founders, Action America: Murder Must End Now
       Politicians who focus only on punishment are cheating 
     Americans out of the solutions that could have prevented [my 
     daughter's] death and so many others.--Source: Fight Crime: 
     Invest in Kids, News Release (July 3, 1997).
     John Dilulio, Princeton University
       Strategically, the key to preventing youth crime and 
     substance abuse among our country's expanding juvenile 
     population is to improve the real, live, day-to-day 
     connections between responsible adults and young people--
     period. Whether it emanates from the juvenile justice system 
     or from the community, from government agencies or from civil 
     institutions, from faith-based programs or secular ones, from 
     non-profits or for-profits or public/private partnerships, 
     from structural theorists or cultural theorists, from veteran 
     probation officers or applied econometricians, no policy, 
     program or intervention that fails to build meaningful 
     connections between responsible adults and at-risk young 
     people has worked or can.
       [I]f we really care about getting a handle on our present 
     and impending youth crime and substance abuse problems, then 
     the time has come to proceed inductively building meaningful 
     connections between at-risk youth and responsible adults via 
     existing community-based programs; focusing on the highly 
     particular and often banal barriers to helping at-risk youth 
     in particular places with particular people at particular 
     times; having the money to fix a broken pipe that flooded the 
     inner-city church basement where a ``latch-key'' ministry 
     operates; finding a way to transport a young job-seeker from 
     a public housing site to a private job site; getting police 
     and probation officers in a particular neighborhood to work 
     together on a daily basis; funding an incremental expansion 
     of a well-established national or local mentoring program; 
     and so on.--Source: Address to the National District 
     Attorneys Association, July 14, 1997.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize I have kept us here a long time, 
but I can think of nothing from my perspective that is more important.
  By the way, parenthetically, with this surplus we are all arguing 
about--whether or not we save Social Security, give tax cuts, spend it 
on things--I still think we should take a significant portion of that 
surplus over the years that is projected and invest it in the crime 
trust fund, moving from 100,000 cops to 125,000 cops, writing a 
juvenile justice bill, doing the violence against women II legislation, 
and making sure--making sure--that we give local communities more 
flexibility in maintaining their Federal ability to keep the national 
125,000--I hope it will be--cops program alive. That is what we should 
be spending our money on, in my view. I will get to that at another 
time.
  Let me conclude with the last important overall point. Many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying, as I said, 
that we do not really need to do more. In a report that I offered in 
December of 1995, I detailed the demographic time bomb which lies 
ahead. And that demographic time bomb is this: 39 million children now 
younger than the age of 10, all of these 39 million children are the 
children of the baby boomers.
  Each of them stands on the edge of their teen years, exactly those 
years that are most at risk of turning children to drugs and crime. 
There are 39 million children about to enter the crime-committing, 
drug-consuming years. And the implication of this baby ``boomerang'' as 
the demographers call it, even if we do everything right, and at the 
rate which kids commit crimes--assuming we do everything right and the 
rate at which kids now commit crimes does not go up one one-hundredth 
of 1 percent--even if those things occurred, that there is absolutely 
no change in the rate of crime, we will have a 20-percent increase in 
juvenile murders by the year 2005, which will mean an increase of the 
overall murder toll by 5 percent, even if we do every single thing 
right and there is not one one-hundredth of 1 percent increase in the 
rate in which juveniles commit crime.
  Why? Thirty-nine million children, the largest cadre of youth since 
my parents were busy in World War II, about to enter their crime-
committing years.
  I see my friend standing. I have another 10 minutes or so. I will 
yield to him, but not yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. No. Go ahead and finish, I say to my friend.
  Mr. BIDEN. Let me speed this up.
  Mr. LEAHY. We do have a number of people who want to speak on the 
same subject.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield the floor in a moment.
  Clearly, most of the 39 million children in this baby boomerang will 
never turn to crime and never turn to drugs. But equally clear, we will 
have a rising number of at-risk children, at-risk children who are at 
risk to turning to drugs, at risk of being the victims of violence, and 
at risk of turning to crime.
  Let me offer two more figures to indicate the size of the problem we 
face in the next 10 years. Seventy-seven percent of women with high-
school-age children are working moms--77 percent. And all told, about 
14 million school-age children have working moms. In all likelihood, 
this means that these 14 million children will be leaving school after 
school, unless they come from affluent families, with no supervision 
after school until mom gets home.
  That is not a criticism of moms working, it is a criticism of our 
failure to recognize the demographic change as well as the social 
change that has taken place in America.
  For the rising number of at-risk children, I believe we have to 
discuss what has become a dirty word among Washington politicians, even 
though it is a word I hear over and over again from prosecutors and 
police chiefs and people in the juvenile justice system and what their 
solution to the violent problem is. It is prevention--prevention.
  We must keep as many of these at-risk children as possible away from 
drugs and crime in the first place. In the most practical terms, that 
means keeping kids busy and supervised from 3 o'clock in the afternoon 
until the dinner hour. Those 3 hours represent about 12 percent of the 
day, about 20 percent of the hours that our kids are awake; and 40 
percent of all juvenile crime that is committed in America is in those 
3 hours.
  That is why I strongly oppose--strongly oppose--the effort by my 
friend from Alabama to undo the good work that our friends on the 
Appropriations Committee have done. And I just want to warn my 
colleagues, as I was kidding one of the staff here, I do not speak 
often on the floor, but when I do, I guess I speak long.
  But the truth of the matter is, there is nothing--nothing, nothing, 
nothing, nothing--more important to the economy, to the security, to 
the safety of this country than what we are going to do to prevent 
those at-risk youth who find themselves among those 39 million young 
people under the age of 10; that nothing--nothing--will affect our 
standard of living, our quality of life, more than how we deal with 
that issue.
  I will be back on this floor at a later date and, over the next 
couple years, arguing that portions of that surplus that we are 
predicting will occur as a consequence of the policies of this 
administration and Congress--balancing our budget and moving to 
surplus--should be spent--should be spent--on crime prevention, crime 
enforcement, and on the prison system.
  I thank my friend from Vermont for being so patient. And I thank my 
colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I have had an interesting time listening to the Senator from Delaware 
with his remarks about the purpose and intent of our amendment. I think 
in that regard he is in error. And I think we should talk about that.
  First of all, the Fraternal Order of Police, whom he quoted, and the 
Boys & Girls Clubs, have supported the incentive block grants. I 
certainly agree that prevention, intervention, and enforcement are the 
keys to the effort to reduce juvenile crime.
  And what is intervention? The experts are telling me--mental health 
workers, drug abuse people, judges, probation officers whom I have 
talked with at great length--tell me the most effective point of 
intervention is when a child has been arrested for some sort of 
offense, taken to the juvenile court, and answers to the judge and the 
probation officer. His parents are involved. And if that child is found 
to be involved with drugs or other psychological or emotional problems 
that

[[Page S8701]]

may be involved, that is the single best time to intervene and to 
prevent them from future criminal conduct that not only makes victims 
out of innocent young children, who are most often the victims of other 
juvenile offenders, but also prevents that child perhaps from heading 
down a life of crime that would leave them serving long periods of time 
in prison.
  And the Senator says these programs that I have cited are not 
prevention programs. I find that really stunning, to say a homeless 
youth program, a program designed to deal with homeless youth, isn't a 
crime prevention program. It surprises me to hear him say that.

  Mental health programs, he suggested, are not prevention programs. Or 
children who are victims of abuse as a child, programs that deal with 
that certainly are prevention programs. By the way, our amendment does 
not affect any of these programs. They all continue.
  The Foster Grandparent Program, I suggest, is a way to prevent 
children from being involved in crime. Art for Youth--that is what the 
art people tell me, ``We need more programs to help these young people 
express themselves,'' and that would help prevent them from a life of 
crime. At-Risk Youth Program, certainly those are prevention programs. 
I just say we have many prevention programs.
  In fact, we have none dedicated to law enforcement. The fact that the 
Department of Justice spends several billions of dollars on law 
enforcement should not be in any way considered to have an impact on 
youth crime, because the truth is the Federal Government does not deal 
with juvenile criminals. They probably prosecute less than 100 a year 
in all the Federal courts in America, certainly less than a couple 
hundred. It is just not done. Juvenile crime is dealt with in the State 
systems. That is where we have the crisis. That is where we need to do 
something about it.
  The Senator from Delaware is most eloquent in advocating after-school 
programs. For who? Under what circumstances? How much will we spend on 
them? Which agency should administer that? I suggest without any 
hesitation that the Department of Justice doesn't need to be the agency 
handling an after-school program. That ought to be done through the 
educational establishment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think local authorities should make that 
judgment. They should decide. I don't think you should discriminate, 
whether it is at risk or not at risk. It should be after-school 
programs in which everyone is entitled to participate. Let the States 
make those decisions, not us; but let's spend the money.
  My point is, spend money on after-school programs. All of the other 
programs the Senator listed do impact indirectly on youth violence. The 
problem is, 14 million kids with nothing to do for 3 hours, where 40 
percent of the crime is committed. None of those programs are directed 
at that. We don't deal with that. We don't deal with the problem, in my 
opinion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's concern, 
passion, and emotional commitment to that problem of 14 million kids, 
after school, many of whom are unsupervised. I understand that.
  But I believe if we are going to have an after-school program that 
doesn't distinguish between at-risk kids and others, we are talking 
about billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, an amount of 
money of which our program doesn't even scratch the surface; we are 
talking $50 million, is what we are talking about. How can we best use 
that $50 million in some sort of vague, generalized program?
  Let me read to you again what this statute would dispense under the 
grant for prevention programs: for recreational services, tutoring 
programs, assessment in work awareness skills. JJTPA, the job program 
for youth, isn't that a prevention program, $1 billion spent on that? 
Certainly tries to help young people who are out of work and who have 
never worked before get a job. That is a prevention program. We are 
spending $1.1 billion on that.
  What we need to do is deal with the youngsters who are coming into 
contact with the juvenile justice system. If something isn't done about 
it, they are going to murder somebody or they are going to end up 
committing an armed robbery and having to serve 20 years, because they 
are certified as an adult because they committed a serious crime at age 
17 and they have to go off for 20 years. Had we had a juvenile justice 
system capable of intervening early--at 12, 13, 14 or 15, when they are 
being arrested again and again--they wouldn't be down there.
  I have been there. I have talked to juvenile probation officers and 
judges who have dealt with this on a daily basis. I am telling you, the 
Juvenile Judges Association in this country endorses this block grant 
program wholeheartedly. They know that is what we need to do. We need 
to be dealing with the kids who are most at risk, the ones already 
coming into contact with juvenile justice.
  This plan to spend $50 million more on this program is political. 
That is what it is. It is a political game. We are going to create a 
confrontation on the floor and we are going to say we care about 
children, we want to prevent them from crime, and we are going to spend 
more on all of these programs; this wide open deal--it has no goals, no 
standards, no real teeth to it--spend the money on anything in the 
world. That is on what we want to spend our money. Everybody who has 
any support for the law enforcement community doesn't like kids, 
doesn't want to see them change, doesn't care about prevention. All you 
guys want to lock them up.

  Some children need to be locked up. I just told the Members of this 
body about the three kids who murdered a night watchman--7, 7, and 15 
prior arrests for those kids. They would have been better, that night 
watchman and his family, would have been better if the court system had 
enough resources to intervene effectively at that point in time.
  That is not mean. That is not unkind. That is not a kind of response 
that is insensitive. You simply cannot allow repeat, dangerous young 
offenders to be released time after time after time with nothing more 
than vague programs like this to deal with it.
  Do you think that juvenile judge who has given his life to dealing 
with kids, do you think that juvenile probation officer who has been 
working with them all of his life, doesn't care about them? Do you 
think they are not going to try to craft a program that would help 
those children? I am telling you, that is what is happening in America 
where there is sufficient resources for it. Some of them have to be 
incarcerated.
  One of the greatest success stories is in Boston, MA. You have heard 
about the Boston Miracle. They did two things. They targeted their 
resources. A professor from the University of Maryland advised the 
Department of Justice, ``If you want to reduce crime, target your 
resources on the groups and the people who need it the most, primarily 
those who have been arrested.'' But in Boston they took the high crime 
communities, the areas where there were gangs, they confronted the gang 
members and told them if they did not change their lifestyle, they 
would be prosecuted. The judges backed them up. They locked up those 
who were the leaders and the others quit being so active. The murder 
rate plummeted. It was dramatic what they had done.
  My staff member went there and visited with them in Boston. She said, 
``Do you have a place to put them when they violate probation and 
curfew,'' and they said, ``Yes, that was a commitment on behalf of the 
community.''
  So we are giving resources to the juvenile justice system to set 
aside the kind of detention facilities, alternative schools, safe 
houses, whatever they feel is necessary to be able to remove that kid, 
discipline them for repeat offenses, and change their lifestyle.
  But it is important they not be left on the street, leading a bunch 
of other kids down the wrong path. If you get rid of the main leaders, 
a lot of the other kids will cease to be involved in a life of crime.
  What kind of a message does it send if the police arrest a youngster 
for the fourth time for an armed robbery or a car theft and nothing 
happens to him? What kind of moral message is that? This prevention 
grant program they want to spend $50 million on says one

[[Page S8702]]

of the goals is to teach that people are and should be held accountable 
to their actions. Well, I agree with that. We are not saying that the 
first time a youngster gets in trouble they need to be certified as an 
adult or sent off for a long period of time, but they need to be 
confronted seriously. They have to have a serious confrontation with 
their own immoral, illegal act. Their parents need to be involved in 
that. They need to have counseling programs, drug testing, drug 
treatment, and other activities and programs designed to insist that 
they get on the right track.
  Judges and drug treatment people tell me that it is extraordinarily 
helpful when a person who has violated the law is under the gun of the 
judge. In other words, he can say you will go to that treatment 
program. We are going to drug test you. I expect you to stay drug free. 
I expect you to be back in school. I expect you to be home at night. In 
Boston, I expect you to follow the curfew I am going to give you.
  Boston has a curfew. They call it Operation Night Light. And street 
police officers go out and knock on the door at 8 or 9 o'clock, or 
whenever the curfew is, to see if that youngster is there. If he is not 
there, something happens to him or her. They don't just forget it. That 
is not happening all over America. What is happening all over America--
and I was there for 15 years as a prosecutor--is they come in and meet 
their probation officer. Some of them have family meetings for 2 or 3 
weeks; they meet with parents and try to turn them around. But because 
of lack of resources, they say ``your curfew is 9 o'clock,'' but they 
don't check. Nobody is checking on these children. They do what they 
want to, basically, unless they get caught on another offense.

  If we want to prevent crime, if we want to intervene--and 
intervention is one of the legs of this way to defeat crime, according 
to the Fraternal Order of Police--if we do that effectively, we can 
begin to change people. For those who want change, they simply cannot 
be allowed to travel in the community and threaten the lives and health 
of other people with impunity. We have to have spaces to put them. Our 
bill provides matching money that States can use, if they choose, to 
expand their detention capacity. And it doesn't have to be bars; it can 
be any kind of facility that would allow the judge to detain them and 
not allow them to just walk free--although some of them need to be 
locked up behind bars.
  Let me share this number with you. Since 1980, adult prison space in 
America has more than tripled. Adult crime has been dropping now for 
some time now to a significant degree. I am convinced that one of the 
reasons for that is because we are doing a better job of identifying 
the repeat dangerous offenders, and they are serving longer periods of 
time. They are not corrupting others around them, and they are not out 
on the street committing crimes. Many repeat offenders--we know, 
according to a Rand study--commit as many as 200 crimes per year. You 
may say that is ridiculous, they don't commit 200 crimes per year. 
Well, that is four burglaries a week. Many commit four in one night. 
These repeat offenders commit a substantial amount of the crime in 
America. And the same is true with juveniles. We simply have to 
identify those, and some of them are going to have to be incarcerated.
  But while we were tripling the adult prison space in America, let me 
share this with you. In 1978, there were 56,000 beds in juvenile 
detention facilities in America. In 1994, during a period when violent 
juvenile crime has more than doubled--I am talking about armed robbery, 
assault with intent to murder, murder; those kinds of things were 
doubling and more than doubling during that period, and we had gone on 
from 56,000 to 61,000 bed spaces by 1994.
  Do you see what happened? We poured our resources into adult 
criminality and we made a big impact. But we didn't respond 
appropriately to juvenile crime. We did not expand our commitment 
there. We did not give the judges and probation officers the resources 
needed to intervene effectively, to monitor these youngsters who need 
close monitoring, because they are on the edge and they can go either 
way. They didn't give them those resources, and as a result, juvenile 
crime continued to go up, while adult crime was declining.
  (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are beginning to 
see a modest reduction in juvenile crime--although many experts are 
telling us that, with the demographics of more teenagers being in the 
crime-prone years, in the next few years we can expect those numbers to 
edge back up. I think one reason is that since 1994 States have begun 
to focus on juvenile crime and commit more resources to it. It is 
beginning to have an affect.
  It is a myth and not true that we have no ability to affect crime. 
That is not true. Somebody said that we are going to end up putting 
everybody in jail. Well, everybody doesn't rob; everybody doesn't 
burglarize. We ought to do something serious to everybody who commits a 
serious crime. If we do so promptly and effectively, with wisdom, in a 
smart way, we can affect the crime rate, and we can make the lives of 
Americans safer. We ought to do that.
  To me, there is no higher function of a government than to make its 
citizens safe in their communities, on their streets, in their homes, 
and where they go to work. What higher function could a government have 
than that? We have failed in that regard. I have seen it, and I have 
talked with the judges. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
Judges' Association, and the Boys and Girls Club support this project.
  Our proposal--unlike the one set forth in the statute already, in 
which they are adding $50 million--is targeted to deal with 
criminality. Their proposal, again, is for leadership development 
activities, recreational services, teaching that people are and should 
be accountable for their actions. Well, there is nothing wrong with 
those goals, but that is not a very good crime proposal, in my opinion. 
I have been there. I have prosecuted crimes, I have dealt with every 
aspect of it. That is not the way to deal with crime. That is not 
targeted at all. That says you can spend the money on any doggone thing 
you want to spend it on.
  Our proposal--the block grant proposal--was developed along with the 
support of Senator Biden from Delaware and others. And we had input and 
discussions with the ranking member from Vermont on the Judiciary 
Committee. Everybody had some input. They may not agree with everything 
in it, but it is focused on crime prevention, intervention and 
enforcement. By the way, the Senator from Delaware mentions $1 billion 
in prevention programs. He admits that. We only have $100 million in 
this enforcement program.
  By the way, also in this bill the chairman has brought out is a new 
$220 million for a safe schools initiative. It is designed to build 
partnerships in the communities between police and schools and to try 
to make schools safer. That is $220 million in new money in another 
program designed that way. What we have left out, I am telling you--I 
can't tell you how strongly I believe this; I know it in my heart--what 
we are leaving out is the greatest engine for reducing juvenile crime, 
and that is the juvenile court system. They are the ones that are 
innovating at the most basic level, when kids are out of control. They 
have the capacity to effectively order them to do things they don't 
want to do, and to monitor those orders if we give them the support 
necessary.
  So if we put the money into the block grant program, it would enhance 
prosecution and define opportunities to effectuate the bipartisan 
agreement that we have to support graduated sanctions or increase 
levels of punishment for repeat offenders. It would provide for short-
term confinement for those who need it. Some do. It will also provide 
for the incarceration of violent repeat offenders for more extended 
periods. Not all the money would be for that; only 40 percent would be 
for that.
  It would provide moneys for programs that require juvenile 
delinquents to pay restitution. It would provide programs to require 
juvenile offenders to complete schooling in vocational training. Is 
that a prevention program, or not? Is that a program that doesn't care 
about kids, or not? Does anybody deny that we need to have some 
children go into custody of some fashion? I doubt that. It has programs 
to require young juveniles to pay their child support. They ought to 
support their children. They bring them into this world.

[[Page S8703]]

  Programs to curb truancy. The Senator from Delaware says we need to 
do something about truancy. I agree, absolutely. Truancy is a key 
signal that a child is out of control. School systems, police 
departments, and others ought to have an intensive effort to identify 
truancy at the earliest level.
  His bill, if they want to put $50 million more in, doesn't have 
anything about truancy in it. The program I support does. It provides 
programs that seek to curb truancy by name. Then it has programs to 
collect records, drug testing of youngsters, juvenile crime prevention 
programs, and night curfews. Antidrug programs could be funded under 
this.
  We have programs to deal with habitual offenders; programs targeted 
at youth gang members, trying to break them up; and programs to train 
law enforcement officers, juvenile judges, prosecutors, probation 
officers, and other court personnel in how to better deal with 
children.
  We have $50 million on the table. That is what we have--$50 million 
sitting there. Do you want to put it in this bogus program that has no 
standards, can be spent for anything, or a program carefully crafted, 
carefully crafted to identify those youngsters who need help, and get 
it to them in a way that will reduce crime?
  I am sorry if I feel strongly about it. But I have been involved in 
it for a long time. And I have worked hard on this committee. I am 
absolutely convinced that this is a valid program. We have many 
prevention programs. This has much of a prevention aspect to it. But 
what we don't have any money for is to strengthen our enforcement 
aspect.
  Mr. President, this is a critical issue to me. It is the overlook 
aspect of crime in America: How can we most effectively intervene and 
change the lifestyle of these youngsters? Too often they are coming in 
for vandalism, petty theft, maybe for burglary, maybe for a household 
burglary, a car theft. And they come in and get involved in some other 
serious crime, are treated as an adult, and sent off for 15 years in 
the slammer. If we could have intervened for the first offense or two 
effectively, sometimes they might have been well served if they had 
been sent to jail or detained a few days. If we had intervened 
effectively there, we would have fewer crime victims and less need for 
housing for a youngster who became a career criminal and ended up 
serving a long time in jail.
  Mr. President, that is the purpose of our amendment. I believe it 
meets all the standards for prevention, and for enforcement, and for 
intervention. I think it is the right way to go.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It would 
significantly cut the proposed funding for an effective prevention 
program, known as Title V. And it would undermine this bill's balanced 
approach between prevention and enforcement.
  Let me explain why we should support this program.
  First, it is truly bipartisan. It was originally drafted in 1992 by 
Senator Brown and myself. Last year, the full Senate supported 
increasing its funding level from $20 million to $75 million. And this 
year, with the support of Senators Campbell, Specter and Reid, its 
funding level is $70 million. Although on its face it gets $95 million, 
$25 million is set aside for a separate anti-drinking program. So if we 
cut $50 million, Title V gets the same $20 million it gets every year--
and there will be no increase.
  Second, it relies on local communities--who know their needs better 
than the federal government--to identify solutions tailored to local 
needs. Let me tell you about some of these programs which get funding 
in Wisconsin.
  In Madison, Title V funds an after-school program for junior and high 
school age at-risk youth living in targeted low income neighborhoods. 
In Racine, it funds home visits by social workers and prenatal and 
postnatal education to mothers in low-income neighborhoods. In 
Jefferson County, it supports a program that works with school 
bullies--and their victims--to reduce school violence.
  And these kinds of innovative programs are supported by Title V all 
over the nation. For example, in Senator Sessions' home state of 
Alabama, a Title V program in Tuscaloosa, has--according to its 
organizers--``made a significant impact in the incidence of juvenile 
violence and crime.''
  Under Title V, communities qualify for funds only if they establish 
local boards to design long-term strategies for combating juvenile 
crime, and if they match federal funds with a 50 percent local 
contribution. Local communities know what works, and they don't throw 
good money after bad.
  Finally, Title V works. Nearly 400 participating communities--from 49 
states--believe in this program so much that, according to the GAO, 
they've matched federal money almost dollar-for-dollar--far more than 
the 50 percent match this program requires. And studies confirm that 
many of these programs have reduced crime in cities across the nation, 
including cities like Cincinnati, Ohio and Woodbury, Iowa.
  Mr. President, it's a good idea to get rid of prevention programs 
that don't work. In fact, I authored legislation that resulted in a 
very controversial study by the Justice Department, which said that 
many prevention programs don't work. And with Senator Cohen I 
introduced legislation to junk bad prevention programs and consolidate 
many others. But we should keep and expand the programs that do work--
especially ones like Title V that use federal dollars to inspire local 
action and local contributions.
  Mr. President, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I could respond at some length to the 
comments made by the Senator from Alabama. His intensity of concern and 
his legitimate efforts, which have been extraordinary in the area of 
juvenile justice, are something that I admire. He obviously has strong 
feelings expressed by the Senator from Delaware.
  I know that there are a number of other Senators who wish to speak on 
this issue to express their thoughts. But I have had the courtesy of a 
number of Senators who have come up to me and said they would withhold 
their statements because there is a group of Members who wish to get 
down to the White House for the bill signing on the IRS, which is a 
fairly significant bill. I would like to get this vote completed before 
that occurs.
  Let me simply say that I believe this is an extraordinarily balanced 
approach. We have eventually divided the money between prevention and 
incarceration, for the lack of a better term. It is an attempt to 
address both sides of the issue of juvenile justice within this bill. 
Yes, there are other programs outside of this bill that address both 
sides. In fact, there is a lot more incarceration money in this bill 
that wasn't talked about. But the fact is that this is a very balanced 
approach, both sets of programs are extremely credible, and we will 
move forward on the issue that we are concerned about, which is trying 
to reduce juvenile crime, which is clearly one of the major issues 
facing this country today.
  Mr. President, at this time I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Hampshire to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Alabama. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb

[[Page S8704]]


     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3245) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the managers of the legislation are trying 
their best to move this bill along. Senator Daschle and I have been 
working trying to keep extraneous amendments off of this bill, 
amendments that are not really related to it, strictly legislating on 
this appropriations bill. We have had some success over here, and, 
obviously, there has been an effort and success on the Democratic side. 
As usual, the longer we go, the longer the list of amendments. We need 
to get some finite list of amendments and work on this bill to get it 
completed.
  It is my intent, after discussion with Senator Daschle and the 
managers, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, that we complete this 
bill tonight and that we have votes tonight, as late as is necessary.
  Everybody needs to know that this is not going to be a night where we 
all leave at 7 o'clock and the managers try to make things happen and 
nothing happens. We are going to be voting into the night. If it takes 
going to 11, 12 or 1 o'clock, I think it is time we have to do that in 
order to complete this work.
  In that vein, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments 
be the only remaining list of first-degree----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished leader yield? I have to check 
two other things. We are not prepared to agree to that.
  Mr. LOTT. I had the impression we had cleared this on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Not on this side, not yet.
  Mr. LOTT. Senator Daschle is aware we are going to try to lock in the 
list. I must say, the list is 70 amendments, not exactly a great 
achievement.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We can clear it after a while, but I am not ready to 
agree right now.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if it helps, if the distinguished leader 
wishes to check that, I have a brief comment I want to make about this 
last vote. I will be willing to do that and you can check that.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, why don't we do that. We will withhold while 
we can run our checks then. The Senator from Vermont can comment and, 
hopefully, we can get it worked out.
  Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the majority leader a question? May I inquire 
of the majority leader if there has been any further progress in 
establishing a time when we are going to consider the Patients' Bill of 
Rights legislation? I know there have been communications between----
  Mr. LOTT. We are ready to go. We have our bill. I think we have a 
good bill. Senator Kennedy has his bill. I would like for us to just 
have a vote on his bill and a vote on our proposal. I understand that 
you feel you have solutions we need in this area. We feel very good 
about our bill.
  The problem has been last week, for instance, it was suggested, 
``Well, we will need 40 amendments.'' If we have these bills that have 
just been sent down on both sides, why don't we vote on what we have 
instead of going on for days and weeks trying to reach a conclusion?
  Having said that, Senator Daschle and I have continued to talk to try 
to narrow down exactly when would be the best time to do it. We are 
talking about how we can get an agreement with which both sides can be 
satisfied. Obviously, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, 
wants to be involved in what the final unanimous-consent request will 
be, and a lot of Senators on this side, including Senator Gramm, will 
have an interest in it.
  I think we can come up with a reasonable proposal. I have been 
sending proposals since June 18, for a month. I continue to say, ``OK, 
how about this?'' And Senator Daschle has responded. I know he is 
negotiating in good faith. Both of us have a difficult time trying to 
satisfy Senators on both sides of this issue on both sides of the 
aisle, but we are narrowing them.
  If we can get an agreement to a time certain that it will come up, 
with a couple of days for debate and for discussion of amendments or a 
limited number of amendments on both sides, that will be perfectly 
reasonable. But I know of no bill in the history of mankind that needs 
40 or 50 or 70 amendments. Why do we want to go through that process? A 
reasonable number can be agreed to.
  All I have to say is, just say yes. We are ready to do what the 
Senator from Massachusetts asked for a month ago. You get a vote, we 
get a vote and we move on. Yes; just say yes, we will do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am just wondering if it is the intention of the 
majority leader to schedule this. We are into Wednesday of this week. 
Is it his intention to afford us an adequate opportunity to debate 
these issues prior to the time of the break?
  Mr. LOTT. It is certainly my hope. We are working to try to get that 
agreed to. In fact, it has been my plan to do that, and I am going to 
be disappointed if we can't get it agreed to. I know there is good 
faith on Senator Daschle's part; there is on mine. We will just keep 
working until we get it done.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 3245

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his courtesy 
earlier. I will be very brief. Any time we speak of juvenile justice, 
there are, obviously, emotional issues that come up, as there was on 
this. But I believe the Senate has voted the proper way on the motion 
of the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire to table the 
amendment.
  We can all tell horror stories of juvenile justice. One that came to 
my mind while listening to the lengthy debate this morning is a case 
when I was State's attorney. A man I knew well died as he was telling 
me who killed him. It was a juvenile. As he described it, we were in 
the emergency room and doctors were trying to save his life. I was 
there as the chief law enforcement officer of the county. And heard him 
tell me who the juvenile was who killed him. So we can all tell 
terrible stories.

  What I also know, though, from my experience in law enforcement, and 
from law enforcement experts I have talked with today all over the 
country, is that prevention is still the best way to stop juvenile 
crimes. It is almost axiomatic. And we have a good funding method that 
the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire and the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina have put together in this 
bill, and we should keep with that formula.
  Had this amendment not been tabled, we would have had these juvenile 
prevention moneys--we would have had 35 percent going to building 
facilities and information-sharing programs, 45 percent into more 
judges and probation officers and prosecutors and technology and 
courts, and so forth.
  The fact is, we are getting a handle on juvenile crime in this 
country, but we are doing it through prevention programs. All the 
police officers I have talked with in my State, and all the police 
officers I have talked with elsewhere, tell me the same thing: Better 
and more prevention programs to stop juvenile crime.
  Among my duties as a prosecutor was to represent the State in the 
most active juvenile court in our State. Nearly a third of the juvenile 
cases in our State went through there. Over and over and over again, I 
saw the tragedy of juvenile crimes occurring because there had not been 
prevention programs. We did the right thing in this vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page S8705]]

                           Amendment No. 3252

  (Purpose: To provide for mental health screening and treatment for 
                        incarcerated offenders)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3252.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 121. MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING AND TREATMENT FOR 
                   PRISONERS.

       (a) Additional Requirements for the Use of Funds Under the 
     Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Grants 
     Program.--Section 20105(b) of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) Eligibility for grant.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under section 20103 or 20104, a State shall, not later 
     than January 1, 1999, have a program of mental health 
     screening and treatment for appropriate categories of 
     convicted juvenile and other offenders during periods of 
     incarceration and juvenile and criminal justice supervision, 
     that is consistent with guidelines issued by the Attorney 
     General.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle, amounts made available to a State under 
     section 20103 or 20104 may be applied to the costs of 
     programs described in paragraph (1), consistent with 
     guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
       ``(B) Additional use.--In addition to being used as 
     specified in subparagraph (A), the funds referred to in that 
     subparagraph may be used by a State to pay the costs of 
     providing to the Attorney General a baseline study on the 
     mental health problems of juvenile offenders and prisoners in 
     the State, which study shall be consistent with guidelines 
     issued by the Attorney General.''.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris 
Schoenbauer, an intern, and Ellen Gerrity, a fellow, be allowed to be 
on the floor during the debate on this piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment--and I 
thank both Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg for their support--that 
would allow States to use Federal prison construction moneys for mental 
health treatment in our Nation's adult and juvenile corrections 
facilities--allow States; States make that decision.
  I am a Senator from the State of Minnesota. Hubert Humphrey, a great 
Senator from Minnesota, once said:

       The moral test of government is how the government treats 
     those who are in the dawn of life, children; those who are in 
     the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the 
     shadows of life --the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

  Today, throughout America, we are failing the moral test of how we 
treat adults and children. I want to focus on children in mental 
health, in the criminal and juvenile justice system, too many of whom 
live in the shadow of mental illness.
  According to a recent article in the New York Times by Fox 
Butterfield--this was a front page piece. The title of it is ``Profits 
at a Juvenile Prison Come With a Chilling Cost.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this very fine piece of journalism be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York times, July 15, 1998]

         Profits at a Juvenile Prison Come With a Chilling Cost

                          (By Fox Butterfield)

       Tallulah, LA.--Here in the middle of the impoverished 
     Mississippi Delta is a juvenile prison so rife with 
     brutality, cronyism and neglect that many legal experts say 
     it is the worst in the nation.
       The prison, the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, 
     opened just four years ago where a sawmill and cotton fields 
     once stood. Behind rows of razor wire it houses 620 boys and 
     young men age 11 to 20, in stifling corrugated-iron barracks 
     jammed with bunks.
       From the run-down homes and bars on the road that runs by 
     it, Tallulah appears unexceptional, one new cookie-cutter 
     prison among scores built in the United States this decade. 
     But inside, inmates of the privately run prison regularly 
     appear at the infirmary with black eyes, broken noses or jaws 
     or perforated eardrums from beatings by the poorly paid, 
     poorly trained guards or from fights with other boys.
       Meals are so meager that many boys lose weight. Clothing is 
     so scarce that boys fight over shirts and shoes. Almost all 
     the teachers are uncertified, instruction amounts to as 
     little as an hour a day, and until recently there were no 
     books.
       Up to a fourth of the inmates are mentally ill or retarded, 
     but a psychiatrist visits only one day a week. There is no 
     therapy. Emotionally disturbed boys who cannot follow guards' 
     orders are locked in isolation cells for weeks at a time or 
     have their sentences arbitrarily extended.
       These conditions, which are described in public documents 
     and were recounted by inmates and prison officials during a 
     reporter's visit to Tallulah, are extreme, a testament to 
     Louisiana's well-documented violent history and notoriously 
     brutal prison system.
       But what has happened at Tallulah is more than just the 
     story of one bad prison. Corrections officials say the forces 
     that converged to create Tallulah--the incarceration of more 
     and more mentally ill adolescents, a rush by politicians to 
     build new prisons while neglecting education and 
     psychiatric services, and states' handing responsibility 
     for juvenile offenders to private companies--have caused 
     the deterioration of juvenile prisons across the country.
       Earl Dunlap, president of the National Juvenile Detention 
     Association, which represents the heads of the nation's 
     juvenile jails, said, ``The issues of violence against 
     offenders, lack of adequate education and mental health, of 
     crowding and of poorly paid and poorly trained staff are the 
     norm rather than the exception.''
       Recognizing the problem, the United States Justice 
     Department has begun a series of investigations into state 
     juvenile systems, including not only Louisiana's but also 
     those of Kentucky, Puerto Rico and Georgia. At the same time, 
     private juvenile prisons in Colorado, Texas and South 
     Carolina have been successfully sued by individuals and 
     groups or forced to give up their licenses.
       On Thursday, the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, an 
     offshoot of the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed a Federal 
     lawsuit against Tallulah to stop the brutality and neglect.
       In the investigations by the Justice Department, some of 
     the harshest criticism has been leveled at Georgia. The 
     department threatened to take over the state's juvenile 
     system, charging a ``pattern of egregious conditions 
     violating the Federal rights of youth,'' including the use of 
     pepper spray to restrain mentally ill youth, a lack of 
     textbooks, and guards who routinely stripped young inmates 
     and locked them in their cells for days.
       A surge in the inmate population forced Georgia's juvenile 
     prison budget up to $220 million from $80 million in just 
     four years, but the money went to building new prisons, with 
     little left for education and psychiatric care. ``As we went 
     through a period of rapid increase in juvenile crime and 
     record numbers of juvenile offenders,'' said Sherman Day, 
     chairman of the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, it 
     was ``much easier to get new facilities from the Legislature 
     than to get more programs.''
       After reacting defensively at first, Gov. Zell Miller moved 
     quickly to avert a takeover by agreeing to spend $10 million 
     more this year to hire teachers and medical workers and to 
     increase guard salaries.
       Louisiana, whose juvenile system is made up of Tallulah and 
     three prisons operated by the state, is the Justice 
     Department's latest target. In hundreds of pages of reports 
     to a Federal judge who oversees the state's entire prison 
     system under a 1971 consent decree, Justice Department 
     experts have depicted guards who routinely resort to beatings 
     or pepper spray as their only way to discipline inmates, and 
     who pit inmates against one another for sport.
       In June, two years after the Justice Department began its 
     investigation and a year after it warned in its first public 
     findings that Tallulah was ``an institution out of control,'' 
     consultants for the department filed new reports with the 
     Federal judge, Frank J. Polozola of Federal District Court in 
     Baton Rouge, warning that despite some improvements, 
     conditions had deteriorated to ``a particularly dangerous 
     level.''
       Even a former warden at Louisiana's maximum-security 
     prison, acting as a consultant to Judge Polozola, found 
     conditions at Tallulah so serious that he urged the judge to 
     reject its request to add inmates.
       ``I do not make these recommendations because of any 
     sympathy for these offenders,'' wrote the former warden, John 
     Whitley. ``It shocks me to think'' that ``these offenders and 
     their problems are simply getting worse, and these problems 
     will be unleashed on the public when they are discharged from 
     the system.''
       Some of the worst conditions in juvenile prisons can be 
     found among the growing number of privately operated prisons, 
     whether those built specifically for one state, like 
     Tallulah, or ones that take juveniles from across the 
     country, like boot camps that have come under criticism in 
     Colorado and Arizona.
       Only 5 percent of the nation's juvenile prisons are 
     operated by private, for-profit companies, Mr. Dunlap of the 
     National Juvenile Detention Association estimates. But as

[[Page S8706]]

     their numbers grow along with privately operated prisons for 
     adults, their regulation is becoming one of the most 
     significant issues in corrections. State corrections 
     departments find themselves having to police contractors who 
     perform functions once the province of government, from 
     psychiatric care to discipline.
       In April, Colorado officials shut down a juvenile prison 
     operated by the Rebound Corporation after a mentally ill 13-
     year-old's suicide led to an investigation that uncovered 
     repeated instances of physical and sexual abuse. The for-
     profit prison housed offenders from six states.
       Both Arizona and California authorities are investigating a 
     privately operated boot camp in Arizona that California paid 
     to take hundreds of offenders. A 16-year-old boy died there, 
     and authorities suspect the cause was abuse by guards and 
     poor medical care. California announced last Wednesday that 
     it was removing its juveniles from the camp.
       And recently Arkansas canceled the contract of Associated 
     Marine Institutes, a company based in Florida, to run one 
     juvenile institution, following questions of financial 
     control and accusations of abuse.
       A series of United States Supreme Court decisions and state 
     laws have long mandated a higher standard for juvenile 
     prisons than for adult prisons. There is supposed to be more 
     schooling, medical care and security because the young 
     inmates have been adjudged delinquent, rather than convicted 
     of crimes as adults are, and so are held for rehabilitation 
     instead of punishment.
       But what has made problems worse here is that Tallulah, to 
     earn a profit, has scrimped on money for education and mental 
     health treatment in a state that already spends very little 
     in those areas.
       ``It's incredibly perverse,'' said David Utter, director of 
     the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana. ``They have this 
     place that creates all these injuries and they have all these 
     kids with mental disorders, and then they save money by not 
     treating them.''
       Bill Roberts, the lawyer for Tallulah's owner, Tans-
     American Development Associates, said that some of the 
     Justice Department's demands like hiring more psychiatrists, 
     are ``unrealistic.'' The state is to blame for the problems, 
     he said, because ``our place was not designed to take that 
     kind of inmate.''
       Still, Mr. Roberts said, ``There has been a drastic 
     improvement'' in reducing brutality by guards. As for fights 
     between the inmates, he said, ``Juveniles are a little bit 
     different from adults. You are never going to stop all fights 
     between boys.''
       In papers filed with Judge Polozola on July 7 responding to 
     the Justice experts and Mr. Whitley, the State Attorney 
     General's office disputed accusations of brutality and of 
     high numbers of retarded and mentally ill inmates at 
     Tallulah.
       In a recent interview, Cheney Joseph, executive counsel to 
     Gov. Mike Foster, warned there were limits to what Louisiana 
     was willing to do. ``There are certain situations the 
     Department of Justice would like us to take care of,'' he 
     said, ``that may not be financially feasible and may not be 
     required by Federal law.''
       The idea for a prison here was put forward in 1992 by James 
     R. Brown, a Tallulah businessman whose father was an 
     influential state senator.
       One of the poorest areas in a poor state, Tallulah wanted 
     jobs, and like other struggling cities across the country it 
     saw the nation's prison-building spree as its best hope.
       Louisiana needed a new juvenile prison because the number 
     of youths being incarcerated was rising steeply; within a few 
     years it more than doubled. Adding to that, mental health 
     experts say, were hundreds of juveniles who had no place else 
     to go because of cuts in psychiatric services outside of 
     jail. Mental health authorities estimate that 20 percent of 
     juveniles incarcerated nationally have serious mental 
     illnesses.
       To help win a no-bid contract to operate a prison, the 
     company Mr. Brown formed included two close friends of Gov. 
     Edwin W. Edwards--George Fischer and Verdi Adam--said a 
     businessman involved in the venture's early stages, who spoke 
     on the condition of anonymity.
       None of the men had any particular qualification to run a 
     prison. Mr. Verdi was a former chief engineer of the state 
     highway department. Mr. Fischer had been the Governor's 
     campaign manager, Cabinet officer and occasional business 
     partner.
       Tallulah opened in 1994, and the town of 10,000 got what it 
     hoped for. The prison became its largest employer and 
     taxpayer.
       From the beginning, the company formed by Mr. Brown, Trans-
     American, pursued a strategy of maximizing its profit from 
     the fixed amount it received from the state for each inmate 
     (in 1997, $24,448). The plan was to keep wages and services 
     at a minimum while taking in as many inmates as possible, 
     said the businessman involved in the early stages.
       For-profit prisons often try to economize. But the best-run 
     companies have come to recognize that operating with too 
     small or poorly trained staff can spell trouble, and experts 
     say state officials must pay close attention to the level of 
     services being provided.
       ``Ultimately, the responsibility belongs to the state,'' 
     said Charles Thomas, director of the Private Corrections 
     Project at the University of Florida.
       Louisiana officials say they monitored conditions at 
     Tallulah and first reported many of the problems there. But 
     in fiscal year 1996-97, according to the State Department of 
     Public Safety and Corrections, Tallulah still listed no money 
     for recreation, treatment or planning inmates' return to 
     society. Twenty-nine percent of the budget went to 
     construction loans.
       By comparison, 45 percent of the $32,200 a year that 
     California spends on each juvenile goes to programs and 
     caseworkers, and none to construction. Nationally, 
     construction costs average 7 percent of juvenile prison 
     budgets, Mr. Dunlap said.
       ``That means either that Tallulah's construction costs are 
     terribly inflated, or the services they are providing are 
     extraordinarily low,'' he said.
       Part of Tallulah is a boot camp, with boys crammed so 
     tightly in barracks that there is room only for double bunks, 
     a television set and a few steel tables. Showers and urinals 
     are open to the room, allowing boys who have been 
     incarcerated for sexual assault to attack other inmates, 
     according to a report in June by a Justice Department 
     consultant, Dr. Bernard Hudson.
       The only space for the few books that have recently been 
     imported to try to improve education is a makeshift shelf on 
     top of the urinals. Among the aging volumes that a reporter 
     saw were ``Inside the Third Reich,'' ``The Short Stories of 
     Henry James'' and ``Heidi.''
       From their wakeup call at 5:30 A.M., the inmates, in white 
     T-shorts and loose green pants, spend almost all their time 
     confined to the barracks. They leave the barracks only for 
     marching drills, one to three hours a day of class and an 
     occasional game of basketball. There is little ventilation, 
     and temperatures in Louisiana's long summers hover 
     permanently in the 90's.
       The result, several boys told a visitor, is that some of 
     them deliberately start trouble in order to be disciplined 
     and sent to the other section of Tallulah, maximum-security 
     cells that are air-conditioned.
       Guards put inmates in solitary confinement so commonly that 
     in one week in May more than a quarter of all the boys spent 
     at least a day in ``Lockdown,'' said Nancy Ray, another 
     Justice Department expert. The average stay in solitary is 
     five to six weeks; some boys are kept indefinitely. While in 
     the tiny cells, the boys are stripped of all possessions and 
     lie on worn, thin mattresses resting on concrete blocks.
       The crowding, heat and isolation are hardest on the 25 
     percent of the boys who are mentally ill or retarded, said 
     Dr. Hudson, a psychiatrist, tending to increase their 
     depression or psychosis.
       Although Tallulah has made some improvements in its 
     treatment of the emotionally disturbed over the last year, 
     Dr. Hudson said, it remains ``grossly inadequate.''
       The prison still does not properly screen new arrivals for 
     mental illness or retardation, he reported. The part-time 
     doctor and psychiatrist are there so infrequently that they 
     have never met, Dr. Hudson said. Powerful anti-psychotic 
     medications are not monitored. Medical charts often cannot be 
     found.
       And the infirmary is often closed because of a shortage of 
     guards, whose pay is so low--$5.77 an hour--that there has 
     been 100 percent turnover in the staff in the last year, the 
     Justice Department experts said.
       Other juvenile prisons that have come under investigation 
     have also been criticized for poor psychiatric treatment. But 
     at Tallulah this neglect has been compounded by everyday 
     violence.
       All these troubles are illustrated in the case of one 
     former inmate, Travis M., a slight 16-year-old who is 
     mentally retarded and has been treated with drugs for 
     hallucinations.
       Sometimes, Travis said in an interview after his release, 
     guards hit him because his medication made him sleepy and he 
     did not stand to attention when ordered. Sometimes they 
     ``snuck'' him at night as he slept in his bunk, knocking him 
     to the cement floor. Sometimes they kicked him while he was 
     naked in the shower, telling him simply, ``You owe me some 
     licks,''
       Travis was originally sentenced by a judge to 90 days for 
     shoplifting and stealing a bicycle. But every time he failed 
     to stand for a guard or even called his grandmother to 
     complain, officials at Tallulah put him in solitary and added 
     to his sentence.
       After 15 months, a judge finally ordered him released so he 
     could get medical treatment. His eardrum had been perforated 
     in a beating by a guard, he had large scars on his arms, legs 
     and face, and his nose had been so badly broken that he 
     speaks in a wheeze. A lawyer is scheduled to file suit 
     against Tallulah on behalf of Travis this week.
       One reason these abuses have continued, Mr. Utter said, is 
     that juveniles in Louisiana, as in a number of states, often 
     get poor legal representation. One mentally ill boy from 
     Eunice was sentenced without a lawyer, or even a trial. 
     Poorly paid public defenders seldom visit their clients after 
     sentencing, Mr. Utter said, and so are unaware of conditions 
     at places like Tallulah.
       Another reason is that almost all Tallulah's inmates are 
     from poor families and 82 percent are black, Mr. Utter noted, 
     an imbalance that afflicts prisons nationwide to one degree 
     or another. ``They are disenfranchised and no one cares about 
     them,'' he said.
       In September, Tallulah hired as its new warden David 
     Bonnette, a 25-year veteran of Angola State Penitentiary who 
     started there as a guard and rose to assistant 
     superintendent. A muscular, tobacco-chewing man with

[[Page S8707]]

     his initials tattooed on a forearm, Mr. Bonnette brought 
     several Angola colleagues with him to impose better 
     discipline.
       ``When I got here, there were a lot of perforated 
     eardrums,'' he said. ``Actually, it seemed like everybody had 
     a perforated eardrum, or a broken nose.'' When boys wrote 
     complaints, he said, guards put the forms in a box and pulled 
     out ones to investigate at random. Some were labeled, ``Never 
     to be investigated.''
       But allegations of abuse by guards dropped to 52 a month 
     this spring, from more than 100 a month last summer, Mr. 
     Bonnette said, as he has tried to carry out a new state 
     policy of zero tolerance for brutality. Fights between boys 
     have declined to 33 a month, from 129, he said.
       In June, however, Ms. Ray, the Justice Department 
     consultant, reported that there had been a recent increase in 
     ``youth defiance and disobedience,'' with the boys angry 
     about Tallulah's ``exceptionally high'' use of isolation 
     cells.
       Many guards have also become restive, the Justice 
     Department experts found, a result of poor pay and new 
     restrictions on the use of force.
       One guard who said he had quit for those reasons said in an 
     interview: ``The inmates are running the asylum now. You're 
     not supposed to touch the kids, but how are we supposed to 
     control them without force?'' He has relatives working at 
     Tallulah and so insisted on not being identified.
       The frustration boiled over on July 1, during a tour by 
     Senator Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota Democrat who is 
     drafting legislation that would require psychiatric care for 
     all incarcerated juveniles who need it. Despite intense 
     security, a group of inmates climbed on a roof and shouted 
     their complaints at Senator Wellstone, who was accompanied by 
     Richard Stalder, the secretary of Louisiana's Department of 
     Public Safety and Corrections.
       Mr. Stalder said he planned to create a special unit for 
     mentally ill juvenile offenders. One likely candidate to run 
     it, he said, is Trans-American, the company that operates 
     Tallulah.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Almost 200,000 people behind bars in the United States 
of America, according to Mr. Butterfield, are known to suffer from 
schizophrenia, manic-depression, or major depression--the three most 
severe mental illnesses. This rate is four times greater than for the 
general population. And there is strong evidence, particularly among 
juveniles, that their numbers in the jails are growing.
  The vast majority of these people, colleagues, have not committed 
serious violent crimes. Some are homeless people charged with minor 
crimes that are a byproduct of their mental illness. They just get 
swept up and incarcerated. Others are picked up with no charges at all, 
in what police call ``mercy arrests,'' simply for acting strange.
  Jails and prisons often find themselves unprepared to deal with the 
mentally ill. For instance, medication may not be properly monitored or 
guards do not know how to respond to disturbed inmates who are simply 
not capable of standing in an orderly line for meals. A common result 
is that these inmates find themselves in solitary confinement.
  Colleagues, 200 years ago the most common treatment for the seriously 
mentally ill was jail. Thousands of people with severe disorders were 
brutally locked away and forgotten. This did not change until Dorothy 
Dix, and other reformers in the middle of the last century, 
successfully fought to have these people transferred form jails to 
hospitals.
  I fear that our jails are once again becoming dumping grounds for ill 
people who need treatment and care and that as a result we are 
recriminalizing the mentally ill in America today.
  On July 1, Mr. President, I went with the National Mental Health 
Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth. Mr. 
President, I want to just briefly summarize this trip and then focus on 
mental health and children.
  First of all--and I have talked with my colleagues from Louisiana who 
care a great deal about this. Let me say that, in particular, the 
warden, David Bonnette, is very committed to trying to make the 
changes.
  I went there because I had seen some preliminary Justice Department 
reports that essentially said there were kids who really had not 
committed any crimes--by the way, the vast majority of children, over 
90 percent in the juvenile corrections system, have not committed 
violent crime. But I heard that there were kids who had been dumped in 
this facility--but the same can be said for other facilities in our 
country--who had not committed any violent crimes. Some had not 
committed any crime. And then, to make matters worse, there is no 
medication, no counseling, and there they are. It is unconscionable.
  I went to visit this facility. When I got there, I first met with 
people in the administrative building. A lot of officials from 
Louisiana were there, quite a bit of media was there--journalists, TV, 
radio. But forget all that.
  We had some initial negotiations because I wanted to visit where the 
solitary confinement cells were. I wanted to find out why kids were put 
in these cells for up to 6 or 7 weeks at a time, up to maybe 23 hours a 
day--if my colleagues are listening. I wanted to find out why.
  Before visiting there, we first went to a building where these kids--
and they are kids from age 11 to age 18--were eating. I say to my 
colleague from South Carolina, he might be interested in this. Again, I 
am not trying to point the finger of blame, but I saw these kids 
eating, and probably 85 percent of them were black, African American, 
ages 11 to 18. There are 500-plus kids in this facility.
  I went over to where some of these kids were eating, and I said, 
``How are you doing?'' And this one kid said, ``Not so good.'' I said, 
``What do you mean?'' He said, ``This food, they never serve this food. 
They just did this for today. We don't ever get this kind of food. 
These clothes, we never had these clothes. Every day it's the same 
clothes. Every day it's the same underwear. It's hot. There's no air 
conditioning. And we don't have any clothes like this, clean clothes. 
These shoes, we never had any shoes like this. Smell the paint on the 
table. These tables have all been freshly painted. This is just a show 
for you, Senator.''
  Then I turned to officials from Louisiana, and I never heard them 
contradict that. Again, I am going to end up very much in the positive 
about what I think is going to happen now.
  And then we walked across the compound--that is what I will call it--
because I wanted to get to where these solitary confinement cells were. 
And this one young man climbs up on a roof, leaps up on a roof, and 
runs toward me and a whole lot of people who are with me. And I said to 
him, ``You're going to get in a lot of trouble. Why are you doing 
this?'' He said, ``I want to make a statement.'' I said, ``What is your 
statement?'' He said, ``This is a show. And we're all going to get 
beaten up when you leave. We get beaten up all the time.''

  Then I met with four young guys. One had stolen a moped. That is why 
he was there. One was there for breaking and entering, and another was 
breaking and entering. The point is, they talked about being beaten up 
all the time.
  Now, the Justice Department has also chronicled some of these 
conditions. The truth of the matter is, I believe the warden there and 
the State of Louisiana knows that things have to change. That is the 
good news, I hope. There has now been a civil rights lawsuit filed. 
There is a tremendous amount of interest.
  What I want to say to colleagues, and I believe this Fox Butterfield 
article was terribly important as well, but I want to just simply talk 
about some of what I observed, regarding the mental health in children. 
One hallucinating child was in isolation for observation, yet his 
transfer to an appropriate mental health facility was uncertain. 
Another child I met was taking three different types of powerful 
psychiatric medications but had only seen a psychiatrist twice in the 
last 8 months. The Justice Department chronicled instances where boys 
were being repeatedly sexually and physically abused, and children with 
mental illness were being housed with youths who had committed violent 
crimes--mentally ill children who had received no therapy, and when 
they are having the symptoms they are often isolated or punished for 
their illness.
  Mr. President, I just say that what is happening to these troubled 
children who were dumped in these facilities and get no care, many of 
whom shouldn't be there in the first place, is a national tragedy. All 
across our country we are dumping emotionally disturbed kids into 
juvenile prisons. Each year more than 1 million youth come in contact 
with the juvenile justice system, and more than 100,000 of these youth 
are detained in some type

[[Page S8708]]

of jail or prison. These children are overwhelmingly poor, and a 
disproportionate number of them are children of color.
  By the time many of these children are arrested and incarcerated, 
they have a long history of problems in their short lives. As many as 
two-thirds suffer from mental or emotional disturbances. One in five 
has a serious disorder. Many have substance abuse problems and learning 
disabilities, and most of them come from troubled homes.
  Tallulah is not the only offending facility. The Justice Department 
has exposed gross abuses in Georgia, Kentucky, and other juvenile 
facilities all across our country. Other States are experiencing 
similar problems. Investigators found extreme cases of physical abuse 
and neglected mental health needs, including unwarranted and prolonged 
isolation of suicidal children who are hog-tied, and chemical 
restraints are used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, as 
well as forced medication and even denial of medication. Children with 
extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self-mutilation never 
even saw a psychiatrist. This is a Justice Department report, Justice 
Department findings on conditions in our juvenile ``correction'' 
facilities.
  Mr. President, our current system fails mentally ill adults and 
children. The screening and treatment of mental and emotional 
disturbances are inadequate or nonexistent at correctional facilities. 
Mental illness typically is addressed solely through discipline, 
isolation, and restraint. At Tallulah, children told us they were 
beaten and put in isolation for long periods, even months, echoing in 
painful detail what has been revealed in the Justice Department 
reports.
  The tragedy of this situation is that we know what works--treatment. 
But our current system for adults and children with mental illness 
favors punishment over treatment. For children, we know that family 
focused, individualized treatment, delivered in a child's community can 
improve that child's mental health and prevent them from offending in 
the first place. It is proven that if you integrate these mental health 
and substance abuse services with schools and child agencies and you 
make it happen at the local level, it provides even greater success. In 
fact, linked with community services, these other treatment programs 
have been shown to reduce contact with the juvenile system by 46 
percent.
  This amendment, really, builds on this. Under this amendment, States 
receiving Federal prison construction moneys would be able to use these 
funds to implement mental health screening and treatment of adult and 
juvenile offenders within their correctional systems. It is badly 
needed. Those States receiving Federal prison construction moneys would 
also be required to develop a plan for mental health treatment of 
mentally ill offenders. Finally, States receiving these funds would be 
required to provide the attorney general an initial baseline study of 
mental illness in their correction facilities.
  We can't any longer ignore this tragedy. What I saw in Tallulah is a 
national disgrace. The wholesale neglect of adults and youth with 
emotional disturbances in our prisons must end. We, as a society, have 
the moral obligation to see that they get the help they need.
  I thank both of my colleagues for supporting this amendment. I want 
to end on this note. I said it once earlier. I want to make it crystal 
clear, because I am sensitive to not doing any bashing of any one 
State. Yes, I visited the facility in Tallulah. I will tell you 
something, those conditions shouldn't exist. I will tell you something 
else, beyond the connection of mental health in children and children 
who have never committed a crime, they just get dumped in these 
correction facilities, and then when they are there they get no 
treatment, no vocational ed treatment, precious little education, no 
counseling, inadequate medical attention, on and on and on.

  Mr. President, the other thing I want to say, which is another point 
which I guess speaks back to the vote we just had, I tell you I am all 
for holding people accountable when they commit a brutal or heinous 
crime. I have said it before and I will say it again, when three 16-
year-olds beat up an 85-year-old woman and leave her for dead, I don't 
feel sorry for them. But I tell you Democrats and I tell you 
Republicans, anybody who believes that those kinds of conditions that I 
saw at Tallulah Correctional Center--they exist in a lot of other 
centers, and people in Louisiana are taking action to make things 
better, and I believe they will--anybody who thinks that is the answer, 
is way off base. A lot of those kids, those 11-year-olds and 12-year-
olds I met, I wouldn't have been afraid to meet then at 10 at night 
before they came to this ``correction'' facility, but I wouldn't want 
to meet some of these kids at 10 at night alone after they have been in 
these facilities.
  What do you think we will get from this with these kinds of 
conditions? What do you think we will get from this when you put kids 
in brutal conditions? You make them brutal. Every one of these children 
who I visited with is a mother's child and a father's child. This is 
disgraceful. This is disgraceful.
  I wouldn't say this is necessarily the central issue in the country. 
That is why I thank my colleagues for their support. But I am telling 
you I really believe this amendment will be very helpful, because what 
this amendment will do is it will say to the States, look, if you want 
to do the assessment before you incarcerate a kid, if you want to find 
out what happened by way of violence in the home or substance abuse, or 
whether or not the kid should even be in a correctional facility versus 
somewhere else, and you want to figure if they should be incarcerated--
some should--or what kind of treatment is needed, you can use some of 
this money to do that. We have estimates of up to 25 percent-plus of 
the kids in these juvenile correction facilities are struggling with 
these mental problems and we just abandon them.
  The second thing it said is, look, States, with your prison system, 
you have to lay out the plan that you have for dealing with some of the 
people who are in the system who are struggling with these mental 
problems and what kind of treatment they will get. We are worse off as 
a nation in terms of losing our soul if we don't do this. Frankly, it 
is in the self-interest of every family in America to make sure we get 
treatment to these kids and treatment to some of these people who are 
incarcerated. If they don't get the treatment, or the conditions that I 
described today from Fox Butterfield in the New York Times article, we 
are all worse off for it.
  So I thank both my colleagues for their support. I hope I will get 
strong support in conference committee as well. I am very proud to have 
had a chance to introduce this amendment, and I am pleased that the 
amendment is going to be accepted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I have just been informed that the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana wanted to be heard on the amendment.
  I understand that the Senator will speak after we agree to the 
amendment. She will be here shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3252) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment by my 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Wellstone, has been accepted. I wanted to 
say how much I admire him for bringing this issue to the attention of 
the Senate and for his eloquent presentation on what I think is a real 
problem in our Nation. As he outlined, in

[[Page S8709]]

Louisiana, during his last visit, he found that one of our facilities 
sure could stand great improvement. I am also positive that there are 
many facilities in other States in our Nation that can also use 
improvement and attention.
  I wanted to say for the Record that we talk, in campaigns 
particularly and finally when we get here to this body, a lot about 
being ``tough on crime.'' We talk about being smart and tough because 
it takes a combination of that to really drive down these juvenile 
crime rates, drive down crime rates in America. We need to remain 
tough, with tough penalties; but we also have to be smart. This was a 
smart amendment that we accepted just a few minutes ago. This was maybe 
one of the smartest things we have done in a couple of weeks here--and 
maybe for a long time --because we have allowed States to take some of 
their money for construction and use it for mental health services.
  It does us no good, Mr. President, as we know, to keep juveniles in 
facilities that are inappropriate and don't offer the proper training 
and counseling, only to turn them into hardened criminals--for them to 
then be released to go back into our neighborhoods and communities and 
wreak havoc when we could have done the smart thing, which Senator 
Wellstone has urged us to do, and what we have now done, by intervening 
earlier and providing this counseling, which would prevent us from 
spending extra money. But it is not just the extra money that we spend, 
it is also the loss of life, the loss of property, the pain and 
suffering that is caused when we don't do these things early on. So 
spending a small amount of money for the proper mental health 
counseling would go a long way, I think, in our Nation toward getting 
us to our goal of reducing crime across the board in America.
  I want to thank the Senator for his visit to Louisiana. I am familiar 
with this facility. I had some dealings with this and three other 
facilities when I was State treasurer in Louisiana. At that time, many 
years ago, I objected to the construction of these facilities based on 
the thought that it was profits driving them and not good policies 
about how to incarcerate, when to incarcerate, and what kind of 
counseling these juveniles would get. Sometimes they are first 
offenders, sometimes they are nonviolent offenders. The lack of those 
services has provided a prospective. I did not prevail, obviously, 
because these facilities were built. We can clearly see now that there 
are problems when our policies are driven by profits, not good crime-
fighting policies and good prevention. I am thankful and glad that we 
adopted this amendment. I want to voice my support for what we are 
doing. Hopefully, we can do more of it.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina 
is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3253

   (Purpose: To amend section 3486 of title 18, United States Code, 
 relating to offenses involving the sexual exploitation or other abuse 
                              of children)

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3253.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. 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 page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 121. Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``or any act or activity 
     involving a Federal offense relating to the sexual 
     exploitation or other abuse of children,'' after ``health 
     care offense,''.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, we all know that the Internet has 
become the tool of choice for sexual predators and child pornographers. 
In fact, the Senate just yesterday attempted to deal with pornography 
on the Internet by refining the Communications Decency Act.
  There are numerous legislative proposals to deal with this issue.
  I especially want to thank Chairman Gregg. Under his leadership in 
this bill, he has provided millions for the Justice Department to 
investigate these crimes. And his leadership on this issue is to be 
commended--for the method which he has handled it, and the far-reaching 
effect it is going to have.
  I asked the FBI what tool is it that they most need to go after 
sexual predators on the Internet. What would do the most good? They 
tell me that a legislative change that is most needed by them is 
administrative subpoena authority to quickly get records on sexual 
predators--that administrative subpoena authority would do more to 
expedite matters than anything else we could do.
  Mr. President, the FBI has an operation known as ``Innocent Images.'' 
The operation was created in the wake of the disappearance of a small 
boy in Maryland. The FBI found an elaborate operation being used to 
lure children over the Internet. That was its sole purpose. Thus far, 
the operation has net 200 indictments, 150 convictions, and 135 
arrests.
  Literally every day you cannot pick up a newspaper without reading 
about a case of a sexual predator looking for children on the Internet.
  When the FBI testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
March, Director Freeh said that when an agent, pretending to be a 
child, signed onto a ``chat room'' with 23 other children, 22 of the 
23--23 supposed children--22 of the 23 turned out to be adults seeking 
improper contact with the girl, the one out of the 23.
  That is how pervasive this problem is today on the Internet.
  What the FBI needs most is an administrative subpoena authority for 
cases that involve a Federal violation related to sexual exploitation 
and abuse of children.
  They have informed my staff that this would be the most useful tool 
they could have in order to crack these cases.
  This would allow them to quickly access records from Internet service 
providers regarding a potential sexual predator using the Internet to 
prey on children. Without this authority, the FBI has to go through a 
very cumbersome process of contacting the U.S. attorney and convening a 
grand jury just to get this information.
  The FBI has already had this administrative subpoena authority in 
narcotics cases and health care fraud cases. But surprisingly they do 
not have it in sexual predator cases involving our children.
  I know that health care fraud is important. But it is not really more 
important than catching sexual predators.
  Mr. President, there is a very practical reason this is needed as 
well.
  The FBI task force on this issue has had to get 6,200 grand jury 
subpoenas for routine subscriber information off of the Internet. This 
would reduce the administrative burden on U.S. attorneys, and certainly 
on the grand jury system. Further, because of grand jury secrecy rules, 
this information cannot be shared with State and local law enforcement 
officials. So once it is acquired through a grand jury, there still are 
impediments to using it.
  Together with local law enforcement police, the FBI needs help to 
catch these people. It is very important that we move in this 
direction. But this is a narrow approval of the use of the 
administrative subpoena, so that cases involving Internet crimes on 
children can be solved quickly and the information obtained quickly.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to accept this amendment. 
Mr. President, I understand the amendment is to be accepted. I urge its 
a adoption.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe there is no further debate on 
this amendment. I urge simply a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from North Carolina.
  The amendment (No. 3253) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.

[[Page S8710]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 3254

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on saving Social Security 
                                 first)

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

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for 
     himself, and Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3254.

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

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE BUDGET AND SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
       (1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 44 
     million Americans, including 27.3 million retirees, over 4.5 
     million people with disabilities, 3.8 million surviving 
     children and 8.4 million surviving adults, and is essential 
     to the dignity and security of the nation's elderly and 
     disabled;
       (2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds have reported 
     to the Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social 
     Security system ``is estimated to fall short of expenditures 
     beginning in 2021 and in each year thereafter . . . until the 
     assets of the combined trust funds are exhausted in 2032'';
       (3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting 
     principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all 
     require saving Social Security first, in order that the 
     Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom 
     generation, beginning in 2010;
       (4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, the Congress 
     intended that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses 
     be used to prefund the retirement of the baby boom 
     generation;
       (5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session 
     of Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton called on 
     the Congress to ``save Social Security first'' and to 
     ``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, that is any 
     penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary 
     measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 
     twenty-first century'';
       (6) Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 
     expressly forbids counting Social Security trust fund 
     surpluses as revenue available to balance the budget.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress and the President should--
       (1) continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance 
     the budget without counting Social Security trust fund 
     surpluses;
       (2) work in a bipartisan way on specific legislation to 
     reform the Social Security system, to ensure that it is 
     financially sound over the long term and will be available 
     for all future generations; and
       (3) save Social Security first by reserving any surpluses 
     in fiscal year 1999 budget legislation.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator proposing a 
second-degree amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire reserves the 
right to object.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on Social 
Security.
  Mr. GREGG. May we have a look at it?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. We all voted for it. It is the same thing we voted 
for.
  Where do you need to ask unanimous consent for an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the Senator does 
not have a right to send a second-degree amendment to the first-degree 
amendment until that first-degree amendment has been disposed of, or 
has had some action, or unless consent is granted, and the Senator from 
New Hampshire reserves the right to object.
  Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that 
the Senator from South Carolina be recognized for the purposes of 
debate only, and that immediately upon the conclusion of his remarks 
the floor be returned to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  With respect to this particular sense-of-the-Senate amendment, it 
really goes right to the heart of the expression ``Saving Social 
Security first.'' The fact is, as we talk about campaign finance 
reform, the abuses and the scandals of campaign finance reform are not 
corporate money, labor money, soft money, hard money, Buddhist temple 
money, Lincoln bedroom money. The scandal of campaign finance is the 
looting of the Social Security fund by politicians who want to get 
reelected, whereby they determine every year that they have a big 
surplus.
  The reason for this amendment, of course, is the constant chatter, 
particularly on the other side of the Capitol, about Social Security, 
surpluses, and taxes.
  In order to get a surplus, here is exactly the moneys necessary to be 
used and even allow you to talk the language. Under the law, we are not 
allowed to talk the language, under section 13301. But in violation of 
Section 13301, a statute signed into law November 5, 1990, the CBO 
report uses numbers of the so-called unified budget. This is not a long 
report, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of the CBO 
report of July 15 be printed in the Record.
  I understand the Government Printing Office estimates the cost of 
printing this report in the Record to be $2,222.
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     The Economic and Budget Outlook for Fiscal Years 1999-2008: A 
                   Preliminary Update, July 15, 1998

             (Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office)

       The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the 
     federal budget for fiscal year 1998 will record a total 
     surplus of $63 billion, or 0.8 percent of gross domestic 
     product (GDP). If current policies remain unchanged, the 
     surplus is expected to rise to $80 billion in 1999 and reach 
     $251 billion (nearly 2 percent of GDP) by 2008. Excluding the 
     surplus in Social Security and the net outlays of the Postal 
     Service (both of which are legally classified as off-budget), 
     CBO's new projections show an on-budget deficit of $41 
     billion in 1998, which gives way to surpluses in 2002 and in 
     2005 through 2008.
       The budget outlook has improved significantly in the past 
     six months. Unexpectedly strong revenue collections by the 
     Treasury in the first nine months of fiscal year 1998 are the 
     major reason that CBO has gone from projecting a small 
     deficit last January to estimating a surplus of $63 billion 
     today. The strength of 1998 revenues, together with a 
     slightly more optimistic economic outlook, also forms the 
     basis for increases in CBO's projections of the surplus for 
     1999 through 2008.
       Determining the degree to which this year's unanticipated 
     revenues should carry over into projections of future 
     revenues is difficult at this time because the reasons for 
     the increase are still largely unknown. In January, CBO 
     projected that 1998 revenues would total $1,665 billion. By 
     March, revenue collections to date suggested that the total 
     would reach $1,680 billion. Based on collections through 
     June, CBO believes that 1998 revenues will total $1,717 
     billion. New economic data explain less than $7 billion of 
     the increase in the projection since January, while new 
     legislation is responsible for $1 billion. That leaves $45 
     billion, almost all in revenues from individual income taxes, 
     to be explained by other factors.
       At this point, analysts can only speculate about the 
     sources of income that produced the added revenues in 1998 
     and their implications for revenue growth in future years. 
     Certain explanations of the sources of the additional income 
     would suggest that projections of revenues should be adjusted 
     by growing amounts over time. But others point to temporary 
     factors and would suggest an adjustment that fades away over 
     several years. After assessing the possible causes, CBO has 
     chosen a middle path: it has assumed that the factors 
     producing the additional revenues in 1998 will continue to 
     add a similar amount to revenues in future years.
       Changes in the economic outlook also boost surpluses 
     projected over the next decade. A smaller expected decline in 
     corporate profits as a share of GDP increases projected 
     revenues, and slightly lower real long-term interest rates 
     after 2000 reduce interest payments on the national debt. A 
     reduction in

[[Page S8711]]

     the projected rate of inflation--which holds down required 
     cost-of-living increases, the growth of Medicare costs, 
     nominal interest rates, and assumed increases in 
     discretionary spending after 2002--significantly lowers 
     projected outlays in the longer term. But lower inflation 
     does not have a major impact on the surplus because it also 
     slows the growth of taxable incomes, leading to a reduction 
     in projected tax revenues that offsets the reduction in 
     outlays.
       CBO now expects lower outlays in 1998 than it projected in 
     March, but that decrease largely reflects temporary factors 
     that are not expected to reduce spending in the future. 
     Legislation enacted since March has lowered projected 
     surpluses by a few billion dollars a year--primarily 
     reflecting higher spending for transportation programs.


                          The Economic Outlook

       The economy has continued to grow at a healthy pace, with 
     low unemployment and subdued inflation. CBO projects that 
     growth will slow over the next few years and that the 
     unemployment and inflation rates will gradually rise (see 
     Table I). The current outlook is not dramatically different 
     from CBO's last economic projections, made in January, but 
     small increases in real growth, somewhat lower inflation, 
     profits that account for a larger share of GDP, and lower 
     real long-term interest rates significantly affect the 
     budget's projected bottom line.

                                       TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF CBO ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS, CALENDAR YEARS 1998-2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Forecast                                               Projected
                                   Actual  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal GDP (Billions of
 dollars):
    Summer 1998.................     8,080     8,487     8,849     9,213     9,582    10,019    10,486    10,966    11,458    11,963    12,486    13,029
    January 1998................     8,081     8,461     8,818     9,195     9,605    10,046    10,529    11,038    11,565    12,112    12,684    13,280
Nominal GDP (Percentage change):
    Summer 1998.................       5.8       5.0       4.3       4.1       4.0       4.6       4.7       4.6       4.5       4.4       4.4       4.3
    January 1998................       5.8       4.7       4.2       4.3       4.5       4.6       4.8       4.8       4.8       4.7       4.7       4.7
Real GDP (Percentage change):
    Summer 1998.................       3.8       3.3       2.1       1.8       1.8       2.4       2.4       2.4       2.3       2.2       2.1       2.1
    January 1998................       3.7       2.7       2.0       1.9       2.0       2.1       2.3       2.3       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.1
GDP Price Index (Percentage
 change):
    Summer 1998.................       2.0       1.6       2.1       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2       2.2
    January 1998................       2.0       2.0       2.2       2.3       2.4       2.4       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5
Consumer Price Index \1\
 (Percentage change):
    Summer 1998.................       2.3       1.7       2.6       2.7       2.6       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5       2.5
    January 1998................       2.3       2.2       2.5       2.7       2.8       2.8       2.8       2.8       2.8       2.8       2.8       2.8
Unemployment Rate (Percent):
    Summer 1998.................       4.9       4.6       4.7       5.1       5.5       5.7       5.7       5.7       5.7       5.7       5.7       5.7
    January 1998................       4.9       4.8       5.1       5.4       5.6       5.8       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9
Three-Month Treasury Bill Rate
 (Percent):
    Summer 1998.................       5.1       5.1       5.2       4.8       4.6       4.4       4.4       4.4       4.4       4.4       4.4       4.4
    January 1998................       5.1       5.3       5.2       4.8       4.7       4.7       4.7       4.7       4.7       4.7       4.7       4.7
Ten-Year Treasury Note Rate
 (Percent):
    Summer 1998.................       6.4       5.8       6.1       5.8       5.6       5.4       5.4       5.4       5.4       5.4       5.4       5.4
    January 1998................       6.4       6.0       6.1       6.0       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9       5.9
Tax Bases (Percentage of GDP):
    Corporate profits: \2\
        Summer 1998.............      10.0       9.6       9.4       9.2       8.8       8.6       8.5       8.5       8.4       8.4       8.3       8.3
        January 1998............       9.9       9.7       9.2       8.8       8.5       8.4       8.2       8.1       8.0       7.9       7.8       7.7
    Wages and salaries:
        Summer 1998.............      48.0      48.7      48.7      48.7      48.7      48.7      48.7      48.6      48.6      48.6      48.6      48.6
        January 1998............      48.0      48.4      48.5      48.6      48.6      48.6      48.6      48.7      48.8      48.8      48.8     48.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The consumer price index for all urban consumers.
\2\ Corporate profits are the profits of corporations, adjusted to remove the distortions in depreciation allowances caused by tax rules and to exclude
  capital gains on inventories.
 
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Federal Reserve Board; Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
  Statistics.

     The forecast for 1998 and 1999
       The growth of real GDP is likely to slow to 2 percent for 
     the rest of calendar year 1998 and early 1999, down from the 
     4 percent pace set during 1997 and the first quarter of 1998. 
     Factors contributing to the slowdown include a continuation 
     of the recent increase in the real trade deficit, a pickup in 
     inflation, and weaker profits.
       Demand for U.S.-produced goods and services has been 
     dampened by events overseas. The economic contraction in Asia 
     stemming from that region's currency crisis was the major 
     reason for the slowdown in demand, but an already strong 
     dollar and the slowly growing demand in Europe also 
     contributed to stagnating real exports and accelerating 
     import growth. The outlook is for continued strength of the 
     dollar and weak demand growth overseas, which make it likely 
     that foreign trade will continue to depress demand for U.S. 
     goods into 1999.
       The underlying rate of inflation--the increase in the 
     consumer price index (CPI) excluding energy and food prices--
     is forecast to rise slightly over the next year and a half 
     because of strong upward pressure on wages and a partial 
     dissipation of the factors that have been dampening price 
     growth for several years. Growth of the overall CPI on a 
     year-over-year basis was 1.7 percent in June, but that 
     measure is distorted by the sharp drop in petroleum prices 
     this year. The underlying rate of inflation was 2.2 percent 
     through June. CBO's forecast assumes that the underlying rate 
     will increase slowly to 2.7 percent by the end of 1999. 
     Because energy prices are expected to remain steady, the 
     forecast growth rate for the overall CPI is similar.
       Some favors that have held down CPI growth over the past 
     two or three years will continue to have an effect. For 
     example, import prices are expected to continue declining in 
     1998 (in part because of the Asian crisis), and the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics will institute more changes to the CPI that 
     will reduce its growth by about 0.2 percentage points in 1999 
     and later years. However, import price deflation is expected 
     to fade during 1999. In addition, medical care inflation, 
     which grew relatively slowly and dampened overall inflation 
     in the past two years, is forecast to bounce back from its 
     1997 low of 2.6 percent to more than 4 percent a year during 
     the next 18 months.
       Corporate profits, which have stagnated since the third 
     quarter of last year, will remain under pressure through 
     1999. Rising wages and an expected increase in the growth of 
     employee benefits will push the growth of total 
     compensation higher at the same time that sales growth 
     slows. Thus, costs per unit of output will rise more 
     rapidly over the next year and a half than in 1997. Some 
     of those costs will be passed on in the form of higher 
     prices, but some will be absorbed through lower profits.
       The anticipated rise in inflation may lead to higher 
     interest rates, but any increase is likely to be mild and 
     temporary. If the Federal Reserve Board is uncertain about 
     the pervasiveness of the slowdown in economic activity, an 
     increase in inflation may prompt it to raise short-term rates 
     by the end of the year. Long-term rates may also pick up 
     slightly. However, if economic growth slows to a 2 percent 
     rate for 1999, short-term interest rates will probably ease 
     back to their current levels by the end of that year.
     The projection for 2000 through 2008
       CBO does not forecast cyclical economic effects beyond two 
     years. Instead, it calculates a range of estimates for the 
     medium-term path of the economy that reflect the possibility 
     of booms and recessions. CBO then presents the middle of that 
     range as its baseline projection of the economy for 2000 
     through 2008. Over that period, CBO expects real GDP to grow 
     at an average rate of 2.2 percent a year, the CPI to increase 
     at an average rate of 2.5 percent, and short-term interest 
     rates to average 4.5 percent.
       The small variations in real GDP growth and other variables 
     during that period that are apparent in Table I do not stem 
     from any assumptions about cyclical effects in those years. 
     The slight drop in the projected growth rate of real GDP 
     between 2002 and 2008 reflects a demographic assumption that 
     growth of the labor force will slow in line with slower 
     growth of the working-age population and an assumption that 
     growth of investment will return to a lower, long-term trend. 
     In order to achieve the projected average values assumed over 
     the 2000-2008 period without having a misleadingly sudden 
     drop at the end of 1999, CBO phases in reductions in 
     inflation, interest rates, and profits as a share of GDP over 
     the first few years of the projection period.
     Changes since January
       CBO now forecasts that real GDP in 1998 will be higher than 
     it anticipated in January and projects that real GDP will 
     grow, on average, about 0.1 percentage point a year faster 
     over the entire 1998-2008 period than was projected at that 
     time.
       Inflation, whether measured by the consumer price index or 
     the GDP price index, is lower this year than was forecast in 
     January, largely because of a drop in energy prices. 
     Inflation is expected to rise over the next two years, with 
     the increase in the CPI projected to grow from 1.7 percent in 
     1998 to 2.7 percent in 2000. However, the average

[[Page S8712]]

     growth rate for the CPI from 2002 through 2008 is projected 
     to be 2.5 percent a year--about 0.3 percentage points lower 
     than had been projected in January. Because of changes that 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made or plans to make in 
     how it measures the CPI, the 2.7 percent inflation projected 
     for 2000 is comparable to 3.4 percent inflation calculated on 
     the basis of the measurement techniques used before 1995. The 
     Federal Reserve Board is unlikely to be satisfied with 
     inflation at that rate over a long period; thus, CBO assumes 
     that inflation will be lower, on average, after 2000.
       The GDP price index is also projected to increase at a 
     slower pace than CBO anticipated in January. That assumption 
     of lower inflation significantly reduces both nominal GDP and 
     the total national income and product account (NIPA) tax base 
     in the latter years of the projection period. As a share of 
     GDP, however, the total tax base is higher in the current 
     projection than it was in January. Corporate profits as a 
     share of GDP in 1998 and 1999 are similar to the previous 
     forecast, but the projection for subsequent years is 
     significantly higher than before (although the share still 
     drops over time). CBO increased that projection because of 
     lower projected interest rates, which reduce the debt-service 
     costs of companies and boost profits. The projection for 
     wages and salaries as a share of GDP has changed little since 
     January.
       Nominal interest rates are lower than previously projected 
     because of the assumed decline in inflation. The outlook for 
     real (inflation-adjusted) short-term interest rates is 
     unchanged from January. However, inflation-adjusted long-term 
     rates are projected to be lower because of the dramatic 
     reduction in the variation of inflation. Such a reduction 
     tends to reduce investors' concerns about locking in 
     investments for the long term and reduces the extra 
     interest--the inflation risk premium--that they demand on 
     long-term investments.
     Uncertainty of the outlook
       One source of errors in predicting the future performance 
     of the economy is data on its recent performance. Reported 
     data on GDP and the components of national income are 
     regularly revised, sometimes by quite large amounts. Because 
     forecasts necessarily depend on the economic data that are 
     currently available, the likelihood of revisions to those 
     data increases the uncertainty of any forecast.
       In addition, there is a risk that future events will cause 
     a significant divergence from the path laid out in the new 
     forecast. The economy could be more adversely affected by the 
     Asian crisis than CBO assumes; the tightness of the labor 
     market could cause a significant jump in the rate of 
     inflation (such as the increase of 3 percentage points that 
     occurred in the 1960s); or the stock market could drop 
     precipitously. Conversely, the Asian crisis could have little 
     additional effect on the United States; productivity growth 
     might remain higher than CBO anticipates, which would permit 
     a continuation of rapid noninflationary growth and stronger 
     profits; or labor force participation rates might again 
     increase rapidly, easing pressures on the labor market for a 
     few years. Such alternative outcomes could have a substantial 
     effect on the budget, increasing or decreasing its bottom 
     line by $100 billion or more in a single year.


                           The budget outlook

       In March, CBO projected that the total federal budget would 
     show a surplus of $8 billion in fiscal year 1998--the first 
     surplus in almost 30 years--but warned that the final budget 
     numbers for the year could quite easily show a small deficit 
     or a larger surplus. With actual spending and revenues 
     reported for three-quarters of the fiscal year, a surplus 
     this year is now virtually certain, and CBO has boosted its 
     projection of that surplus to $63 billion (see Table 2). 
     Moreover, the improvement in the budget outlook for 1998--
     primarily associated with higher-than-anticipated 
     revenues--seems likely to carry over to future years as 
     well. Assuming that policies remain unchanged, CBO 
     projects that the surplus will generally increase over the 
     next 10 years, reaching $251 billion (1.9 percent of GDP) 
     in 2008.
       Although the total budget is expected to show a healthy 
     surplus in 1998, CBO expects that there will still be an on-
     budget deficit. On-budget revenues (which by law exclude 
     revenues earmarked to Social Security) are projected to be 
     $41 billion less than on-budget spending (which excludes 
     spending for Social Security benefits and administrative 
     costs and the net outlays of the Postal Service, but includes 
     general fund interest payments to the Social Security trust 
     funds). By 2002, and in 2005 through 2008, the budget will be 
     balanced even when off-budget revenues and spending are 
     excluded from the calculation.

                                              TABLE 2.--CHANGES IN CBO BUDGET PROJECTIONS SINCE MARCH 1998
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1998 Baseline Surplus...............         8         9         1        13        67        53        70        75       115       130       138
                                           =============================================================================================================
Changes:
    Legislative:
        Revenues..........................         1         1     (\1\)        -1        -1        -1        -1         1         1         1         1
        Outlays \2\.......................        -1        -3        -4        -4        -4        -3        -2        -1        -1     (\1\)         1
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................     (\2\)        -2        -4        -5        -5        -4        -4     (\2\)         1         1         2
                                           =============================================================================================================
    Economic:
        Revenues..........................         7        13        15         5     (\1\)        -3       -10       -17       -24       -33       -43
        Outlays...........................         1         9        10        12        16        24        32        40        48        56        63
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal........................         8        22        25        17        16        21        22        24        23        23        21
                                           =============================================================================================================
    Technical
        Revenues..........................        30        48        50        51        49        50        49        51        52        52        55
        Outlays \2\.......................
            Other than debt service.......        16        -1     (\1\)        -1        -1     (\1\)        -2        -1     (\1\)         1         1
            Debt service..................         1         4         7        10        13        16        19        22        26        30        34
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal....................        48        51        57        61        61        66        65        72        78        83        90
                                           =============================================================================================================
              Total Changes...............        55        71        78        73        72        82        84        96       102       106       113
                                           =============================================================================================================
Summer 1998 Baseline Surplus..............        63        80        79        86       139       136       154       170       217       236       251
                                           =============================================================================================================
Memorandum:
    Total Change in Revenues..............        38        62        65        56        48        46        37        35        29        20        13
    Total Change in Outlays...............        18         9        13        17        23        37        46        61        73        86        99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500 million.
\2\ Increases in outlays are shown with a negative sign because they reduce surpluses.
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office

     Changes since March
       Actual revenues for 1998 reported by the Treasury have been 
     higher and actual outlays have been lower than CBO had 
     projected in March. Revenues now seem likely to reach $1,717 
     billion this year, $38 billion (2.2 percent) higher than the 
     March estimate and $53 billion (3.2 percent) higher than CBO 
     projected in January. CBO also expects total outlays of 
     $1,654 billion this year, $18 billion (1.1 percent) less than 
     projected in March.
       The unexpected revenues in 1998 have led CBO to boost its 
     projection of revenues in later years because some of the 
     unknown factors that have affected 1998 taxes will probably 
     continue to have an impact. The reductions in 1998 spending, 
     by contrast, result largely from temporary factors and have 
     little effect on CBO's projections of spending beyond 1998.
       CBO's spending and revenue projections incorporate the 
     effects of legislation enacted since March, but those effects 
     are relatively small. Changes prompted by CBO's new economic 
     projections have had a larger effect on the budget 
     projections, but not nearly as large as the revisions 
     stemming from the increased 1998 revenues. The most 
     significant change in the economic outlook is a decline in 
     projected inflation, but that change has a limited impact on 
     projected surpluses because it lowers both spending and 
     revenues.
       Changes in Projected Revenues. In January, CBO predicted 
     that revenues would total $1,665 billion in 1998. That 
     projection was based on actual collections reported through 
     November, economic data available at that time, and CBO's 
     forecast of economic activity through the rest of the year. 
     In March, actual collections reported through January let CBO 
     to raise its projection to $1,680 billion. Based on actual 
     collections reported through June, revised economic data, and 
     a new economic forecast, CBO now expects total collections of 
     $1,717 billion for the year.

[[Page S8713]]

     Revisions to data on aggregate wages and salaries, corporate 
     profits, and other variables reported in the national income 
     and product accounts, and to CBO's forecast of those NIPA 
     variables, explain about $7 billion of the $53 billion 
     increase in projected revenues since January (Higher-than-
     expected wages have boosted projected individual income and 
     payroll taxes by $11 billion, including the effects of 
     bracket creep, but lower profits have reduced corporate 
     income taxes by $5 billion.) Legislation enacted since 
     March explains an additional $1 billion of the increase. 
     That leaves a $45 billion increase in expected revenues to 
     be explained by other factors.
       What is known from the data on actual collections is that 
     the $45 billion increase in the projection results almost 
     entirely from additional individual income taxes. About one-
     third of the unexplained increase was in final payments in 
     April, which reflect tax liabilities on income received in 
     calendar year 1997. One-third was in higher-than-expected 
     with-holding on 1998 incomes. The other one-third was in 
     higher-than-expected estimated tax payments on 1998 
     liabilities, which are also based on 1998 incomes.
       However, available data provide virtually no information 
     about the sources of the increased income that generated 
     those tax collections. A well-founded explanation of the 
     unexpected revenues would require detailed information from 
     tax returns about the incomes that generated tax liabilities 
     in calendar years 1997 and 1998. But such information is 
     available only through 1996. Sufficient data on 1997 incomes 
     and tax liabilities will not be available until late this 
     year, and data on 1998 liabilities will not be available 
     until late 1999.
       This year will be the third year in a row in which actual 
     revenues exceed the amount CBO estimated in its winter 
     baseline projections. The unexpected revenues represented 1.7 
     percent of total revenues in 1996, 4.6 percent in 1997, and 
     are likely to represent 3.1 percent this year. Some of the 
     explanations for the additional revenues in the previous two 
     years could apply to the unexplained revenues in 1998. CBO 
     based its projections of 1996 revenues on reported NIPA 
     incomes that turned out to be too low and were later revised 
     upward. Incomes for higher-income tax-payers--particularly 
     income from partnerships--grew faster than expected. In 
     addition, the growth in deductions lagged behind incomes. Not 
     all of the factors affecting the unanticipated revenues in 
     1997 are known yet, but unexpectedly high realizations of 
     capital gains in calendar year 1996 clearly contributed to 
     them. The explanation for the additional revenues in 1998 is 
     likely to be some combination of these and other factors.
       How projections of future revenues should be adjusted to 
     reflect the outcome in 1998 depends on which of the factors 
     were actually at work, and to what extent. If incomes in the 
     recent past were higher than has been reported in the NIPA 
     data, that discrepancy would produce an effect that would be 
     expected to grow over time at roughly the rate of the 
     projected growth in incomes. Although the incomes of high-
     income taxpayers could continue to rise more rapidly than 
     average incomes, they could also grow at the same rate or 
     more slowly, producing a constant or declining effect on 
     future revenues. An increase in realizations of deferred 
     income that has accumulated over a number of years--such as 
     capital gains--often is a temporary phenomenon that could 
     even lead to lower revenues in the future.
       After assessing the possible alternatives, CBO has chosen a 
     middle course. its projections assume that the unexplained 
     revenues in 1998 continue over time, neither growing nor 
     fading away. That assumption, along with small changes 
     resulting from other adjustments, generates the technical 
     changes to revenues shown in Table 2. (Technical changes are 
     those that are not attributable to legislation or the 
     economy.)
       CBO also revised its revenue projections to reflect 
     legislation enacted since March, primarily the Internal 
     Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Those 
     changes increase revenues in some years and decrease them in 
     others but boost them by a total of $3 billion over the 1998-
     2008 period.
       Changes in CBO's economic projections affected revenues 
     much more substantially than did legislation. Over the next 
     few years, the revised economic assumptions increase revenues 
     by as much as $15 billion a year. But after 2002, the revised 
     outlook reduces revenues by amounts that grow to $43 billion 
     in 2008. Slightly higher real GDP and a not-quite-as-sharp 
     decline in corporate profits as a share of GDP boost 
     projected revenues. However, lower projected inflation pushes 
     down nominal GDP and incomes, resulting in a drop in revenues 
     that more than offsets those upward effects after 2002. 
     Because lower inflation also pushes down spending, that 
     reduction in revenues does not have a major impact on the 
     budget surplus.
       Changes in Projected Outlays. CBO anticipates that 1998 
     outlays will be $18 billion lower than projected in March. 
     About $5 billion of that reduction occurs in discretionary 
     spending. A supplemental appropriation bill enacted in May 
     boosted discretionary outlays by an estimated $1 billion, but 
     that increase was more than offset by slower-than-anticipated 
     spending for a number of programs. For instance, spending for 
     highway construction and maintenance is likely to be some 
     $1.5 billion less than was projected in March, largely 
     because of delays in providing funding for the spending 
     allowed by obligation limitations enacted for 1998. Spending 
     for disaster relief is now expected to be $1 billion less 
     than previously estimated, and reductions in projected 
     spending for a variety of natural resources and environmental 
     program total about $1 billion. Projected outlays for various 
     other discretionary programs have been reduced by smaller 
     amounts.
       Lower projected mandatory spending in 1998 accounts for the 
     remaining $12 billion in decreased outlays. More than $1 
     billion of that reflects economic effects--unemployment and 
     interest rates that are lower than previously anticipated. 
     Legislation enacted since March as had virtually no effect on 
     net mandatory spending. Thus, the remaining $11 billion 
     reduction in projected mandatory spending is attributable to 
     other, techinal factors. More than $3 billion of the 
     reduction is in Medicare, largely the result of a decision by 
     the Health Care Financing Administration to slow the 
     processing of payments to health care4 providers. Net outlays 
     have also been reduced by $1.8 billion because it appears 
     likely that proceeds from the sale of the United Stated 
     Enrichment Corporation (USEC) will be received in 1998 
     instead of in 1999, as CBO previously projected. CBO had 
     assumed that $1.5 billion would be paid in 1998 as part of 
     the settlement stemming from the 1996 Supreme Court decision 
     holding the federal government liable for losses resulting 
     from statutory changes in the treatment of certain savings 
     and loan assets. It now appears that almost none of the 
     payments will occur this year. Projected net spending for 
     credit programs of the Federal Housing Administration has 
     been reduced by $1.5 billion. Spending for a variety of other 
     mandatory programs has also been revised downward.
       Lower outlays in 1998 have not led to a reduction in 
     projected spending in 1999 through 2008. The 1998 reductions 
     largely reflect one-time events that either have no impact on 
     future spending or are likely to increase it. For example, 
     the slowdown in the processing of Medicare payments will 
     lower 1998 spending but will have little or no effect on 
     spending in future years, since the amount saved in any year 
     because of the delay will roughly equal the amount that is 
     carried over to that year from the previous year. And 
     collecting proceeds from the USEC sale in 1998 will clearly 
     increase net outlays in 1999 above what they would have been 
     if the proceeds had been collected in that year.
       Legislation enacted since March has increased projected 
     spending over the 1999-2008 period by a total of $23 billion. 
     Most of that increase stems from the additional spending 
     provided by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century, enacted in June. That legislation boosted total 
     discretionary spending allowed under the Deficit Control Act 
     by creating separate statutory caps on outlays for highways 
     and for mass transit while reducing the existing cap on 
     nondefense spending by an amount smaller than that allowed 
     under the new caps. That increase in discretionary spending 
     was only partially offset by reductions in mandatory spending 
     provided in the act (primarily from overturning a 1997 
     decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs that made it 
     easier for veterans suffering from smoking-related diseases 
     to qualify for compensation benefits).
       Changes in CBO's economic projections have reduced 
     projected spending by amounts that grow to $63 billion by 
     2008. A slight reduction in anticipated real long-term 
     interest rates produces savings in interest on the national 
     debt. Much more significant, however, are the reductions in 
     spending that result from lower projected inflation. Lower 
     inflation holds down the size of required cost-of-living 
     adjustments for benefit programs such as Social Security, 
     slows the growth of Medicare spending, and by lowering 
     nominal interest rates, curbs spending for interest on the 
     debt. Since CBO's projections assume that discretionary 
     spending will grow at the rate of inflation after the 
     statutory caps on such spending expire in 2002, the decline 
     in projected inflation also reduces discretionary spending 
     projected for 2003 through 2008. Lower inflation has a small 
     effect on the surplus, however, because it reduces revenues 
     by at least as much as outlays.
     Current revenue projections for 1998 through 2008
       CBO projects that revenues will grow about 3.5 percentage 
     points faster than the economy in 1998, reaching 20.5 percent 
     of GDP--a post-World War II high. In 1999, revenues are 
     projected to grow only slightly faster than the economy and 
     will equal 20.6 percent of GDP (see Table 3). After that, 
     revenues are expected to decline gradually as a percentage of 
     GDP through 2003 (when they will equal 19.8 percent) and then 
     grow at the same rate as the economy through 2008. Despite 
     the decline (as a percentage of GDP) from the 1999 high 
     point, the 19.8 percent level projected for revenues in 2003 
     through 2008 is equal to the level attained in 1997. Thus, 
     even with tax cuts in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that 
     reduce revenues by an estimated 0.3 percent of GDP a year, 
     revenues are projected to equal a larger share of GDP than in 
     any postwar year before 1997.

[[Page S8714]]



                             TABLE 3.--CBO BASELINE BUDGET PROJECTIONS, ASSUMING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS
                                                                    [By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Actual
                                    1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
 
Revenues:
    Individual income...........       737       821       850       867       892       933       968     1,014     1,065     1,116     1,170     1,227
    Corporate income............       182       190       196       201       201       204       210       218       228       239       250       262
    Social insurance............       539       577       604       629       652       678       706       737       772       805       839       871
    Other.......................       120       129       150       152       157       163       169       174       178       182       187       193
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................     1,579     1,717     1,801     1,848     1,903     1,978     2,053     2,142     2,243     2,342     2,446     2,553
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On-budget.............     1,187     1,296     1,359     1,388     1,425     1,481     1,534     1,601     1,675     1,750     1,829     1,911
          Off-budget............       392       421       442       460       478       497       519       541       568       592       618       643
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Outlays:
    Discretionary spending......       548       552       564       569       570       567       581       595       610       626       641       657
    Mandatory spending..........       896       942       997     1,052     1,115     1,165     1,234     1,303     1,389     1,443     1,531     1,626
    Offsetting receipts.........       -87       -84       -79       -84       -90      -101       -96       -99      -104      -109      -115      -121
    Net interest................       244       244       238       232       221       209       198       189       178       166       153       140
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................     1,601     1,654     1,721     1,769     1,817     1,840     1,918     1,988     2,073     2,126     2,211     2,303
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On-budget.............     1,291     1,337     1,396     1,434     1,470     1,480     1,545     1,601     1,670     1,706     1,774     1,846
          Off-budget............       311       317       325       335       347       359       373       387       402       419       437       456
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Deficit (-) or Surplus..........       -22        63        80        79        86       139       136       154       170       217       236       251
    On-budget deficit (-) or          -103       -41       -37       -46       -45         1       -10     (\1\)         5        44        55        64
     surplus....................
    Off-budget surplus..........        81       104       117       125       131       138       146       154       165       173       181       186
Debt held by the Public.........     3,771     3,717     3,655     3,589     3,518     3,395     3,275     3,136     2,961     2,779     2,557     2,320
Memorandum:
    Gross Domestic Product......     7,971     8,389     8,758     9,124     9,485     9,904    10,368    10,845    11,334    11,835    12,354    12,891
 
                                                        AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
 
Revenues:
    Individual income...........       9.3       9.8       9.7       9.5       9.4       9.4       9.3       9.3       9.4       9.4       9.5       9.5
    Corporate income............       2.3       2.3       2.2       2.2       2.1       2.1       2.0       2.0       2.0       2.0       2.0       2.0
    Social insurance............       6.8       6.9       6.9       6.9       6.9       6.8       6.8       6.8       6.8       6.8       6.8       6.8
    Other.......................       1.5       1.5       1.7       1.7       1.7       1.6       1.6       1.6       1.6       1.5       1.5       1.5
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................      19.8      20.5      20.6      20.3      20.1      20.0      19.8      19.8      19.8      19.8      19.8      19.8
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On-budget.............      14.9      15.4      15.5      15.2      15.0      15.0      14.8      14.8      14.8      14.8      14.8      14.8
          Off-budget............       4.9       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0       5.0
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Outlays:
    Discretionary Spending......       6.9       6.6       6.4       6.2       6.0       5.7       5.6       5.5       5.4       5.3       5.2       5.1
    Mandatory Spending..........      11.2      11.2      11.4      11.5      11.8      11.8      11.9      12.0      12.3      12.2      12.4      12.6
    Offsetting Receipts.........      -1.1      -1.0      -0.9      -0.9      -0.9      -1.0      -0.9      -0.9      -0.9      -0.9      -0.9      -0.9
    Net interest................       3.1       2.9       2.7       2.5       2.3       2.1       1.9       1.7       1.6       1.4       1.2       1.1
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................      20.1      19.7      19.7      19.4      19.2      18.6      18.5      18.3      18.3      18.0      17.9      17.9
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          On-budget.............      16.2      15.9      15.9      15.7      15.5      14.9      14.9      14.8      14.7      14.4      14.4      14.3
          Off-budget............       3.9       3.8       3.7       3.7       3.7       3.6       3.6       3.6       3.6       3.5       3.5       3.5
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Deficit (-) or Surplus..........      -0.3       0.8       0.9       0.9       0.9       1.4       1.3       1.4       1.5       1.8       1.9       1.9
    On-budget deficit (-) or          -1.3      -0.5      -0.4      -0.5      -0.5     (\2\)      -0.1     (\2\)     (\2\)       0.4       0.4       0.5
     surplus....................
    Off-budget surplus..........       1.0       1.2       1.3       1.4       1.4       1.4       1.4       1.4       1.5       1.5       1.5       1.4
Debt held by the Public.........      47.3      44.3      41.7      39.3      37.1      34.3      31.6      28.9      26.3      23.5      20.7      18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deficit of less than $500 million.
\2\ Deficit or surplus of less than 0.05 percent of GDP.
 
Source: Congress Budget Office.

       Although CBO assumes that the unexplained increase in 1998 
     revenues carries over into 1999--thus boosting revenues to an 
     all-time high of 20.6 percent of GDP--the projected growth 
     rate of revenues drops sharply, from 8.7 percent in 1998 to 
     4.9 percent in 1999. That drop is attributable in part to 
     economic factors--the growth in taxable incomes is projected 
     to slow to 4.1 percent in 1999, down from 5.8 percent in 
     1998. The rest comes from assuming that the unexplained 
     revenue effect will not increase in 1999. If, instead, that 
     effect increased substantially, revenues would rise at a much 
     faster rate. However, if the unexplained revenues resulted 
     largely from temporary factors in 1998, the rate of growth of 
     revenues in 1999 would decline even more precipitously.
       Even if revenues continue to grow rapidly in 1999, CBO 
     believes the rate of growth will eventually slow. Because of 
     the scheduled tax cuts provided by the Taxpayer Relief Act, 
     and because corporate profits are expected to fall as a share 
     of GDP, CBO projects that over the next 10 years, the average 
     growth rate of revenues will be slightly lower than the 
     growth rate of the economy. Revenues are projected to grow at 
     the same rate as GDP from 2003 through 2008. During that 
     period, individual income taxes will grow faster than GDP 
     because individual income tax brackets are indexed for 
     inflation but not for changes in real income, which boosts 
     the effective tax rate as real income grows. But excise taxes 
     grow more slowly than GDP because many rates are fixed in 
     nominal terms.
     Current outlay projections for 1997 through 2008
       In dollar terms, total outlays are projected to grow from 
     $1,654 billion in 1998 to $2,303 billion in 2008. But as a 
     percentage of GDP, they are projected to decline throughout 
     the period--from 19.7 percent of GDP in 1998 to 17.9 percent 
     in 2008.
       Net interest, which was the faster-growing category of 
     spending in the 1980s, is now projected to decline from $244 
     billion (2.9 percent of GDP) in 1998 to $140 billion (1.1 
     percent of GDP) in 2008 as projected surpluses reduce the 
     stock of debt held by the public by $1.4 trillion (see Table 
     4). Discretionary spending is projected to increase from $552 
     billion to $657 billion over that period but to shrink 
     relative to the size of the economy--from 6.6 percent of GDP 
     to 5.1 percent. By contrast, mandatory spending is expected 
     to increase both in nominal terms (from $942 billion to 
     $1.626 billion) and as a percentage of GDP (from 11.2 percent 
     of 12.6 percent). That increase comes from both means-tested 
     and non-means-tested programs, with Medicaid and Medicare 
     leading the way (see Table 5).

                                              Table 4.--CBO PROJECTIONS OF INTEREST COSTS AND FEDERAL DEBT
                                                                    [By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Actual
                                    1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NET INTEREST OUTLAYS (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
 
Interest on Public Debt (Gross         356       363       363       365       363       360       357       357       357       356       354       352
 interest) \1\..................
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Interest Received by Trust Fund:
    Social Security.............       -41       -46       -51       -57       -64       -70       -77       -84       -91       -99      -108      -117
    Other trust fund \2\........       -64       -67       -67       -70       -72       -73       -75       -77       -79       -81       -84       -86
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................      -105      -113      -118      -128      -136      -143      -151      -161      -170      -180      -191      -202

[[Page S8715]]

 
Other Interest \3\..............        -7        -6        -7        -6        -7        -7        -8        -8        -9        -9       -10       -10
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................       244       244       238       232       221       209       198       189       178       166       153       140
 
                                                FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
 
Gross Federal Debt..............     5,370     5,475     5,594     5,721     5,845     5,927     6,021     6,102     6,174     6,205     6,223     6,222
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by Government
 Accounts:
    Social Security.............       631       736       853       978     1,108     1,246     1,392     1,547     1,712     1,885     2,066     2,252
    Other accounts \2\..........       968     1,022     1,087     1,154     1,219     1,286     1,354     1,419     1,481     1,541     1,600     1,650
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................     1,599     1,757     1,939     2,132     2,327     2,532     2,746     2,966     3,193     3,426     3,665     3,902
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by the Public.........     3,771     3,717     3,655     3,589     3,518     3,395     3,275     3,136     2,981     2,779     2,557     2,320
Debt Subject to Limit \4\.......     5,328     5,437     5,557     5,685     5,810     5,893     5,988     6,072     6,145     6,178     6,196     6,196
 
                                                           FEDERAL DEBT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
 
Debt Held by the Public.........      47.3      44.3      41.7      39.3      37.1      34.3      31.6      28.9      26.3      23.5      20.7      18.0
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.
 
Note.--Projections of interest and debt assume that discretionary spending will equal the statutory caps that are in effect through 2002 and will grow
  at the rate of inflation in succeeding years.
 
\1\ Excludes interest costs of debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury (primarily the Tennessee Valley Authority).
\2\ Principally Civil Service Retirement, Military Retirement, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and the Highway and the Airport and Airway Trust Funds.
\3\ Primarily interest on loans to the public.
\4\ Differs from the gross federal debt primarily because most debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury is excluded from the debt limit.


                                 TABLE 5.--CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR MANDATORY SPENDING, INCLUDING DEPOSIT INSURANCE
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Actual
                                    1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  MEANS-TESTED PROGRAMS
 
Medicaid........................        96       101       109       115       123       131       141       152       165       179       194       210
State Children's Health              (\1\)         0         1         3         4         4         4         4         4         4         4         5
 Insurance Program..............
Food Stamps.....................        23        21        22        23        25        26        27        28        29        30        30        31
Supplemental Security Income....        27        27        28        29        31        33        35        37        42        41        39        45
Family Support \2\..............        17        18        21        22        23        23        24        24        25        25        25        26
Veterans' Pensions..............         3         3         3         3         3         3         4         4         4         4         4         4
Child Nutrition.................         8         9         9        10        10        11        11        12        12        13        13        14
Earned Income Tax Credit \3\....        22        24        26        27        28        29        29        30        30        31        31        32
Student Loans...................         4         3         4         4         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         6
Other...........................         4         4         5         5         6         6         6         7         7         8         8         9
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................       203       209       228       243       257       270       285       302       323       339       355       381
 
                                                                NON-MEANS-TESTED PROGRAMS
 
Social Security.................       362       376       389       406       425       446       467       489       513       539       567       597
Medicare........................       208       214       230       243       266       275       302       325       359       368       406       435
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................       570       590       620       649       691       720       768       814       873       907       973     1,033
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Other Retirement and Disability:
    Federal civilian \4\........        46        48        50        52        55        57        60        63        67        71        74        78
    Military....................        30        31        32        33        34        35        36        37        38        39        40        41
    Other.......................         4         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         5
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................        81        84        86        90        94        98       102       106       110       115       120       125
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Unemployment Compensation.......        21        19        21        22        25        26        27        29        30        31        32        33
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Deposit Insurance...............       -14        -4        -4        -3        -2        -2        -1        -1        -1        -1        -1        -1
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Other Programs:
    Veterans' benefits \5\......        19        21        21        22        22        23        23        24        26        25        23        25
    Farm price and income                6         8         7         6         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         5
     supports...................
    Social services.............         5         5         5         6         5         5         5         5         5         5         5         5
    Credit reform liquidating          -10        -7     (\6\)        -6        -6        -6        -6        -6        -6        -6        -6        -6
     accounts...................
    Other.......................        17        17        14        24        25        26        26        26        24        24        25        26
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................        37        44        47        52        51        52        53        53        54        52        51        55
                                 =======================================================================================================================
      Other.....................       694       733       769       810       859       895       949     1,001     1,066     1,105     1,176     1,245
 
                                                                          TOTAL
 
All Mandatory Spending..........       896       942       997     1,052     1,115     1,165     1,234     1,303     1,389     1,443     1,531     1,626
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State's Children's Health Insurance Program was created as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
\2\ Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Famly Support, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills,
  Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs, Child Care Entitlements to States, and Children's Research and Technical Assistance.
\3\ Includes outlays from the child credit enacted in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
\4\ Includes Civil Service, Foreign Service, Coast Guard, and other retirement programs, and annuitants' health benefits.
\5\ Includes veterans' compensation, readjustment benefits, life insurance, and housing programs.
\6\ Less than $500 million.
 
Note.--Spending for benefit programs shown above generally excludes administrative costs, which are discretionary. Spending for Medicare also excludes
  premiums, which are considered offsetting receipts.
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

                               conclusion

       An unexpected increase in revenues in 1998 has virtually 
     ensured that the total federal budget will be balanced for 
     the first time in almost 30 years, and nothing currently 
     visible on the horizon seems to threaten a return to deficits 
     in the near term if policies remain unchanged. However, if 
     any of a number of assumptions that CBO has made turn out to 
     be off the mark, budget outcomes could be quite different 
     than projected even if there are no changes in policy. for 
     instance, if CBO's economic projections prove to be just a 
     little too optimistic, surpluses could be much lower than 
     anticipated, while a recession similar to that of the early 
     1990s could even produce a deficit. Likewise, surpluses could 
     be lower than projected if the factors that produced the 
     unexpected revenues in 1998 fade away quickly. Of course, it 
     is also possible that the economy will be more robust than 
     expected or that the unexplained revenue effect will grow 
     over time, in which case the budget outlook is much brighter 
     than CBO currently projects. In the face of those 
     uncertainties, the current budget projections represent CBO's 
     estimate of the middle of the range of likely outcomes.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. These are the updated figures:
  In 1998, the trust fund surplus is $105 billion in Social Security; 
in 1999, $117 billion; in the year 2000, $126 billion; in the year 
2001, $130 billion; in 2002, $138 billion; in the year 2003, $146 
billion; in

[[Page S8716]]

the year 2004, $154 billion; in 2005, $165 billion; in 2006, $173 
billion; in 2007, $181 billion; and in 2008, $186 billion.
  So what you see in the projection here with respect to so-called 
surpluses that are now being quoted by the President, distinguished 
Members of the House of Representatives, distinguished Members of this 
particular body, on page 11 of the Congressional Budget Office report, 
you will find that what we actually are spending over the 10 years in 
order to get down to a deficit in the year 2008--they finally reduce 
the deficit down according to these magnificent projections over a 10-
year period--the deficit is down to $1 billion by using $1.621 trillion 
of Social Security trust funds.
  Last evening--let me compliment the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota--Mr. Grams talked at length about the various countries and 
how they approach the Social Security problem. He referred in several 
instances to the Social Security problem--this is just late last 
evening--to the ``looming crisis,'' the ``coming crisis,'' the ``fiscal 
crisis.'' And most of what he says, by the way, I agree with, but there 
is no real crisis in Social Security if we only stop spending the 
money.
  The problem is that the politicians, both Republican and Democrat, 
see the Social Security trust fund as a cookie jar they can stick their 
hands in to get their favorite programs. Look here, they think, I can 
get my children's program; oh, no, I get my marriage penalty tax 
reform; I get the corporate taxes here; I get the estate taxes over 
here; I get another capital gains tax there; oh, no, I want to spend it 
for Medicare. This is just the biggest scandal I have ever seen, 
because that crowd up there in the gallery--namely, the media--will not 
report the truth.
  I hope they look right at the Congressional Budget Office report from 
the 15th of this month, just a week ago. These are the supposedly 
nonpartisan figures. On page 11 you will see that the deficit goes up, 
in 1998, to $105 billion; and then, in 1999, to $119 billion; in the 
year 2000, $127 billion; and the year 2001, $124 billion.
  I remember back in 1993, when we on this side of the aisle passed the 
Budget Act, the Republicans claimed that if we passed that particular 
1993 budget plan, the economy would go into a nose dive; there would be 
a depression. My friend on the Republican side of the aisle, the 
chairman of the Finance subcommittee, Senator Packwood of Oregon, said 
he would give us his house if this thing worked. Our distinguished 
friend in the House, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman 
John Kasich, said he would change parties and become a Democrat if that 
thing worked.
  It has worked. It has worked, Mr. President, until now. That is why 
I, the Senator from Wisconsin, and other Senators here wanted to be 
heard on this. Because what is really occurring is, everybody is 
dealing out the Social Security trust fund to various programs in an 
illegal fashion--certainly in an immoral fashion. They are running 
around telling everybody, you can count on Social Security, except for 
the baby boomers. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation, it 
is the Members of Congress on the Senate floor and on the floor of the 
House. We, willy-nilly, are savaging, ravaging, looting Social 
Security. And there is not any question that the law disallows this.
  I appreciate my distinguished chairman from New Hampshire allowing me 
this moment. I ask unanimous consent the Greenspan Commission report of 
1983, which I worked on, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Social Security and the Unified Budget

       (21) A majority of the members of the National Commission 
     recommends that the operations of the OASI, DI, HI, and SMI 
     Trust Funds should be removed from the unified budget. Some 
     of those who do not support this recommendation believe that 
     the situation would be adequately handled if the operations 
     of the Social Security program were displayed within the 
     present unified Federal budget as a separate budget function, 
     apart from other income security programs.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The majority of the members of this commission--I am 
just paraphrasing--stated that the Social Security trust funds should 
be removed from the unified budget. You will see that in report there.
  When they submitted the Greenspan report, the Commission said to 
remove Social Security from the unified budget. I struggled, as a 
member of the Budget Committee, for almost 7 years to get it done. But 
I kept moving. I kept trying different ways. I tried on Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings and that particular budget approach. But in the summer of 
1990--that is why I can remember November 5--before the Budget 
Committee, by a vote of 20 to 1, we removed it from the unified budget. 
We got it on the floor of the Senate in October, and 98 Senators--if 
any Senator who was here in October is still here, any Senator who was 
here in October of 1990--they voted just that way, to remove it from 
the unified budget.
  I will get, later, the vote record and we will put that in the 
Record. I am not trying to embarrass or account for any Senators, but I 
am trying to emphasize that this body has pledged time and time again 
to save Social Security first and to stop looting the fund.
  So we had 98 Senators vote for that, and President George Bush signed 
it into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 
printed in the Record just that 1-page law, right here, subtitle (c) of 
the Budget Act on Social Security, 13301. I ask unanimous consent to 
have it printed in the Record.

                      Subtitle C--Social Security

     SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional 
     Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and 
     revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance program established under title II of the Social 
     Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals 
     required by this subsection or in any other surplus or 
     deficit totals required by this title.''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, ``Exclusion of Social Security from all 
budgets''--this is the formative statutory law. We have been talking 
about criminals, while many members of this body commit a crime every 
time they discuss budget surpluses. They are not obeying their own--

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Federal Old Age Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts or deficit or surplus for the purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the U.S. Government as submitted by the 
     President,
       (2) the Congressional budget,
       (3) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985.

  That was Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. We have been struggling a long time, 
but we cannot get the truth out. We cannot get the truth out.
  One of the deterrents to the truth is the common belief that every 
President since Lyndon Johnson has used Social Security trust funds for 
the general budget. This is not true, Mr. President. It was not so. No, 
sir. President Lyndon Johnson did not use Social Security in order to 
balance the budget in 1968-69. I was there. In fact, over on the House 
side we had the conference. George Mahon was the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. We called over and asked Marvin Watson and 
said, ``Ask the President if we can cut another $5 billion.'' President 
Johnson said, ``Cut it,'' and we balanced the budget. President Lyndon 
Baines Johnson was very conscientious about guns and butter. He was 
leaving office, and he did not want to leave a heritage of busted 
budgets and the charge that he had the Great Society and the war in 
Vietnam and he could not afford them.
  Mr. President, do you know what the budget was then? It was $178 
billion for all purposes of Government, defense and domestic. Do you 
know what the interest cost on the national debt is? The interest cost 
on the national debt now is going to be $363 billion, according to this 
recent report here--a billion dollars a day.

[[Page S8717]]

  Do you know what the interest cost on the national debt was when 
President Johnson balanced the budget back then? The interest cost was 
$16 billion. That was interest costs for 200 years of history and the 
cost of all the wars, up from the Revolution right on through World War 
I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. And it was only a debt that 
required taxes, interest costs, to be paid of $16 billion.
  Now we are up there to almost $5.7 trillion without the cost of a 
war. It has gone right on through the ceiling, a billion a day, $363 
billion in interest costs. That is $350 billion more than what we had. 
And we are spending the money. This is pure waste.
  Many say government is too big. I agree, it is too big. But the 
biggest thing in the budget is the interest costs on the national debt. 
It is bigger than Social Security, bigger than defense, bigger than the 
domestic budget. We keep spending for nothing. If we had the extra $350 
billion since President Johnson's balanced budget--the defense budget 
is only $250 billion--we could double the defense budget: Instead of 13 
aircraft carriers, we will give you 26 aircraft carriers; instead of 16 
divisions, we will give you 32 divisions. Double it, and still have 
$100 billion for research for cancer, NIH, for education, for the 
environment, for anything--for cleanups, for agriculture. We have the 
money, because we are spending it on interest payments.
  Why? Because Congress is not minding the store. It has a wonderful 
cookie jar it takes from by the billions every year. And over the next 
10 years, Congress will continue to steal from it. Over the 5-year 
period, we are going to have deficits of $557 billion--$557 billion, 
and we are talking about balancing the budget.
  Each year, every year, instead of a surplus, there is going to be a 
balance, and we keep going, going to it. In order to verify this, I ask 
unanimous consent that this chart of the budget realities be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Annual
                                                                Unified       Actual                  increases
                                    U.S. budget    Borrowed     deficit      deficit      National   in spending
         President (year)           (outlays in  trust funds   with trust    without        debt         for
                                     billions)    (billions)     funds     trust funds   (billions)    interest
                                                               (billions)   (billions)                (billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
    1945..........................         92.7  ...........        -47.6  ...........        260.1  ...........
    1946..........................         55.2          5.4        -15.9        -10.9        271.0  ...........
    1947..........................         34.5         -5.0          4.0        +13.9        257.1  ...........
    1948..........................         29.8         -9.9         11.8         +5.1        252.0  ...........
    1949..........................         38.8          6.7          0.6         -0.6        252.6  ...........
    1950..........................         42.6          1.2         -3.1         -4.3        256.9  ...........
    1951..........................         45.5          1.2          6.1         +1.6        255.3  ...........
    1952..........................         67.7          4.5         -1.5         -3.8        259.1  ...........
    1953..........................         76.1          2.3         -6.5         -6.9        266.0  ...........
Eisenhower:
    1954..........................         70.9          0.4         -1.2         -4.8        270.8  ...........
    1955..........................         68.4          3.6         -3.0         -3.6        274.4  ...........
    1956..........................         70.6          0.6          3.9         +1.7        272.7  ...........
    1957..........................         76.6          2.2          3.4         +0.4        272.3  ...........
    1958..........................         82.4          3.0         -2.8         -7.4        279.7  ...........
    1959..........................         92.1          4.6        -12.8         -7.8        287.5  ...........
    1960..........................         92.2         -5.0          0.3         -3.0        290.5  ...........
    1961..........................         97.7          3.3         -3.3         -2.1        292.6  ...........
Kennedy:
    1962..........................        106.8         -1.2         -7.1        -10.3        302.9          9.1
    1963..........................        111.3          3.2         -4.8         -7.4        310.3          9.9
Johnson:
    1964..........................        118.5          2.6         -5.9         -5.8        316.1         10.7
    1965..........................        118.2         -0.1         -1.4         -6.2        322.3         11.3
    1966..........................        134.5          4.8         -3.7         -6.2        328.5         12.0
    1967..........................        157.5          2.5         -8.6        -11.9        340.4         13.4
    1968..........................        178.1          3.3        -25.2        -28.3        368.7         14.6
    1969..........................        183.6          3.1          3.2         +2.9        365.8         16.6
Nixon:
    1970..........................        195.6          0.3         -2.8        -15.1        380.9         19.3
    1971..........................        210.2         12.3        -23.0        -27.3        408.2         21.0
    1972..........................        230.7          4.3        -23.4        -27.7        435.9         21.8
    1973..........................        245.7          4.3        -14.9        -30.4        466.3         24.2
    1974..........................        269.4         15.5         -6.1        -17.6        483.9         29.3
Ford:
    1975..........................        332.3         11.5        -53.2        -58.0        541.9         32.7
    1976..........................        371.8          4.8        -73.7        -87.1        629.0         37.1
Carter:
    1977..........................        409.2         13.4        -53.7        -77.4        706.4         41.9
    1978..........................        458.7         23.7        -59.2        -70.2        776.6         48.7
    1979..........................        503.5         11.0        -40.7        -52.9        829.5         59.9
    1980..........................        590.9         12.2        -73.8        -79.6        909.1         74.8
Reagan:
    1981..........................        678.2          5.8        -79.0        -85.7        994.8         95.5
    1982..........................        745.8          6.7       -128.0       -142.5      1,137.3        117.2
    1983..........................        808.4         14.5       -207.8       -234.4      1,371.7        128.7
    1984..........................        851.8         26.6       -185.4       -193.0      1,564.7        153.9
    1985..........................        946.4          7.6       -212.3       -252.8      1,817.5        178.9
    1986..........................        990.3         40.5       -221.2       -303.1      2,120.6        190.3
    1987..........................      1,003.9         81.9       -149.8       -225.5      2,346.1        195.3
    1988..........................      1,064.1         75.7       -155.2       -255.2      2,601.3        214.1
Bush:
    1989..........................      1,143.2        100.0       -152.5       -266.7      2,868.3        240.9
    1990..........................      1,252.7        114.2       -221.2       -338.6      3,206.6        264.7
    1991..........................      1,323.8        117.4       -269.4       -391.9      3,598.5        285.5
    1992..........................      1,380.9        122.5       -290.4       -403.6      4,002.1        292.3
Clinton:
    1993..........................      1,408.2        113.2       -255.0       -349.3      4,351.4        292.5
    1994..........................      1,460.6         94.3       -203.1       -292.3      4,643.7        296.3
    1995..........................      1,514.6         89.2       -163.9       -277.3      4,921.0        332.4
    1996..........................      1,560.3        113.4       -107.3       -260.9      5,181.9        344.0
    1997..........................      1,601.3        153.6        -22.3       -187.8      5,369.7        355.8
    1998..........................      1,654.0        168.3         63.0       -105.3      5,475.0        363.0
    1999..........................      1,721.0        199.0         80.0       -119.0      5,594.0       363.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government FY 1998; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1998 Economic and Budget
  Outlook.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  This takes us from President Truman, in 1945, down to President 
Clinton's 1999 budget and the one we passed in the U.S. Senate.
  You will see when President Bush left town that the actual deficit 
was $403.6 billion. That was how much we were spending. In 1993, we 
passed the budget act I mentioned earlier, and we brought the actual 
deficit down to $349.3 billion. Then, in 1994, to $292.3 billion. In 
1995, to $277.3 billion. In 1996,

[[Page S8718]]

we reduced the deficit down to $260.9 billion. In 1997, to $187.8 
billion. In 1998, it is down to $105.3 billion. You can see in 6 years, 
we have gone down, down, down, down.
  The Congress and the President should be credited. We have a 
wonderful economy, the lowest interest rates, lowest unemployment rate, 
the highest business investment, more home ownership in America, 
consumer confidence at its highest, stock market going through the 
roof. We acknowledge that and take credit for it. We participated in 
it.
  Just when we ought to stay the course and continue to reduce the 
actual deficit, we have an election coming up in November. Oh, boy, 
they see that cookie jar, and they are breaking ranks now. They voted 
for this particular amendment unanimously in the Budget Committee. They 
might want a second-degree amendment. I just want to get an actual 
vote, because colleagues on this side want an actual vote so we find 
out where they all stand.
  I think they can outmaneuver us, there is no question about that, if 
they don't want to vote. But they can't change this record. We have a 
situation where instead of reducing the deficit, they want to go back 
and start to increase deficits, as I related, again and again for each 
year for 5 years running.
  They are all talking about surpluses as far as the eye can see. Mr. 
President, the surpluses as far as the eye can see are the Social 
Security surpluses. These are the moneys that belong, under the law--
Greenspan said put it off budget. We put it off budget. We continue to 
spend the money. I keep raising the points of order, and they just 
ignore it and go on.
  Right now the word is, ``Wait a minute. If we vote for this, you 
can't get your tax cuts.'' Well, come, you can't get your tax cuts, 
because the only way you can get your tax cuts is to loot the moneys 
out of Social Security. That is how you get tax cuts. That is how you 
get all of these programs that increase spending.
  In order to do it, they want to use $105 billion of Social Security 
in 1998. In order to get the tax cuts, how do they justify that list 
the distinguished speaker put out? He had capital gains, he had estate 
tax elimination, he had the marriage penalty, he had tuition tax 
credits for private education--he just got it all in and said, ``Just 
watch them vote against that, and we'll go after them and say, `Tax-
and-spend, tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend.' '' The truth of the matter 
is, he is the one increasing taxes, because as you do this, as you loot 
the Social Security fund, the debt increases, as we see by the CBO 
record; and as the debt increases, spending for interest goes up. It 
cannot be avoided. It is going to be spent. That is exactly what is 
going on. It is fiscal cancer.
  Let me say a word about that. I was on the Grace Commission, Mr. 
President, and worked with Peter Grace. We were against waste, fraud 
and abuse. At the very time we put out this magnificent volume, which 
was 2 inches thick, of our wonderful work of eliminating waste, fraud 
and abuse, we were creating the biggest waste in the history of 
Government; namely, deficits and the national debt. We cut revenues, we 
increased spending, we didn't pay for it, and the debt went up, up, and 
away. Whereby it was a little less than a trillion dollars when we 
first started with President Reagan--it was $903 billion at that 
particular time--it has gone up now with 12 years of Reagan-Bush to 
over $5 trillion. Of course, it has gradually gone up even though we 
have been reducing the deficit each year. At this minute, we will 
spend, if we approve the budget that has been approved in the Senate 
and what they confirmed over on the House side, over $100 billion more 
than we take in.
  On April 15, we are supposed to complete the budget work. I have been 
on the Budget Committee since we instituted it. Modestly, I say I used 
to be the chairman, and we did reduce spending at one time. Now it is 
July, and we haven't even had a conference. They appointed everybody in 
the conference committee from both budget groups, but they can't 
confirm because they can't face up to each other and say, ``Wait a 
minute. Somebody is going to tell the secret that the only way there 
are any surpluses around here is the budget trust fund surplus that we 
have to loot in order to get all of these tax cuts, children's 
programs, Medicare costs,'' and everything else of that kind. The media 
doesn't even report it. It is a scandal.
  There it is. We started the biggest waste at that particular time. 
You have to understand why this is given sanction even in the business 
community. I have argued with Alan Greenspan about this one. He loves 
the unified budget. That business crowd doesn't want the sharp elbows 
of Government crowding in to the bond market running up interest costs, 
running up inflation. They don't serve in public office. They don't 
have to face the statutes, laws and policies that we enact as Members 
of the Congress. They say, ``Oh, it will be taken care sooner or 
later.'' They go ahead with the unified budget pointing, if you please, 
Mr. President, to the difference between the corporate economy and the 
country's economy.
  The corporate economy, of course, is higher profits. The country's 
economy is for the good of society. And they don't necessarily meld. Or 
it is good for the corporate economy for NAFTA to go like gangbusters 
down in Mexico. That is where General Motors is headed with that 
strike. Actually, Honda exports more cars than General Motors this 
minute in the United States of America. We are going out of business.
  I have lost 24,000 textile and apparel jobs since NAFTA. Those are 
good jobs. It is an industry that under President Kennedy we found out 
is necessary to the national security. After steel, it was the second 
most important. It was a finding in the sense you couldn't send the 
soldiers to war in a Japanese uniform. You had to have clothing.
  Seventy-five percent of the clothing within the view of us in the 
U.S. Senate is imported. We are at the water's edge of whether or not 
we are going to have that industry.
  The other industry is going down, because in the corporate culture, 
if you can save--it is shown that you can save a good 20 percent of 
your labor costs, 20 percent of volume, by moving to a low-wage, 
offshore country.
  So if you have $500 million in sales, you can move offshore. Just 
keep your corporate office, your sales folks, but move your 
manufacturing offshore and you make $100 million. Or you can continue 
to stay here and work your own employees--they call them associates 
now--and go broke because your competition is gone. The multinationals 
could care less. They are in the business of making money. We are in 
the business of making a good and strong economy.
  And America's strength is like a three-legged stool. You have on the 
one leg your values. That is strong. We sacrificed to go to Somalia. We 
are now out in Bosnia. No one questions the values of the United States 
of America. We have the second leg, of course, which is the military. 
That is strong. But the third leg, the economic leg, is fractured, and 
intentionally.
  That is the corporate culture, corporate economy--move on down to 
Mexico. And they promised at the time, of course, that we were going to 
increase the balance of trade that we had of $5 billion. Now it is $15 
billion negative. They said we are going to create 200,000 jobs. We 
lost 400,000. They said it was going to solve the immigration problem. 
It has gotten worse. They said it was going to solve the drug problem. 
It has gotten worse. The actual Mexican worker is taking home 20 
percent less pay. So they have suffered.
  The $12 billion that we paid in there to keep it from going totally 
under has gone back to Wall Street. It should have gone into a common 
market approach where we could have developed in Mexico--and I would 
vote for it this afternoon--the institutions of a free economy, a 
revered judiciary, the right of labor to strike, the corporate 
interests of owning property, the right of appeal, and those kinds of 
things.
  Over in Europe, the European countries in the common market approach 
taxed themselves for 4 years, $5 billion before they allowed Greece and 
Portugal.
  So what happens? We use the free market approach, which is good for 
the corporate economy, but not the country's economy. And therein is 
where we are really headed with the fiscal cancer that is eating us 
alive here, because you have $1 billion a day. We are going

[[Page S8719]]

to meet tomorrow, and we are going to spend another $1 billion for 
nothing. We are going to meet on Friday, and we are going to spend 
another billion in this Nation's Capital for nothing. We can meet on 
Saturday, and we are going to spend another $1 billion for nothing. We 
can meet on Sunday, and we are going to spend, like it or not, another 
$1 billion for nothing--total waste.
  Here we were trying to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, yet under the 
Grace Commission we instituted the biggest waste. I thought finally--
finally--we had gotten on it. We not only were bringing down the 
deficit, but in his message to the Congress, the President of the 
United States said, ``Save Social Security first.'' And every 
Congressman and every Senator said, ``Amen, brother. That's what we 
want to do.'' Everybody went off the floor and had their little 
interviews. ``We've got to save Social Security.''
  So we go into the Budget Committee, and we get a vote and unanimously 
vote for it. But now conferences are ongoing with respect to the 
parliamentary maneuvers to make sure that you do not vote. They can 
have a second-degree amendment. We will come back later on with other 
bills. We will have our chance. Oh, we will just nag them and never get 
to a vote, but we will point it out from now until October: ``Save 
Social Security first.''
  There is no surplus. This country has fiscal cancer. If you keep 
spending up, up and away, interest costs on the national debt will 
mount, with the debt increasing each year for 10 years running. These 
are not surpluses as far as the eye can see, but rather deficits as far 
as the eye can see.
  And this particular report of the Congressional Budget Office--if 
that is the case, Mr. President, you can see at a glance that 
Congresses that are going to be meeting in the next century--for the 
millennium and for the next century--we will meet, we will put a little 
bit in Social Security, we will put a little bit in defense, and a big 
bit in interest costs on the national debt, and we will not have any 
Government.
  Now, judging by their Contract with America, that is what they want: 
to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Housing, the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. Just get rid of highways--they do not even want 
the highway system. They objected around here and said it busted the 
budget when we used highway moneys for highways. Very interesting.
  We passed a highway bill, and all we used was the gas taxes for 
highways. But, oh, no, they wanted to rob the highway fund for foreign 
aid or any other particular project that they had in mind.
  Because of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator 
Chafee, we changed that. I commend him for doing it. We finally agreed 
that after this year we are going to spend highway gas taxes, highway 
money on highways. Boy, I am telling you, just to get something normal, 
decent and understandable here in the U.S. Congress is next to 
impossible.
  But there it is. We have a resolution that says, ``Save Social 
Security first.'' Now, they can get into parliamentary maneuvers. I 
guess one thing is: Move to commit the bill, like they did earlier. 
They can do another one to commit the bill with instructions and hide 
behind it.
  But I can tell you, whatever the maneuver is, the issue is clear; it 
is almost undebatable. I want them to say, ``I am wrong on the figures 
I have given.'' I want them to say the CBO is wrong on the figures or 
whatever. I want them to get up here and debate it and say, ``No. It is 
necessary to spend the Social Security trust fund.'' That is all I want 
to hear them say. But I do not believe you are going to hear a Senator 
in the Senate say that. They all are going to hide behind the 
maneuvering here and second degrees and third degrees, and move to 
recommit, and everything else possible; and we will get a rollcall on 
that. And that will be the call on whether or not you want to continue 
to loot Social Security.
  I know my distinguished friend from New Hampshire does not want to do 
it. There is Senator Feingold there. Under the unanimous consent, of 
course, we agreed that the distinguished leader of this particular 
bill, our chairman, is to regain the floor, but I hope the other 
Senators here who, of course, are cosponsoring--and I put this up so we 
can actually get a vote on a sense of the Senate.
  And don't tell me that this is not relevant to State-Justice-
Commerce. It is relevant to the fiscal state of the United States. I 
can tell you that now. We do have fiscal cancer. The media is not 
paying any attention to it. They are all hiding under the unified, 
unified, unified. It is against the law. I have given you the law. It 
is against policies. It is against the vote of the Budget Committee.
  But there is a quiet discussion. I listened on the weekend shows, and 
again and again they were talking about surpluses here, surpluses 
there, including, of course, the Administrator here of the 
Congressional Budget Office. If we have that report--I would like to 
refer just one second to that particular report so you can see even she 
disobeys the law. You cannot get even the Congressional Budget Office--
the conclusion, on page 13:

       An unexpected increase in revenues in 1998 has virtually 
     ensured the total Federal budget will be balanced for the 
     first time in almost 30 years.

  False, according to her own records, her own figures.
  The previous pages showed that is not the case. On page 11, all she 
has to do is read her own document.

       An unexpected increase in revenues in 1998 has virtually 
     ensured that the total Federal budget will be balanced for 
     the first time in almost 30 years and nothing currently 
     visible on the horizon seems to threaten a return to deficits 
     in the near term if policies remain unchanged.

  I know I wouldn't use her to do my income tax return. I would be in 
jail, I would be gone, with that kind of doubletalk.
  There is no surplus. But when the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office, Madam June O'Neill, comes and says there is nothing on 
the horizon, when she shows that in order to say that you have to spend 
$1.621 trillion of the Social Security trust fund, Social Security by 
the year 2008, supposedly, if this weren't occurring, would have a 
surplus of $2.252 trillion.
  Look at that, on page 11 of this particular report--$2.252 trillion. 
Yet everybody is going around with solutions to Social Security. The 
only solution, and the first solution, is to quit looting the fund. 
There won't be any $2.252 trillion. That is why you have all of the 
bills in to solve the Social Security crisis, the Social Security 
shortfall, the baby boomer problem. All nonsense, all out of the whole 
cloth.
  She is talking again and again, ``However, if any other number of 
assumptions that CBO has made turn out to be off the mark, budget 
outcomes could be quite different than projected, even if there are no 
changes in policy. For instance, if CBO's economic projections prove to 
be just a little too optimistic, surpluses could be much lower than 
anticipated.''
  Surpluses--there isn't any surplus in the report. There is a surplus, 
supposedly, in Social Security. That is where the surplus is. Section 
13301 of the Budget Act says don't spend Social Security surpluses, 
don't count on them in reporting a budget; don't count on them, 
Congressional Budget Office, when you analyze a budget. But she willy-
nilly talks about surpluses. It is just amazing to me, until you see 
her projections, of course, of the interest costs.
  Again, on page 11, she finds that interest costs on the national debt 
are just going down, down, down. It has been increasing each year 
anywhere from $10 to $20 billion. The debt has been going up. The 
interest costs--even with that increased debt, even though interest 
rates are down, the interest costs have been going up.
  If you want to see the pressure brought by the Speaker on the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, look at that series of 
figures straight across the board. She finds that from 1958 to the year 
2008 the actual interest costs decrease $11 billion.
  Totally out of the whole cloth, this is made. They kept nagging her 
and they held up the Budget Committees. The Budget Committees don't 
meet; they don't sit down and confer over the budget. They go on the 
weekend talk shows and put out all the documents about tax cuts, 
spending programs, and put in here these optimistic figures.

[[Page S8720]]

  The Director of the Congressional Budget Office has responded to the 
pressure of the Speaker of the House; there isn't any question in this 
Senator's mind. We know what is going on.
  I wish the media--whether print media, TV media, or any other media--
would please, please, please, report truth in budgeting. That is what 
we had when we had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--truth in budgeting. We sold 
it over on this side of the aisle, 14 votes up and down. Our Democratic 
colleagues, majority, voted to cut spending over the objection, at that 
time, of the leader, over the objection of the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. But there was a conscience back in 1985.
  Now, in 1998, it has become the game of the day: Just look over and 
find whatever you want in the $100-some billion Social Security 
surplus, and it grows each year. It is only $105 billion this year; 10 
years out, it is $186 billion. So we have plenty of money to spend for 
plenty of programs until we run right up against the wall, run right up 
against the wall, and the interest costs eat us alive. We have fiscal 
cancer. We won't acknowledge it.
  I am glad and proud, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle, to bring up this sense of the Senate. It is more important than 
the entire State-Justice-Commerce bill or any appropriations bill. 
Unless we get ahold of our senses and vote a sense of the Senate that 
we save Social Security first, we are gone.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have listened to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator has a right to 
yield for a question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I have to yield back to our chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry. I believe regular order is for the 
Senator from South Carolina to be allowed to yield for a question; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to yield for a 
question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand what the distinguished 
chairman is saying, and I agree with him. But I want to answer that 
question and then do as we agreed, because I only have the floor under 
the courtesy of Chairman Gregg.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Gregg has the right 
to the floor when the Senator from South Carolina completes his 
statement.
  I have been listening to the Senator from South Carolina, who has 
offered an amendment that we have discussed before on the Senate floor. 
We are reacting to recent press reports that cite one prominent member 
of the majority party as saying that Congress should enact $1 trillion 
in tax cuts over 10 years.
  Isn t the Senator's point that those who propose massive tax cuts 
would be taking the money, in effect, from the Social Security trust 
funds in order to fund a tax cut; would that not be the case?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is absolutely the case. The only place you can find 
this kind of money for tax cuts is here in the Social Security trust 
fund, which is a violation in and of itself of section 13301 of the 
statutory laws of the Budget Act of the United States of America. 
President Bush signed it, 98 Senators over here voted for it, almost 
unanimous over in the House of Representatives. We voted for it. But it 
is not hit-and-run driving. Let's stop right there.
  Let me emphasize, in 1994 we were really distraught with respect to 
the takeover artists. Individuals were coming in, the corporations, and 
literally taking the pension funds, paying off the corporate debt, and 
taking the remaining money and running. The employees were left high 
and dry. So we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994.
  Now, our good friend, the former pitcher up there from Detroit, Denny 
McLain, became the head of a corporation. As the head of the 
corporation, last year he had paid off the company debt with the 
pension fund. That was made a felony. He got an 8-year jail term. If 
you can find what jail he is in, tell him, next time, instead of 
running a corporation, run for the U.S. Senate; instead of a jail term, 
you get the good government award up here for looting the pension funds 
to pay your debt.
  That is exactly what we are doing. We go against the formal law that 
we passed ourselves. We go again the policy set for corporate America. 
But when it comes to us, we have to get reelected. The worst campaign 
finance violation and abuse is using Social Security trust funds to 
reelect ourselves, telling them we are trying to protect Social 
Security.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one additional question, 
and then I shall not inquire further. Will the Senator yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this ought not to be a controversial 
amendment.
  The question is, simply, Is there an opportunity for someone to say, 
either in the Senate or the House of Representatives, that they are 
going to provide hundreds of billions of dollars, or a trillion 
dollars, of tax cuts under the current fiscal policy? Is there an 
opportunity to do that without using the Social Security trust funds? I 
can't see that that opportunity exists. While I would like to see some 
additional tax cuts, I happen to think that saving Social Security 
first and reducing the Federal debt would be much more meritorious for 
the future of this country.
  In any event, we ought not to be talking about tax cuts before there 
is money to give them. That money available for tax cuts does not 
include--I ask the Senator--and that money should never include, the 
Social Security trust fund money; am I correct?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. Denny McLain, 
who was an all-star pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, got sentenced to 8 
years for using the pension fund to pay off the company debt, in 
violation of our law, the Pension Reform Act of 1994. Yet, we do it 
here in violation of our own law and policy of 1994 for corporate 
America. Fine and dandy. I would tell him to, next time, run for the 
Senate, and instead of a jail term he will get the good government 
award.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the purpose of debate only, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin be recognized. How 
much time does he need?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I need 12 minutes, Mr. President.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes and that the floor then be returned to 
me, unless the Senator from Maryland also wishes to speak. How much 
time does she wish?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to speak on the bill itself regarding cyberporn 
and cybercrime.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Senator need?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes or less.
  Mr. GREGG. For the purpose of debate only, I yield 15 minutes to the 
Senator from Wisconsin and 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland. I 
ask unanimous consent that I retain the floor upon the conclusion of 
their statements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator 
from South Carolina, in offering this amendment to express the sense of 
the Senate regarding the Social Security trust fund balances.
  I could not agree more with the Senator from South Carolina and also 
the Senator from North Dakota that there really isn't anything more 
important than stopping this practice of using Social Security dollars 
for things they are not supposed to be used for, including premature 
tax cuts. That is the central budgeting issue in this country. The 
Senator from South Carolina has been the leader for years and years in 
making that point. I have greatly enjoyed working with him on this. We 
are going to continue to work on this until this practice is stopped, 
until this theft of Social Security funds is prevented.
  Mr. President, there is a fundamental difference between the way many 
in Congress approach the budget and the way the Senator from South 
Carolina and I approach it. That difference is Social Security.

[[Page S8721]]

  For 30 years, Presidents of both parties, and Congresses controlled 
by both parties, have included the Social Security trust fund balances 
in their budget calculations. As I had a chance to mention during the 
debate over the budget resolution itself, the result is a false picture 
of our country's fiscal health. And just like a false medical report 
that covers up a serious illness, it can lead to major problems in the 
future.

  This false budget picture has been used so often that, in effect, it 
has almost become a ``budget convention.'' It has so impressed itself 
into the vocabulary of the budget that we now hear this word 
``surplus'' over and over again when there is no surplus. We hear 
people talking about a budget ``surplus'' in Congress, we see it in the 
newspapers, and we are even seeing it in letters from constituents who 
are, in effect, being misinformed into thinking that there is somehow a 
surplus at this time.
  Mr. President, the recent CBO estimates of our budget picture have 
made this matter all the more urgent. Using this budget sleight-of-hand 
known as the ``unified budget,'' some are pointing to significant 
surpluses as a justification for their own budget agenda, as the 
Senator from South Carolina has very eloquently outlined in his 
remarks.
  Mr. President, we have not achieved a budget surplus, and despite the 
greatly improved budget picture, CBO still estimates that we will not 
achieve anything indicating a true surplus until at least the year 
2006. There is a deficit that is still being hidden, and Social 
Security is the curtain that is being used to hide it.
  For the current fiscal year, CBO expects the deficit to be roughly 
$41 billion. That is a great improvement over the $340 billion deficit 
we experienced in 1992. I am proud to have been a part of bringing that 
deficit down, but that is still a significant deficit.
  While the deficit picture improves slightly in the next few years, we 
still face a real problem on the budget deficit. It is true that if all 
of CBO's assumptions are borne out, we will barely achieve a balanced 
budget in 2002 and then again in the year 2005--just in those 2 years. 
And, of course, this is encouraging news. But it is hardly the kind of 
significant surplus on which to establish any major new initiatives, 
whether they be in the spending area or in the tax area.
  It is obvious that the economy may not perform as well as CBO 
expects, and the slightest change in the underlying assumptions could 
mean something very different from surpluses. It could mean deficits 
that are billions of dollars greater than are currently estimated. CBO 
itself makes this point in its current estimates.
  The report states, ``* * * if any of a number of assumptions that CBO 
has made turn out to be off the mark, budget outcomes could be quite 
different than projected, even if there are no changes in policy.''
  Mr. President, the CBO projections also assume that Congress will be 
making the spending cuts necessary to comply with last year's balanced 
budget agreement. Mr. President, as is sometimes said in court, when it 
comes to assuming that Congress will do everything it should do with 
regard to making those spending cuts, CBO could be ``assuming facts 
that are not in evidence.''
  Congress has not yet made those spending cuts, and the attitude that 
is being exhibited by some Members of Congress is not reassuring. We 
are already seeing a bidding war develop over how to spend the so-
called surplus. It is a surplus that isn't even projected to really 
exist for another 8 years, Mr. President, but they are falling all over 
each other to figure out how to spend it before we finish the job.
  With so many focused on how to dispense this phantom surplus, there 
is an increasing risk that we will not actually finish the important 
work of truly balancing the budget. Mr. President, just a little over a 
year ago, a lot of our colleagues were saying it was the most important 
matter before us and urging us to amend the Constitution itself to 
ensure that outlays did not exceed receipts in any given year. Now, 
here we are, just a few months later, and many who supported this 
drastic step--and, as it turned out, unnecessary step--to amend our 
Constitution are now very ready to spend a surplus that we don't have. 
It could not be more inconsistent with what was at least said to be the 
spirit and the purpose of the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, it has taken us several years and many tough votes to 
get where we are today, to get within reach, within vision of truly 
balancing the budget. It will take more tough votes to finish the job. 
Unfortunately, the notion of a so-called unified budget, which just 
began as a political convenience to mask the deficit almost 30 years 
ago, has now become budget reality for many, many people. This has to 
stop.
  ``Surplus'' is supposed to mean something extra like a bonus. What it 
is supposed to mean is that all the bills are paid and there is really 
money left over. But, Mr. President, as I noted during the budget 
resolution debate, one dictionary defines ``surplus'' as ``something 
more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' But the so-
called unified budget, the surplus is not ``more than or in excess of 
what is needed or required.''
  Those funds are needed; they are needed to pay future Social Security 
benefits. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically 
in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries.
  There is, however, one simple, straightforward step that this body 
can take to help Social Security and to protect the trust fund. It is 
very simple. Just do not spend it. Don't spend it. We have no right to 
spend it.
  I urge my colleagues to join the Senator from South Carolina and the 
other cosponsors of this amendment in passing this amendment and 
expressing the sense of the Senate that we understand this essential 
fact: That when Congress makes budget obligations today based on the 
Social Security funds, whether in the form of tax cuts or spending 
increases, we are committing to a fiscal path that jeopardizes future 
Social Security benefits.
  Mr. President, let me once again sincerely thank my friend from South 
Carolina for his tremendous leadership on this issue. It has been a 
pleasure to serve with him on the Budget Committee, and I deeply 
respect his work to promote not only deficit reduction, but honest 
budgeting as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I will not be speaking on the pending amendment. I 
will be speaking on the overall nature of the State-Justice-Commerce 
appropriations.
  I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for the outstanding job 
that they have done in bringing an excellent bill to the floor.
  Yesterday we talked about some of the things we thought were missing 
from the bill, and particularly what would affect the safety and well-
being of children.
  We talked about gun locks. Mr. President, I am a supporter of gun 
locks. If we put locks on our cars to protect our automobiles, locks on 
our doors to protect our property, I think we should have locks on guns 
to protect our children. We worked our will yesterday. That didn't 
pass.
  But I will tell you, the Gregg-Hollings bill brings before us a real 
Justice Department commitment to protect our children. I would like to 
thank them for that. I would like to thank them for their efforts in 
fighting juvenile crime. I would like to thank them for bringing us 
legislation to prevent violence in our schools. But most of all, I am 
really grateful that they have put money in this budget to fight child 
pornography on the Internet. We need cops on the beat, and we need cops 
on the computers to be able to protect our communities and our 
children.
  Let me share with you a story.
  There was a little boy in Prince Georges County whose parents had 
bought him a computer where they thought it would be an opportunity for 
him to learn about the world and be ready for school each and every 
day. However, there was a sexual predator who treated that computer as 
if it were a virtual playground. And they stalked that little boy, and 
it ended in his death.
  But thanks to the response of the U.S. Congress--and I would like to 
particularly thank Senator Gregg for his

[[Page S8722]]

cooperation and leadership on this--we have actually put money into the 
Federal budget for the FBI to establish a special headquarters in 
Maryland to fight cyber-kiddieporn on the Internet, with $10 
million bringing 60 FBI folks into this, and 25 special agents. I have 
been there, and I have seen what they are doing to protect our 
children. You would love to see these FBI agents who are making use of 
the newest and latest technology to be able to intervene, intercept, 
and detect those people who sit in chat rooms coming after our 
children.

  I sat with those agents. I watched the pictures on the screen. I was 
repulsed. I was horrified not only at what I saw, but what others could 
be subjected to.
  Because of our prompt response, the program is actually already 
working. In the short time that this committee has put money in the 
Federal checkbook to fight cyberporn against children, there have been 
400 search warrants executed, over 200 arrests, and we are well on our 
way to over an 85-percent conviction rate.
  In my home State of Maryland there have been 15 arrests, 15 
indictments, and 12 convictions.
  That means that we will be able to protect our children. The average 
child molester has more than 70 victims throughout his lifetime.
  Because of the work we have done here to put cops on the beat through 
our community policing in concert with the computer, both in our 
streets and our neighborhoods to protect our children, children's lives 
have been saved.
  In Maryland alone 15 child molesters have been taken off the streets. 
That means that 1,000 Maryland children have been saved and rescued.
  This is just part of what we are doing to protect our children.
  I know through the work of this subcommittee, of which I am proud to 
be a Member, $210 million has been put into the Federal checkbook for a 
new safe schools initiative.
  We need to hire more security guards, improve coordination with local 
police, get the violent kids out of our schools, and while we are doing 
that, in addition to the policing that we are doing, I know that this 
committee has put in substantial money for prevention--not the type of 
prevention where we don't know what is going to be shown for it.
  This committee is a tough committee. We are going to go after the 
crooks and the criminals and the stalkers. But we know that, if we are 
going to have policing and punishment, we are going to do prevention, 
and we are going to do it by creative activity to fight and prevent 
gang violence--to be able to do structured, afterschool activity; 
working with faith-based organizations.
  Because of the work of this subcommittee, our streets and our schools 
will be safer because we put cops on the beat and cops on the 
computers.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak. But most of all, I 
would like to thank the ranking member for this outstanding bill.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for those 
words--those type of words. She could speak all day. We appreciate 
that, to say the least. I want to especially thank her for her 
extremely supportive and aggressive assistance in the ``Innocent 
Images'' effort, which she has pointed to and explained to us that 
arose out of a situation in Maryland. The central nervous system for 
the FBI initiative is now in Baltimore. What they are doing, I think, 
is very appropriate. They are developing protocol so they can spread 
this knowledge of how to fight cybercrime against kids across the 
country to other levels of law enforcement, and they are using the 
protocols developed at Baltimore to do that. It has really been a 
tremendous success story for the agency.
  It is in large part because of the support this committee has given 
to the FBI that they have been successful in this. Although they were 
the ones who initiated it and they should get the credit for it, that 
support has come as a result of the strong and firm commitment of the 
Senator from Maryland, and her understanding of the threat. The threat 
is very significant.
  As she knows, because she has gone to the actual site of the activity 
where the FBI is pursuing these sort of sting operations--I have seen 
it done at remote sites--the amount of attempts by people who are 
clearly not pursuing a positive use of cyberspace for our children, the 
amount of hits in a chat room, which appear to have very significant 
negative potential for our kids, is overwhelming. You can turn on a 
chat room, introduce yourself as a 12-year-old girl, and within a very 
brief period of time--30 seconds--have five or six hits in that chat 
room, which will ask for illicit or lead to illicit activity in an 
attempt to get pornographic material, or in an attempt to expose that 
child to pornographic material.
  Regrettably, they create travel cases where they try to get the child 
to go and meet with the pedophile. In fact, we had a situation in New 
Hampshire where somebody actually traveled all the way from Norway to 
Keene, NH, because that individual thought they were going to be able 
to have some sort of sexual activity with a child. Luckily, in this 
instance at least, it was a police officer who was using the Internet 
following the protocols that the FBI set out of ``Innocent Images'' 
that was able to stop and apprehend that individual.
  But it is a very serious issue because the Internet is a great and 
expansive source for our kids and something that our kids should have 
access to with the opportunity to learn, the opportunity to communicate 
with people across the world. It is just a unique and special 
opportunity or activity that our generation did not have and the next 
generation does have. Making it safer for our kids is critical. So I 
thank very much the Senator from Maryland. I am in support of her FBI 
initiatives in this area and certainly appreciate her kind comments.


                Amendment No. 3255 to Amendment No. 3254

  At this time, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the 
pending Hollings amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself, 
     Mr. Lott, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Gramm, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3255.

  Mr. GREGG. 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:

       In the pending amendment, strike all after the word 
     ``Sec.'' and insert the following:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE BUDGET AND SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 44 
     million Americans, including 27.3 million retirees, over 4.5 
     million people with disabilities, 3.8 million surviving 
     children and 8.4 million surviving adults, and is essential 
     to the dignity and security of the nation's elderly and 
     disabled;
       (2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds have reported 
     to the Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social 
     Security system ``is estimated to fall short of expenditures 
     beginning in 2021 and in each year thereafter . . . until the 
     assets of the combined trust funds are exhausted in 2032'';
       (3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting 
     principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all 
     require saving Social Security first, in order that the 
     Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom 
     generation, beginning in 2010;
       (4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, the Congress 
     intended that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses 
     be used to prefund the retirement of the baby boom 
     generation;
       (5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session 
     of Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton called on 
     the Congress to ``save Social Security first'' and to 
     ``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, that is any 
     penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary 
     measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 
     twenty-first century'';
       (6) saving Social Security first would work to expand 
     national savings, reduce interest rates, enhance private 
     investment, increase labor productivity, and boost economic 
     growth;
       (7) section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 
     expressly forbids counting Social Security trust fund 
     surpluses as revenue available to balance the budget; and
       (8) the CBO has estimated that the unified budget surplus 
     will reach nearly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
       (b) Sense of the Senate--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     Congress and the President should--
       (1) continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance 
     the budget without counting Social Security trust fund 
     surpluses;
       (2) work in a bipartisan way on specific legislation to 
     reform the Social Security system, to ensure that it is 
     financially sound over the long term and will be available 
     for all future generations;

[[Page S8723]]

       (3) save Social Security first; and
       (4) return all remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.

  Mr. GREGG. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Lott, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Mack, Senator Gramm, and myself.
  I will now propound a consent allowing for two votes, hopefully 
shortly, on this Social Security issue, the first vote being a vote in 
relation to the majority version of the amendment, to be followed by a 
vote in relationship to the Hollings amendment. If an objection is 
heard, I will have no choice but to fill up the amendment tree so that 
our vote is guaranteed to be the first vote.
  I would note that the amendment we have sent to the desk seeks the 
same goal in that what we seek is to preserve the surplus for the 
Social Security system so that Social Security can be saved first. That 
should be the first and primary purpose of the use of the surplus.
  However, we make the point in our amendment that after Social 
Security has been saved, after we have reached an agreement for how to 
save Social Security--and I happen to have a bill which accomplishes 
that. It would save it for the next 100 years. It happens to be a 
bipartisan bill of Senator Breaux and myself. There are other proposals 
floating around. The Senator in the Chair is a strong supporter of a 
number of initiatives to save Social Security. But after an agreement 
has been reached by the Congress and we have put in place a system for 
saving Social Security, our sense-of-the-Senate says then let's send 
the money back to the taxpayers. That seems to be a reasonable approach 
to me.
  So we do not disagree with the desire to save Social Security first. 
We only want to make sure that after Social Security has been saved, 
additional surpluses go back to the taxpayers.
  So with that being said, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a 
total of 60 minutes, and I would be willing to adjust that if there is 
a desire to adjust it, but we have been on this for almost 2 hours now, 
60 minutes for total debate, to be equally divided between the majority 
leader or his designee and Senator Hollings, and following the 
conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or 
in relationship to the Lott amendment, to be followed by a vote on or 
in relationship to the Hollings amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am trying to clear that now and find out--that is 
agreeable, except for the fact that we have how many Senators seeking 
time? Four Senators. We have 50 minutes. I will be the fifth one.
  Mr. GREGG. An hour-and-a-half equally divided?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, an hour-and-a-half equally divided.
  Mr. GREGG. I amend that request: Instead of 60 minutes, there be 90 
minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to order the 
yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin this discussion, although the 
discussion has already proceeded. Much of what the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from Wisconsin talked about, I agree with in 
the area of Social Security reform. There is absolutely no question but 
that the single, biggest fiscal policy issue facing this country today 
is the question of how we make the Social Security system a strong and 
vibrant system for generations to come and how we avoid what will be a 
fiscal disaster for our Nation if we do not address this issue in the 
near term.
  This problem is generated by the fact that we have a baby boom 
generation headed towards retirement. It is now turning age 50. In 15 
years, it will be fully retired. In 12 years, we will begin to retire a 
baby boom generation that is the largest generation in the history of 
this country. And as that generation has moved through the system, it 
has affected this Nation in every decade throughout its life 
experience. In the 1950s, the baby boom generation created a huge need 
for elementary schools and baby carriages. In the 1960s, it created a 
tremendous restructuring of our social fabric with occurrences 
involving civil rights, involving rights of women, involving Vietnam. 
In the 1970s, we saw further impact, and in the 1980s we have seen the 
huge economic impact, and as we move into the 1990s, we are also seeing 
the impact of that generation as it begins to save for retirement and 
that is one of our primary reasons of this economic boom.
  But the biggest impact this generation is going to have is when it 
retires, and it begins to retire in the year 2008, and not unusually, 
or not to be unexpected, in the year 2008 the Social Security system 
begins to lose money. In fact, that is the year when we start paying 
out more in Social Security benefits than we are taking in. By the year 
2015, the Social Security system is paying out so much more than it is 
taking in it basically cannot right itself. By the year 2029 or 2030, 
essentially the country has such a large debt and obligation under the 
Social Security system that it will be unable, in my opinion, to afford 
to maintain that system and we will face a fiscal meltdown of sorts.

  The way I describe it, it is as if we could pick a date when we know 
as a nation we were going to have a major earthquake, a major flood, a 
major hurricane come ashore, and we know that date exists and we know 
it is going to occur. Obviously, it would be irresponsible for us as a 
Congress not to react to that, not to take preventive action, not to 
get our people prepared for that. But we know the date when we are 
going to hit a fiscal crisis of inordinate proportions because the 
people are already born who are going to create such a huge demand on 
the system. That date is approximately the year 2015.
  So what should we do? We should address it today. Why should we 
address it today? Because, basically the sooner we address this, the 
sooner we can solve it in a constructive and effective way and in a 
positive way where everybody will end up being more of a winner than 
end up being a loser. It is a lot like that old oil filter ad, ``You 
can pay me now or pay me later.'' If we begin to address this problem 
today, we can significantly improve the system in the long run for 
everyone. If we wait even 2 years, certainly if we wait 4 or 5 years, 
the capacity to address it becomes much more acute and we go off a 
cliff.
  So how should we address it? The proposal we put forward in our 
sense-of-the-Senate is that we should address it by using the surplus 
first to address it, and that is absolutely right. That is what should 
be done.
  I would note this was not the President's position. The President 
said we should reserve the surplus, reserve the surplus until we have 
solved the Social Security problem. That is what he said in his State 
of the Union Address. Our position as Republicans is we should use the 
surplus to protect the Social Security system. And one way to do that, 
one way that has been proposed by myself and a number of other Members 
in this body, including the person sitting in the Chair, is to give 
people who are presently working and paying taxes into the system and 
who, unfortunately, are looking at a very low rate of return for all of 
the taxes they are paying into the system--in fact, if you just 
happened to go to work, say, you were 20 years old and you went to work 
today, the likelihood that you would get very much back from what you 
paid into the system in Social Security taxes is extremely low. If you 
happen to be an African American, actually it is a negative number. You 
get less back than you will pay in.
  So the system has some very serious problems in the way that it 
returns benefits to people who are younger today. What we have 
suggested is to give people today who are earning money, paying into 
the system, let's give them some ownership. Let's give them the ability 
to have an asset which they physically own as part of their Social 
Security retirement structure. And these are called personal accounts.
  Under the present system, what happens is, you pay in taxes all your 
life. And, unfortunately, let's say you died when you were 58. If you 
did not have a wife and you did not have children,

[[Page S8724]]

you have nothing for all those taxes you paid in--absolutely nothing. 
You have absolutely no vested interest which pays your estate anything. 
If you had a wife or children, they might get a little bit, but not a 
whole lot compared to what you paid in.
  We are suggesting that some portion of the taxes that you pay into 
the Social Security system today you should have ownership of; you 
should actually, physically, have the right to claim, upon your 
retirement, as yours. Every year you should get a statement. You should 
have a little savings book, basically--I didn't bring mine with me 
today as an example; the Senator in the chair may have his--but you 
should have a savings book which says how much you have in your account 
at the Social Security Administration, which is yours, physically 
yours. No matter what happens, it cannot be taken away from you. Those 
are called personal accounts. Thus, if you were, unfortunately, to die 
before you reached the age of retirement, your estate would actually 
get an asset. It would get that money that was built up in that 
account. That is one plus of this.
  A second plus of this is that under the proposal we have, you would, 
essentially, get the benefit structure which Social Security gives 
today, but on top of that benefit structure you would be able to get 
the benefit of the investment of that personal account. What would that 
investment be in? Under the proposal we put forward, it would be in one 
of a variety of what amounts to mutual funds, three or four different 
mutual funds, which you would choose, which would be under the control 
and operation of the Social Security Administration, so there wouldn't 
be any outrageously risky investments taken. But you would have a 
choice. You could choose a conservative investment, you could choose a 
moderate investment--you could choose a moderate investment in 
equities.
  Why is that important? Today, the entire Social Security fund is 
invested in Government bonds. And what do they yield? They yield about 
2.5 percent interest. Over no 20-year period in history has the equity 
market yielded less than 5.5 percent. So you can see the rate of return 
people are getting--because the average working life is 40 years--the 
rate of return people are getting on the amount which they are paying 
in Social Security taxes really is pretty weak, 2.5 percent. As I 
mentioned earlier, if you are an African American who happens to go 
into the workforce today and you are in your early twenties, your rate 
of return is zero--it is actually a negative number.
  But the fact is, you would have a personal account, which you would 
have some control over, which is invested by the Social Security 
Administration in probably three or four different mutual funds which 
you have the right to choose from but which are set up under the Social 
Security auspices, much like we have, in the Federal Government, the 
Thrift Savings Plan. If you are a Federal employee today, there is 
something called a Thrift Savings Plan, and the Thrift Savings Plan 
trustees, who work for the Federal retirement plan, set up three 
different options: You can choose a high-growth fund, a moderate-growth 
fund, or a low-growth fund--or a low-risk fund. You can put your money, 
your savings and your retirement, into whichever one you want. This 
would be the same idea under Social Security. You would get to choose 
which one of those funds you want to put your money in --a low-risk 
fund, a moderate-risk fund, a higher-risk fund.
  When you retired, you would then own that asset. The appreciation on 
that asset would be significantly better, we are absolutely sure, than 
the 2.5 percent that you are presently getting under the Social 
Security Administration. So that is an effective way to begin the 
process of making the Social Security system solvent. That would be a 
type of plan that would work.
  The problem, of course, is, to make this work effectively, you have 
to act sooner rather than later. You cannot wait for 3 or 4 years in 
order to put this in place, because people need time to build up the 
accounts. The accounts we are suggesting do not represent your entire 
Social Security tax. What we are suggesting is, you use 2 percent of 
your Social Security tax. We would basically give you a tax cut for 
that 2 percent. You would then be able to invest that in this 
retirement fund or be required to invest it in a savings fund which 
would be managed by the Social Security trustees and would give you a 
much better rate of return.
  There are a lot of other ideas out there. The point is, we need to 
get on to this issue, we need to get on to the specifics of how you are 
going to make the Social Security system solvent.
  The President has been traveling around the country. He has been 
talking about this. Many of us on the Republican side of the Senate 
have been traveling around, also talking about this. We had a 
bipartisan group which involved myself and Senator Breaux on the Senate 
side, and Congressman Stenholm and Congressman Kolbe on the House side, 
and a whole group of people who are expert in this area. We met for 18 
months, and we put together an excellent plan, part of which I have 
outlined, which would make the system solvent for the next 100 years. 
But it is a plan; it is not specific legislation. So, what we need is 
specific legislation.

  This sense of the Senate comes forward, which essentially restates 
what everybody wants to do, which is make Social Security solvent. But 
it does not move along the plan. It doesn't move along how you get to 
actual legislation. If we really want to be constructive as a Senate, 
what we should do is probably have a sense of the Senate which calls on 
the President to come forward with a specific plan, and have it to us 
at the end of this year, so the beginning of next year we could 
actually begin to legislate on the Social Security system and Social 
Security reform, because our window of opportunity here is really quite 
small. If we don't put in place Social Security reform legislation by 
June of 1999, I am not sure we are even going to be able to put it into 
place, because then we are going to do a Presidential election. If it 
gets slid past the Presidential election, we have basically missed the 
window of opportunity to begin to build up equity in some kind of 
personal account or any sort of equity activity which involves 
investing in the market; we have given away 2 years of opportunity for 
that type of investment activity.
  So, what we really need is specific action. Another sense of the 
Senate is nice. It is very appropriate, I suppose, to keep making this 
point over and over again, so it does not end up being overly 
politicized. But the fact is, what we need to do is go from the sense 
of the Senate situation to specifics.
  What is the difference between the two sense of the Senate amendments 
here? I am not sure the differences are all that substantive, to be 
very honest with you. Where the difference is, essentially, is in the 
third point: ``save Social Security first by reserving any surpluses in 
fiscal year 1999 budget legislation.'' Our sense of the Senate adds a 
fourth item: Third, ``save Social Security first,'' which we all agree 
on, and, fourth, ``return all remaining surpluses to the American 
taxpayers.''
  So we take it a step further. We basically add another point to the 
sense of the Senate by saying, once you have saved Social Security, 
let's take the other part, the surplus that is left over--there may not 
be any, but hopefully there will be--and return it to the American 
taxpayer.
  I would say this language, ``save Social Security first by reserving 
any surplus in the fiscal year 1999 budget legislation,'' is a little 
confusing, because fiscal year 1999 budget legislation could either 
mean the year 1999 or it could mean the 5-year period that budget 
legislation covers. So it is not really clear to me exactly what 
surplus they are talking about here. Is it a 1-year surplus or is it a 
5-year surplus?
  In any event, what we are saying is, independent of that issue, let's 
save Social Security first. But if there is a surplus above saving 
Social Security, let's do the right thing with it; let's return it to 
the taxpayer.
  Who can disagree with that? We don't want to spend it, that is for 
sure. We might want to use it to reduce debt, but of course the best 
way to reduce debt is to save Social Security. Once you have saved 
Social Security, you have significantly reduced debt, dramatically 
reduced debt, because the biggest debt the Federal Government owes is 
to the Social Security system. So let's take that extra money, if there 
is any, and return it to the American taxpayer.

[[Page S8725]]

  I think our sense of the Senate maybe takes the Hollings sense of the 
Senate, which was a good attempt, good statement on its face, in many 
ways, and makes it a lot stronger, because it makes it absolutely clear 
that not only do we want to save Social Security but we also want to 
return any extra surplus, after we have saved Social Security, to the 
American taxpayer.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, briefly I want to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent I add to 
our particular amendment Senator Reid, Senator Ford, and Senator 
Johnson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. And that we have no points of order? If somebody wants 
to raise one--and it is agreed we waive any points of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized 
for----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 10 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note with interest that all Members 
on the floor now are members of the Budget Committee, which I think is 
particularly significant, because we are here talking about not only 
Social Security and our obligation to make the system solvent--to 
create a degree of confidence that, looking out into the future, we are 
going to be able to say to people, some who have already worked a dozen 
years: Worry not, we are here going to solve the problem of the 
question of solvency on the Social Security fund and it will be there 
for you --but we are also, at the same point, talking about the work 
done to get ourselves to a balanced budget point and, beyond that, to 
develop the surplus stream that we now see flowing very mightily.
  The fact is, I think the Senator from South Carolina has worked so 
hard for so many years on the independence and on the solvency of the 
Social Security trust fund that he is almost ``Mr. Social Security.'' 
No questions are raised about Social Security when the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, isn't there defending 
the system and defending the right of those who expect to have the 
benefits to have them there at the time they need them.
  We shouldn't start spending those projected surpluses that look like 
they are going to be in abundance until we confront our biggest long-
term challenge, and that is to make sure that we have done the things 
necessary to solve the questions about the Social Security trust fund.
  We need to ensure that younger Americans can benefit from the system, 
just as their parents and their grandparents are benefiting today. Once 
we fix that Social Security system and we have really done the job, we 
can consider using any remaining surpluses to provide real tax relief 
to ordinary Americans, to put more money in the pockets of struggling 
middle-class families.
  Yes, they are enjoying this prosperity that we have, but I don't know 
many of them who feel like their heads are that well above water that 
they can provide the education their children will need to help ensure 
that they, too, will have a decent quality of life, one that is better 
than those who are working now. They need some help, and we want to do 
it.
  We have a commitment that, first, we are going to start putting that 
money into the Social Security system, so that in the later years they 
have the reliability of the pension fund, of the Social Security fund. 
When we have done that, then we can, again, help the middle-class 
families afford education, health care, and take care of our 
infrastructure.
  The point of this amendment is to say, before we start raiding 
projected surpluses, that we have some hard work to do. We ought to 
make the decisions that say to our young people, ``Your retirement is 
going to be there,'' to do exactly what it is that the President 
pledged when we saw the surplus coming, and that is, save Social 
Security first.
  Social Security isn't just another Government program, it is the most 
important social insurance program in our Nation. It has dramatically 
reduced poverty among older Americans, and it provides a critical 
safety net for those who suffer from disabilities or the death of a 
family member.
  Keep in mind that a majority of American workers have no pension 
coverage other than Social Security; that is it. Nearly a third of all 
seniors get 90 percent or more of their income from the program. 
Without Social Security, more than half of the elderly would live in 
poverty.
  It is absolutely critical that we maintain this safety net for future 
generations. Yet, Social Security's long-term viability is now 
threatened by the impending retirement of the baby boomers. Unless we 
act, the trust fund will become insolvent in the year 2032. Do we want 
to say to people who have already worked a dozen years of their life, 
on average, that you can start to envision life in your later years 
without the help that comes from Social Security? We can't let that 
happen.
  Given the importance of solving the Social Security problem, Members 
of Congress on both sides of the aisle have supported the concept of 
``saving Social Security first.'' In fact, I remind my colleagues that 
the Senate already has approved a budget resolution that proposes to 
save all future budget surpluses.

  I didn't support that resolution because, like some other Democrats, 
I felt it shortchanged important priorities like education and child 
care and created procedural obstacles to comprehensive tobacco 
legislation. But I did support the resolution's fundamental approach on 
the use of surpluses. The budget resolution said that all new spending 
and all new tax breaks will be fully offset, and it was the right thing 
to do.
  My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, especially the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee who sits here now, 
Senator Domenici, deserve credit for a job well done. He worked hard, 
as we all did, to get this budget into balance and to make sure that we 
start on the road to developing some surpluses and protecting Social 
Security.
  Unfortunately, some Members are now suggesting that, ``OK, we have 
some money in the bank; it looks like it is going to be there; let's 
start spending the projected surpluses.'' Frankly, I think it is a 
peculiar irony that we see some of those who are most concerned about 
fiscal discipline, sound fiscal policy, are now saying, ``Hey, this is 
the time to start getting rid of these surpluses.'' I don't understand 
that when we are so deep in the hole. No one would advise a family or a 
business owner to do the same thing. When you have debt on your hands--
and we have plenty of it, and it was noted by the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire that most of that debt belongs to the Social 
Security trust fund--I don't understand what it is that suddenly has 
impelled these folks to want to now spend the money.
  The weakening of the budget discipline seems to be based in part on 
new budget projections released only last week by CBO. They are now 
estimating surpluses in future years will be larger than originally 
anticipated. It is great news. According to the CBO, the unified 
surplus this year will be $63 billion, and by 2008 that figure will 
grow for that year to $251 billion.
  These figures are cause for celebration and they are cause for pride. 
They show that the disciplined policies we have adopted since President 
Clinton took office, including last year's bipartisan budget agreement, 
are working. Members on both sides of the aisle deserve credit for 
that. But CBO's new projections should not be used as an excuse to 
throw fiscal discipline out the window. They don't change the fact that 
Social Security still faces real, long-term problems. The trust fund, I 
repeat, will become insolvent, based on current projections, in 2032. 
We have to do something about that before we squander any of the 
projected budget surpluses.
  I fully support providing tax relief to ordinary working Americans. I 
want to strengthen at the same time our Nation's commitment to 
education and health care. But there isn't any reason why we can't 
provide tax relief or invest more in education, and we can do it today 
if we pay for it. What we ought

[[Page S8726]]

not to do is start treating future surpluses as a giant piggy bank for 
an excuse to abandon the fiscal discipline that got us to the good 
condition we are in today.
  I also note that if Congress goes on a wild spending spree, the costs 
will not be limited to the long term. We could also trifle with 
investor confidence, and that then could create an upset in the market, 
about which everyone is concerned. People will be watching and saying, 
``When is the downturn going to come?'' It could threaten our economy.
  Importantly, raiding the surplus could undermine, once again, this 
great opportunity that we have to secure Social Security for those in 
the long-, long-term future. It would be unfair to those baby boomers 
and other young Americans.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment. Let's maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline. Let's 
continue the long-term thinking that got us to the good position we are 
in today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let us fulfill the commitment that was made not 
implicitly but specifically to protect the retirement benefits of 
today's younger Americans. Let us do the right thing. SOS: Save Social 
Security first.
  Thank you.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 10 minutes to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I thank 
Senator Gregg.
  First, I am pleased to be on the floor to hear the discussions that 
have taken place and pleased to hear Senator Lautenberg comment about 
our taxpayers and the need to return to the taxpayers--he described it 
his own way--but to return to them some of their hard-earned money.
  Actually, the difference between the two resolutions is very clear 
now. First of all, on Social Security it could not be more clear. The 
Republicans do not talk about 1999 and Social Security; they say: 
``Save Social Security first''-- unqualified.
  The difference between the two resolutions is very, very simple, but 
I think rather profound. First of all, both resolutions purport to say, 
and try to say, that we want to save Social Security first. We just say 
that, and we do not qualify it with reference to years or which 
budgets. We just say, ``save Social Security first.'' That is No. (3) 
in our conclusionary resolves.
  And then we add a fourth one. And I will just read it, because you 
cannot do any better than just reading the language. ``Return all 
remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.''
  Now, that is very simple. That establishes that this resolution, 
which is sponsored by the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, 
Senator Lott, and myself, with some additional cosponsors--what we are 
saying is, take care of Social Security, no ifs, no ands, no buts. Any 
additional surpluses should be given back to the American taxpayers.
  Frankly, there is a great debate occurring now on what we should do 
with the surpluses because, believe it or not, I recall that many 
Senators said, ``We will never see the day that we have real 
surpluses.'' What was being said was, ``Social Security moneys are 
being used to pay for our bills. We will never reach the day when we 
have surpluses without using Social Security at all that are real.'' 
And for this discussion, I will call them ``operating surpluses.'' 
``Never will we see the day.''
  Well, if CBO is right, Madam President, we have seen the day, as a 
matter of fact, in the sixth year of this 10-year projection. And it is 
not a terribly optimistic set of economics; it does not take into 
account a real big recession, but actually in its overall calculations 
it assumes a rather moderate and then even a slight downturn in this 
economy, and it still has, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth 
years, a $40-billion-a-year operating surplus, not using a penny of 
Social Security during those years.
  I can recall my good friend, Senator Hollings, who is the chief 
sponsor of the resolution, which I commend him for, saying we would 
never get to that day. And I did not think we would either, I say to 
Senator Hollings. I never thought we would. But we are there. Frankly, 
we may be--we may be--in a position, believe it or not, when those 
surpluses occur much sooner than that. And it may be that we can fix 
Social Security permanently into the next century and have some very 
big surpluses left over, for we might not need all of the Social 
Security money that is in this budget to fix Social Security. We may 
fix it differently and make it very solvent and truly credible for the 
next 100 years.

  What we are saying--and we want this loud and clear to the American 
people--the American fiscal policy is such that you are paying more 
taxes than we need to run our Government. And we are saying, when that 
day arrives that we have fixed Social Security and we still have more 
of your taxes than we need to run this Government, we are saying we 
will give it back to you. I repeat--return all remaining surpluses to 
the American taxpayer.
  I would hope that rather than the two sides have an argument over 
that, I would hope the Democrats would support ours.
  Let me tell you, the only thing I can see that would not have them 
joining us is if they perceive that Government isn't big enough now and 
that what we must do in the future, Madam President, if we have the 
surpluses that we have both been talking about, is we have to save some 
of that to add more expenditures to Government.
  Maybe it is wishing too much that both sides of the aisle would agree 
on that, but I submit that we on this side of the aisle would have been 
badly mistaken had we voted for a resolution that did not say to the 
American people we have a big enough Government--we have a big enough 
Government. The question now is, take care of Social Security, and then 
do not use the excess revenues which we took from the public for more 
Government; give it back to the people by way of tax relief.
  That is a simple, as I indicated, but profound difference between the 
two resolutions. And I hope--I hope--that we leave here at 4:15 having 
turned a rather inconsequential vote into a very significant vote, 
because on the one hand it could be a vote that said we are going to 
save Social Security. But we have already agreed to that. The President 
has agreed to that. We put it in our budget resolution.
  The difference now is that in addition to that, which we are 
reiterating, we added a second part that says: If we get there, and we 
have these surpluses that it looks like we are going to have, then we 
do not want to have any ifs, ands, or buts about that, we want to give 
it back to the taxpayer in tax relief.
  I hope that the second-degree amendment sponsored by Senator Gregg, 
the chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Lott, and myself, will be 
adopted.
  If I have any time remaining, I yield it back and yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                    Amendment No. 3255, As Modified

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Gregg amendment be 
modified to reflect the first degree status which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE BUDGET AND SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 44 
     million Americans, including 27.3 million retirees, over 4.5 
     million people with disabilities, 3.8 million surviving 
     children and 8.4 million surviving adults, and is essential 
     to the dignity and security of the nation's elderly and 
     disabled;
       (2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Fund have reported 
     to the Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social 
     Security system ``is essentially to fall short of 
     expenditures beginning in 2021 and in each year thereafter . 
     . . until the assets of the combined trust funds are 
     exhausted in 2032'';
       (3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting 
     principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all 
     require saving Social Security first, in order that the 
     Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom 
     generation, beginning in 2010;
       (4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, the Congress 
     intended that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses 
     be used to

[[Page S8727]]

     prefund the retirement of the baby boom generation;
       (5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session 
     of Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton called on 
     the Congress to ``save Social Security first'' and to 
     ``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, that is any 
     penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary 
     measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 
     twenty-first century'';
       (6) saving Social Security first would work to expand 
     national savings, reduce interest rates, enhance private 
     investment, increase labor productivity, and boost economic 
     growth;
       (7) section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 
     expressly forbids counting Social Security trust fund 
     surpluses as revenue available to balance the budget; and
       (8) the CBO has estimated that the unified budget surplus 
     will reach nearly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress and the President should--
       (1) continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance 
     the budget without counting Social Security trust fund 
     surpluses;
       (2) work in a bipartisan way on specific legislation to 
     reform the Social Security system, to ensure that it is 
     financially sound over the long term and will be available 
     for all future generations.
       (3) save Social Security first; and
       (4) return all remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.

  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I say to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I 
hope I can get to Heaven. But if I ever get to Heaven and have to make 
an accounting to the Lord of all my sins, I hope I have you as my 
lawyer, because you are really very persuasive.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Actually, I say to the Senator, in----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me tell you why you miss the point and how you 
danced around it. Now, here is the difference. It says, ``The CBO has 
estimated''--this is the Domenici-Lott resolution; sense of the 
Senate--``The CBO has estimated that the unified budget surplus will 
reach nearly $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' Absolutely false 
and in violation of section 13301, Madam President.
  Without reading the whole thing--``Exclusion of Social Security from 
all budgets.''
  Now, how do you get $1.5 trillion without using $1.621 trillion, 
$1.621 trillion of Social Security money? That is the first mislead 
here. They first say that they are not going to use Social Security, 
but then they talk about a budget surplus. And the only way they can 
really mislead and continue the fraud and continue the campaign finance 
fund for all of us politicians to get reelected is to talk about tax 
cuts and surpluses when there are not any. There are not any, Madam 
President--absolutely none. But they use $1.621 trillion in order to 
get to the $1.5 trillion.
  Now, Madam President, there is a further point to be made. Here is 
the entire--I ask unanimous consent the trust fund surpluses from 
Social Security alone for the next 10 years--rather than a $1.5 
trillion surplus, there is a $1.621 trillion deficit--I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND SURPLUSES: CBO SUMMER 1998 BASELINE
                                                        [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund surplus...................................      105      117      126      130      138      146      154      165      173      181      186
Interest received by fund............................      -46      -51      -57      -64      -70      -77      -84      -91      -99     -108     -117
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Non-interest surplus.............................       58       66       68       66       68       69       71       74       74       73       70
Trust fund balance, end of fiscal year...............      736      853      978    1,108    1,246    1,392    1,547    1,712    1,885    2,066    2,252
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then I go to the real point with respect to surpluses, 
as if there were plenty of them around. There are not.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the trust funds 
looted to balance the budget.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  TRUST FUNDS LOOTED TO BALANCE BUDGET
                [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1997    1998    2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security.................................     631     732   1,236
Medicare:
  HI............................................     117     113     109
  SMI...........................................      34      34      51
Military Retirement.............................     126     133     163
Civilian Retirement.............................     431     460     584
Unemployment....................................      62      72      98
Highway.........................................      22      23      56
Airport.........................................       7      10      30
Railroad Retirement.............................      19      20      23
Other...........................................      53      55      68
                                                 -----------------------
      Total.....................................   1,502   1,652   2,418
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, we find out with this, Social Security is only 
one-half of the problem. The truth of the matter is that this year we 
will owe--these are CBO figures--$732 billion. We will owe Medicare, 
$113 billion; and the hospital and SMI, $34 billion; military 
retirement, $133 billion; a deficit in civilian retirement of $460 
billion; a deficit in the unemployment compensation of $72 billion; a 
deficit in the highway trust fund of $23 billion; a deficit in the 
airport trust fund of $10 billion; a deficit in the railroad retirement 
trust fund of $20 billion; and others, like Federal Financing Bank of 
$55 billion.
  I only limited it to 1 year, trying to get their attention to what is 
going on this particular year. We can extend it out. There is no 
difference there. But don't go along with this continued fraud. Don't 
go along with this continued trickery. There is $1.652 trillion 
overall. Social Security is less than half; almost $1 trillion from the 
military retirement and civilian retirees and unemployment fund.
  So the Government, us politicians, have been running around and 
gabbing about everyone. I thought I could get the seniors to pay 
attention to Social Security, but they are only paying attention to 
Medicare and Medicaid. I have been trying my best to get them in that 
particular movement. The military retirees don't understand it, and 
civilian retirees don't understand it at all.
  So what is really wrong is not only that CBO has estimated the 
unified budget surplus will reach nearly $1.5 trillion when there is no 
surplus, they act like they are trying to give dignity and credibility 
to unified budgets. There is no surplus. Look on page 11 of the CBO 
report, and for the next 10 years there is listed a deficit, gross 
deficit. It is listed there in the column like I emphasized--otherwise, 
returning all remaining surpluses.
  At this point, tell me, where is a surplus in the Government 
accounts? None--N-O-N-E. In fact, deficits--they mislead and say once 
we make a plan for Social Security, we can continue to spend the 
Medicare trust funds, the military retirement, the civilian retirement, 
the unemployment, the railroad retirement, the highway trust fund, the 
Federal Financing Bank. All of these are deficits--not surpluses.
  So they say I hope we can get together and fuzz it all up, and there 
is really no difference here. This is a cancer, I emphasize again, a 
fiscal cancer because unless and until it shows instead of surpluses 
over the next 5 years--and that is what we are talking about, this 
year's deficit, $557 billion spent more than we take in. Deficits, 
deficits, deficits--not surpluses. And we add that to the national 
debt, the interest costs go up. According to June O'Neill, it doesn't, 
but I can tell you right now it will go up.
  You can see Mr. Greenspan hedging his bet right now. When we do that, 
we will go back to the interest rates we had 10 years ago, and we are 
going to be eaten alive. So we have fiscal cancer. Nobody wants to talk 
about it, and we want to come up on the floor of the U.S. Senate with 
this nebulous language ``return all remaining surpluses to the American 
taxpayer.'' If you have them, Brother Hollings would be for that. But I 
don't want to mislead the American public. I haven't been nearly 50 
years in public office to come here with this kind of fraud and 
doubletalk

[[Page S8728]]

to the American people. There are no surpluses. I challenge them to 
point out the surplus in the highway fund, point out the surplus in 
Medicare, point out the surplus in military retirement, point out the 
surplus in civilian retirees, in unemployment, railroad retirement, 
Federal Financing Bank, all of the rest of them.
  All of them are in deficit. That is why the debt has gone through the 
ceiling, and that is why we are increasing spending faster than we can 
cut it. It is $1 billion a day we are increasing spending on the 
interest costs on the national debt. Who in his right mind is going to 
cut spending $365 billion? That is our problem. The best way to ignore 
it is to put it under the rug, come in here and ``return all remaining 
surpluses.'' They still want to use that language to give in to Speaker 
Gingrich over on the House side; that is what they are trying to do.

  That is why we are raising this all-important point right now. If I 
can get their attention, just this 1 year we will have accomplished our 
intent here. I retain the balance of our time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been interested in seeing the 
responses of some who come to the floor and say we support this ``save 
Social Security first'' notion, and we want to add to it and make it 
better.
  I bet when this vote is over, within 24 hours we will have them or 
their cousins or their kin or their friends talking about how big the 
surplus is and how much of a tax cut they want to give.
  The question is, Where do you think they can provide the money to 
fund a tax cut if they are not to dip into the Social Security trust 
funds, and to go back on exactly what they are now proposing in the 
Gregg amendment, which is to save Social Security first?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. That is what they intend to do. But they think 
the politician makes his own little laws and sits attentive to his own 
applause--Plato's famous words.
  The language, the image--it is a scandal. It really is a scandal. We 
are going broke, and we are talking about surpluses when we have 
nothing but deficit all around us.
  Mr. DORGAN. Might it be the case that those who say, ``Yes, let's 
save Social Security first,'' don't really mean that? They want to 
protect the trust funds because the same people who are talking about 
additional tax cuts right now can only get it by taking the Social 
Security trust funds. Could it be they don't understand the language of 
saving Social Security first, which means protecting the Social 
Security trust funds?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My dear colleague, they understand the language. They 
know exactly what they are doing. I can tell you here and now as a 
Governor who went before Standard & Poor's, went before Moody and got a 
triple A credit rating, we wouldn't have any rating at all, the U.S. 
Government on its bonds, this very minute with these kinds of deficits. 
You couldn't doubletalk Wall Street about surpluses. Wall Street goes 
along with the unified because it is business for them. That is why I 
pointed out the difference between corporate and the country's economy.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand it would be in my interest to provide tax 
cuts all the time, I suppose, if we could afford to do that.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That would be lovely. Reelect me, I am for all the tax 
cuts. Whoopee.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will continue to yield, if we are 
collecting more money than is necessary for the Government, it ought to 
go back to the folks who send it in, no question about that.
  But the question is, we have a debt of nearly $6 trillion and we have 
a problem in Social Security, as the Senator from South Carolina has 
pointed out. Just after World War II there were a lot of warm feelings 
around this country and we had the biggest baby crop ever produced in 
American history. People liked each other a lot and we had a lot of 
babies. Those babies are fixing to retire soon, and when they hit the 
retirement rolls it will be a maximum strain on the Social Security 
system. We have accrued surpluses year after year to meet that test for 
the baby boomers' retirement and those surpluses are invested in 
government bonds.
  When the folks over here say well, gee, now we have the Congressional 
Budget Office that tells us there is a surplus, they are taking one 
page of the CBO report. They are forgetting the other page. The other 
page says if you include the Social Security fund in your budget 
totals, there is a surplus. But if you don't count the Social Security 
fund--which you shouldn't be able to do, because that money is paid 
into a trust fund for only one purpose--if you don't count the Social 
Security trust fund, there is no surplus.
  Those folks are going to the second page, taking the number they 
want, and saying not only is there a surplus--which there isn't--but 
with the surplus we want to provide a big tax cut.
  When? The month before the election. Gee, that is Politics 101, I 
suppose, but it is not good government. That is the purpose of the 
amendment that is offered by the Senator from South Carolina. It says, 
let us do with the Social Security trust funds what we promised the 
American people we would do--that is, save them for Social Security 
needs when the baby boomers retire.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They are telling the baby boomers they are the problem 
when we are charging them. They are not the problem; it is us adults on 
the floor of the Congress. The baby boomers are not the problem. We 
provided in the Greenspan Commission and in the law passed and signed 
by President George Bush on November 5, 1990, to take care of the baby 
boomers. Instead of taking care of them, we are continuing to charge 
them and, at the same time, telling them there is going to be a problem 
in the next generation when we are causing the problem.
  I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Madam President, I will just take a few 
minutes out of the distinguished Senator's time to illustrate what is 
being discussed here in as direct and simple terms as possible. This 
chart really does it.
  For years now, the Senator from South Carolina has been sounding the 
alarm. He has been the Paul Revere of Social Security for years now. He 
is always calling our attention to the fact that, yes, we now have 
enough to fund the needs of the Social Security payout program, the 
beneficiaries. But look out for the future, watch out, there is a train 
wreck coming. And he works at it all the time to make it abundantly 
clear. I hope the message gets through. He endorses, as we do, and as 
our friends on the other side of the aisle said today--and I will use 
the word perhaps ``admitted'' today--the best idea is to save Social 
Security first.
  Well, frankly, I was a little astounded at what I heard here. In the 
same breath, they said we are taking in more than we need to spend for 
Government, so essentially let's get rid of that which is left over. I 
wonder if the same proponents of that type of a policy would say to 
their kids, ``Listen, kids, if you have more money than you need today, 
spend it.'' I doubt it. Would you, if you were running a business, 
decide that if you had more than you needed for today's expenses, you 
would go ahead and spend it?
  I ran a big corporation before I came here. One of the things that we 
always tried to do was to make sure that we were putting away the funds 
necessary for long-term investment, for new programs, for new 
marketing, for new production, to make sure that we would be ready for 
the future to stay competitive. That is what we are saying now. We are 
saying, yes, yes, to tax relief for hard-working Americans. But the 
first thing that we committed to do is to make sure that we save Social 
Security. I use the term ``SOS,'' which is the international call for 
help--save our security, save our Social Security--SOS.
  The Senator from South Carolina has been the one who stood here in 
the face of all kinds of opposition and worked hard to make sure that 
the message got through. Finally, it is getting through. And now, as it 
gets through, we want to spend it.
  Here is the picture in very simple terms. In the 5 years, including 
1999 to 2003, we will have a surplus that includes Social Security--
includes Social Security. I repeat, we take in on Social Security more 
than we spend; thus, we

[[Page S8729]]

are able to portray a surplus--$520 billion in 5 years. Now, if we take 
out the Social Security surplus--that means the funds that the people 
pay in through their payroll taxes--we wind up with a $137 billion 
deficit. So we ought not to continue this sleight of hand, as I call 
it, which is what is helping us to create these surpluses.
  From 1999 to 2008, the surplus is Social Security; $1.540 trillion is 
created because we include the Social Security balance in there. And if 
we follow the policy that we have developed now, we will use those 
funds to project the life of Social Security off into the future--into 
the foreseeable future, beyond 2070. If we don't use the Social 
Security surplus, we wind up, in this same period of time, with $31 
billion compared to $1.5 trillion.

  So when I hear that, yes, we want to save Social Security, oh, 
absolutely; we want to send the message out to those who will come of 
retirement age in the years ahead that it will be there for you. But it 
can't be there for you if we spend it now, if we go ahead and do as we 
have heard said and subscribe to the Republican policy of huge tax 
cuts, as it comes over from the House. Get rid of this surplus; get rid 
of it now; let everybody feel good; let everybody believe this is good 
business practice --while we go broke in the process and create debts 
that we will never be able to meet.
  So I hope that we will take the amendment by the Senator from South 
Carolina and get it passed. I like the amendment that we hear about 
from the Senator from New Hampshire because in it they say very 
clearly, save Social Security first. The language is precise: ``and 
return all remaining surpluses to the American taxpayer.'' So there is 
first and there is second. The second part of this is returning the 
surpluses to the American taxpayer. Everybody wants to see tax relief 
available to those who are working and trying to take care of their 
families' needs and provide education and job opportunities. But we 
can't do it with this kind of hocus-pocus that we are seeing here.
  Nobody here who understands financial balance sheets would permit 
this kind of thinking to overtake their judgment if they were running a 
business. I would not, and I know the Senator from South Carolina would 
not, and our colleagues on the other side would not do it, either. But 
when you sprinkle it with a little bit of politics in there, the tune 
changes, and the tune is: Spend it while you got it, baby. That is what 
is being said here on the floor of the Senate. I think, frankly, it is 
the kind of a message that the American people will see through.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Texas 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce, 
State, Justice Committee for yielding. Every once in awhile, we have a 
debate on something that really defines the choice that the American 
people face every 2 years when they go to the polls and decide whether 
they want a Republican majority in Congress or a Democrat majority in 
Congress. Many of the things we vote on, we agree on. Often, the 
distinctions are not so clear. And often the issues where they are 
clear, don't appear to be big at the time. But why I think the vote we 
are about to have at 4:15 is a very important vote and why I think the 
issue is significant--or at least it should be--to Americans who sit 
down every night around their kitchen table and get out a pencil and 
have the back of an envelope, and at the first of the month they take 
the amount of the paycheck and write it at the top of the envelope and 
they start subtracting bills they have to pay and try to figure out if 
they are going to make ends meet and whether they are coming out ahead 
that month--why this issue is a defining issue between the two parties 
is that there is one small, but significant, difference between the two 
resolutions that are before us. First of all, there are two very fine 
resolutions. They both talk about the fact that we are blessed by 
having a very strong and vibrant economy.
  We are blessed by having a lot of Americans who are working, and that 
we have joined together, at least to this point, in a bipartisan 
commitment to try to save Social Security, which implies two things--
No. 1, we admit, on a bipartisan basis, that it needs saving; No. 2, we 
are willing to do the heavy lifting to get the job done.
  I know Senator Gregg has a plan and has been willing to take a 
courageous stand in showing us how we can save Social Security. Senator 
Domenici and I are working on a program to try to save Social Security 
and protect its benefits. So the difference here is not about Social 
Security, the difference is, What do you do if you save Social Security 
and there is still some money left? Our resolution says that, A, we 
want to save Social Security first, but we want to return all remaining 
surpluses to the American taxpayer.

  That is the difference between these two resolutions.
  Why is that important? Why that is important is that if you take 
Federal, State, and local taxes, the tax burden on American families 
today is at the highest level in American history. Never in the history 
of this country--at the peak of the war effort in World War II, at the 
peak of the war effort in the Civil War--have we ever had working 
Americans face and bear a higher tax burden than they have today.
  What Republicans are saying is, first of all, we want to live up to 
our obligations; we want to save Social Security not with a slogan but 
with a real program, to begin to shift from a Social Security based on 
the debt of the Federal Government to a Social Security based on 
investment and wealth. That is the way we believe we can save Social 
Security. Obviously, we are going to have a debate on that.
  But the resolutions before us--both fine resolutions, but the 
difference is, our resolution has a part 4; and the part 4 is: Return 
all remaining surplus after we save Social Security to the American 
taxpayer. We believe the tax burden is too high. So we want to save 
Social Security first. But if money remains after we do that job, we 
want to give it back to taxpayers.
  Let me tell you why we are concerned, why we think Congress needs to 
go on record.
  The President proposed a budget this year. At the same moment he was 
saying save Social Security first, he proposed a budget that had $56 
billion worth of new discretionary spending programs busting the 
spending caps that we agreed to only last year.
  What we are saying in our resolution is, we do not intend to see 
those spending caps breached, we do not intend to increase Government 
spending; we intend to hold the line on spending, tax the surplus, save 
Social Security with a real investment-based system that belongs to the 
individual worker, and then to the extent that there is any money 
left--and if we hold the line on spending, there will be money left, 
tens, hundreds, of billions of dollars left ultimately--we want that to 
go back to American families.
  What would we like it to go back in the form of? We would like to 
repeal the marriage penalty. We have voted on an amendment that I 
offered this year to repeal the marriage penalty so that we don't have 
this absurd situation where people fall in love and get married and 
they end up giving the Government $1,400 additional income for the 
right to live in holy matrimony. Unfortunately, that was a bill that 
didn't become law.
  One of the things we want to do with the money that is left when we 
save Social Security, if there is money, is we want to repeal the 
marriage penalty. We happen to believe that families are important. I 
believe, and believe very strongly, that we are overfeeding government. 
We are starving the one institution in America that really works. That 
institution is the family.
  I would like to stretch out the income tax brackets. The average 
family in America is a two-wage-earner family. It earns $49,000 a year. 
It is in the 28-percent marginal tax bracket. I would like to link them 
to a 15-percent bracket so that more struggling American families who 
are trying to own their own home, trying to send their children to 
college, can continue to stay in that lower tax bracket longer.
  Finally, I would like to junk the current unfair, complicated--and 
unfath-
omable to most Americans, including me--Tax Code we have now and go to 
a

[[Page S8730]]

simple system that has flatter rates and that is comprehensible to the 
taxpayer, so that people can fill their tax return out in some 
semblance of some form they understand.
  This is a big issue on a relatively minor resolution. What is the 
sense of the Senate? Some would say that it is sort of an oxymoron to 
be talking about it. But to the extent there is, are we simply trying 
to save Social Security, or do we want to go a step further and say 
that, if we save Social Security, if any money is left, we want it to 
go back to the taxpayer instead of being spent? That is what we say.
  I hope people will vote for our resolution.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let me go right to the point made by 
the distinguished Senator from Texas. He said, ``We believe the tax 
burden is too high.'' We all agree on that. But what is increasing that 
tax burden rather than decreasing it is this profligate spending, 
increasing the deficit, and increasing the debt.
  If you look on page 11 of the Congressional Budget Office report, you 
find out that we increase spending over what we bring in for the next 
10 years, and there is nothing but deficits. There are not any 
surpluses. There are not any surpluses.
  Go right to the point of, yes, the President did submit a budget, and 
he increased spending $70 billion. You look on page 10 where the total 
went up to $1.721 trillion. The budget that passed the Senate with the 
vote of the distinguished Senator from Texas increased spending $70 
billion. The President is guilty. The Congress is guilty.
  This Senator tried a budget freeze. We had a vote on it last year, 
tried it again in the Budget Committee, and couldn't get any support. 
They call it the ``Fritz freeze.''
  But the whole point is, return all moneys or surpluses to the 
taxpayers. Common sense would indicate that there must be some 
surpluses after Social Security.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this chart printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              TABLE 4.--CBO PROJECTIONS OF INTEREST COSTS AND FEDERAL DEBT
                                                                    [By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Actual
                                    1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NET INTEREST OUTLAYS (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
 
Interest on Public Debt (Gross         356       363       363       365       363       360       357       357       357       356       354       352
 interest) a....................
Interest Received by Trust
 Funds:
    Social Security.............       -41       -46       -51       -57       -64       -70       -77       -84       -91       -99      -108      -117
    Other trust funds b.........       -64       -67       -67       -70       -72       -73       -75       -77       -79       -81       -84       -86
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................      -105      -113      -118      -128      -136      -143      -151      -161      -170      -180      -191      -202
Other Interest c................        -7        -6        -7        -6        -7        -7        -8        -8        -9        -9       -10       -10
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................       244       244       238       232       221       209       198       189       178       166       153       140
 
                                                FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
 
Gross Federal Debt..............     5,370     5,475     5,594     5,721     5,845     5,927     6,021     6,102     6,174     6,205     6,223     6,222
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by Government
 Accounts:
    Social Security.............       631       736       853       978     1,108     1,246     1,392     1,547     1,712     1,885     2,066     2,252
    Other accounts b............       968     1,022     1,087     1,154     1,219     1,286     1,354     1,419     1,481     1,541     1,600     1,650
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..................     1,599     1,757     1,939     2,132     2,327     2,532     2,746     2,966     3,193     3,426     3,665     3,902
                                 =======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by the Public.........     3,771     3,717     3,655     3,589     3,518     3,395     3,275     3,136     2,981     2,779     2,557     2,320
Debt Subject to Limit d.........     5,328     5,437     5,557     5,685     5,810     5,893     5,988     6,072     6,145     6,178     6,196     6,196
 
                                                           FEDERAL DEBT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
 
Debt Held by the Public.........      47.3      44.3      41.7      39.3      37.1      34.3      31.6      28.9      26.3      23.5      20.7      18.0
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: Congressional Budget Office.
 
 Note.--Projections of interest and debt assume that discretionary spending will equal the statutory caps that are in effect through 2002 and will grow
  at the rate of inflation in succeeding years.
 
a. Excludes interest costs of debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury (primarily the Tennessee Valley Authority).
b. Principally Civil Service Retirement, Military Retirement, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and the Highway and the Airport and Airway Trust Funds.
c. Primarily interest on loans to the public.
d. Differs from the gross federal debt primarily because most debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury is excluded from the debt limit.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, these are all deficits. I have asked 
the other side that sponsors this resolution to, for heaven's sake, 
show that dumb Senator from South Carolina where the surplus is. Show 
me the surplus, and I will hush and vote for your resolution. But you 
can't show me a surplus.
  There is nothing but deficits in these reports. And mislead the 
public so that we can use Social Security as a slush fund to reelect 
ourselves--that is what we are doing. It is the greatest campaign 
finance abuse that I know of to continually have the word ``surplus'' 
come out of the mouth of that side of the aisle. There ought to be 
ashes in their mouths. They oppose--in fact, still are.
  Down in South Carolina, I have a young Republican colleague running 
around hollering ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Of course, we 
know it was under President Reagan and Senator Dole. That has been 
analyzed in every newspaper. But I plead guilty, I voted for that tax 
increase. It is not the biggest.
  What happened was, we cut spending $250 billion. Yes, we increased 
taxes $250 billion. We downsized the Government by over 300,000 Federal 
employees. That is what has the economy good--lowest unemployment, 
lowest inflation rate, biggest business investment, stock market 
through the ceiling, more home ownership, more young children getting 
help in receiving health care. We are in good shape.
  If we can't talk the truth to each other now about where we stand 
fiscally, we never will. This is one grand fraud. That is what has 
occurred.
  For those who fought us on down the line, instead of $250 billion--
yes, the revenues went up.
  Where is the amendment that says do away with the Social Security 
increase that we put in that they are now blaming me for? Where is the 
amendment that says we reduce the gas tax increase that they are 
blaming me for? I go home and they are blaming me. Yet, they want to 
come up here and holler, ``Oh, the economy is so good; man, we got 
surpluses everywhere; now what is in order is, let's all now have a 
bunch of tax cuts.''
  I want to expose that fraud. Don't go along with this Republic 
resolution to fuzz it, using the word ``surpluses.'' As my sister used 
to say, ``Saying it so doesn't make it so.''
  There is no surplus. If they can find one in the Federal Government, 
God bless them. I will join me. But these are all deficits.
  I ask unanimous consent, once again, to have this chart of the budget 
realities printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S8731]]



                                           HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Annual
                                                                Unified       Actual                  increases
                                    U.S. budget    Borrowed     deficit      deficit      National   in spending
         President (year)           (outlays in  trust funds   with trust    without        debt         for
                                     billions)    (billions)     funds     trust funds   (billions)    interest
                                                               (billions)   (billions)                (billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
    1945..........................         92.7  ...........        -47.6  ...........        260.1  ...........
    1946..........................         55.2          5.4        -15.9        -10.9        271.0  ...........
    1947..........................         34.5         -5.0          4.0        +13.9        257.1  ...........
    1948..........................         29.8         -9.9         11.8         +5.1        252.0  ...........
    1949..........................         38.8          6.7          0.6         -0.6        252.6  ...........
    1950..........................         42.6          1.2         -3.1         -4.3        256.9  ...........
    1951..........................         45.5          1.2          6.1         +1.6        255.3  ...........
    1952..........................         67.7          4.5         -1.5         -3.8        259.1  ...........
    1953..........................         76.1          2.3         -6.5         -6.9        266.0  ...........
Eisenhower:
    1954..........................         70.9          0.4         -1.2         -4.8        270.8  ...........
    1955..........................         68.4          3.6         -3.0         -3.6        274.4  ...........
    1956..........................         70.6          0.6          3.9         +1.7        272.7  ...........
    1957..........................         76.6          2.2          3.4         +0.4        272.3  ...........
    1958..........................         82.4          3.0         -2.8         -7.4        279.7  ...........
    1959..........................         92.1          4.6        -12.8         -7.8        287.5  ...........
    1960..........................         92.2         -5.0          0.3         -3.0        290.5  ...........
    1961..........................         97.7          3.3         -3.3         -2.1        292.6  ...........
Kennedy:
    1962..........................        106.8         -1.2         -7.1        -10.3        302.9          9.1
    1963..........................        111.3          3.2         -4.8         -7.4        310.3          9.9
Johnson:
    1964..........................        118.5          2.6         -5.9         -5.8        316.1         10.7
    1965..........................        118.2         -0.1         -1.4         -6.2        322.3         11.3
    1966..........................        134.5          4.8         -3.7         -6.2        328.5         12.0
    1967..........................        157.5          2.5         -8.6        -11.9        340.4         13.4
    1968..........................        178.1          3.3        -25.2        -28.3        368.7         14.6
    1969..........................        183.6          3.1          3.2         +2.9        365.8         16.6
Nixon:
    1970..........................        195.6          0.3         -2.8        -15.1        380.9         19.3
    1971..........................        210.2         12.3        -23.0        -27.3        408.2         21.0
    1972..........................        230.7          4.3        -23.4        -27.7        435.9         21.8
    1973..........................        245.7          4.3        -14.9        -30.4        466.3         24.2
    1974..........................        269.4         15.5         -6.1        -17.6        483.9         29.3
Ford:
    1975..........................        332.3         11.5        -53.2        -58.0        541.9         32.7
    1976..........................        371.8          4.8        -73.7        -87.1        629.0         37.1
Carter:
    1977..........................        409.2         13.4        -53.7        -77.4        706.4         41.9
    1978..........................        458.7         23.7        -59.2        -70.2        776.6         48.7
    1979..........................        503.5         11.0        -40.7        -52.9        829.5         59.9
    1980..........................        590.9         12.2        -73.8        -79.6        909.1         74.8
Reagan:
    1981..........................        678.2          5.8        -79.0        -85.7        994.8         95.5
    1982..........................        745.8          6.7       -128.0       -142.5      1,137.3        117.2
    1983..........................        808.4         14.5       -207.8       -234.4      1,371.7        128.7
    1984..........................        851.8         26.6       -185.4       -193.0      1,564.7        153.9
    1985..........................        946.4          7.6       -212.3       -252.8      1,817.5        178.9
    1986..........................        990.3         40.5       -221.2       -303.1      2,120.6        190.3
    1987..........................      1,003.9         81.9       -149.8       -225.5      2,346.1        195.3
    1988..........................      1,064.1         75.7       -155.2       -255.2      2,601.3        214.1
Bush:
    1989..........................      1,143.2        100.0       -152.5       -266.7      2,868.3        240.9
    1990..........................      1,252.7        114.2       -221.2       -338.6      3,206.6        264.7
    1991..........................      1,323.8        117.4       -269.4       -391.9      3,598.5        285.5
    1992..........................      1,380.9        122.5       -290.4       -403.6      4,002.1        292.3
Clinton:
    1993..........................      1,408.2        113.2       -255.0       -349.3      4,351.4        292.5
    1994..........................      1,460.6         94.3       -203.1       -292.3      4,643.7        296.3
    1995..........................      1,514.6         89.2       -163.9       -277.3      4,921.0        332.4
    1996..........................      1,560.3        113.4       -107.3       -260.9      5,181.9        344.0
    1997..........................      1,601.3        153.6        -22.3       -187.8      5,369.7        355.8
    1998..........................      1,654.0        168.3         63.0       -105.3      5,475.0        363.0
    1999..........................      1,721.0        199.0         80.0       -119.0      5,594.0       363.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1998; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1998 Economic and Budget
  Outlook.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will give it to my colleague from New Hampshire, and 
he can get everything, the Congressional Budget Office figures. And the 
main point to be made, Madam President, is just that. Where you see an 
actual surplus down here in 1998 that they project of $63 billion, in 
order to do that they had to use trust funds of $168.3 billion. They 
used not only Social Security but all the rest. And then where they 
project for next year an $80 billion surplus, they had to use $199 
billion in trust funds from Social Security and the retirement funds. 
That is how they talk that language. And I am trying to stop the 
doubletalk and talk sense to the American people.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I just wanted to return to the specifics 
of the resolution, because I do think it is important to note that the 
resolution put forward by the Democratic membership is a resolution 
which tracks the statements made by the President in his State of the 
Union Address, which were that we should save Social Security first, we 
should reserve the surplus until we have saved Social Security first.
  That is a paraphrase, but I think it is an accurate paraphrase. In 
other words, the President did not say, ``We shall use the surplus to 
save Social Security.'' No, he chose his words very precisely. He said, 
``We would reserve the surplus until Social Security is saved.'' If you 
look at this proposal brought forward by the Democratic leadership, it 
says, ``Save Social Security first by reserving any surplus.'' It 
doesn't say the surplus is going to be used. It says they are going to 
reserve it, again.
  What is the difference here? We are saying use the surplus to save 
Social Security. They are saying reserve the surplus until Social 
Security has been saved. So all of the arguments they have made 
relative to the surplus and how it ties into the need to have the 
surplus for the purposes of benefiting the Social Security system 
really are not supported by the terms and specifics of their language 
because they are not even saying they intend to use the surplus to save 
Social Security. They are saying they are going to reserve the surplus 
until Social Security is saved, which leads one to the conclusion that 
maybe what they are planning is some change, some horrific change to 
the Social Security system where they are going to cut benefits and 
slash here and slash there so that they can pump up the surplus and 
have saved the Social Security system and still have a surplus to 
spend.
  You can read their language to say that. You can't read our language 
to say that. Our language says, ``Use the surplus to save Social 
Security.'' So the histrionics around here are a bit much, and I don't 
know what they

[[Page S8732]]

mean. I don't know what they mean when they say ``reserve.'' I don't 
know what they mean when they say, ``The surpluses in the year 1999 
budget legislation'' because that doesn't necessarily mean the year 
1999. That could mean the next 5 years, for all I know, that the budget 
legislation expires.
  So this is a resolution that is, to be kind, imprecisely drafted, or 
maybe it isn't imprecisely drafted. Maybe they intended to obfuscate 
the issue by using the term ``reserve,'' obfuscate the issue by using 
the term ``1999 budget legislation.'' We do not obfuscate the issue. We 
say, ``Save Social Security first,'' period. None of this qualifying 
language about reserving anything. And then we say, and we don't 
obfuscate this either, to the extent that there remains a surplus, 
``Give it back to the American taxpayers.'' Give them a tax cut. Across 
this country in State legislatures where the surpluses are being added 
up--along with our Federal surplus, most States are running surpluses 
--we are seeing tax cut after tax cut because the States understand 
that they are taking in more than the government needs. You shouldn't 
spend it. You shouldn't create new programs. You should return it to 
the taxpayers.
  Now, the Senator from South Carolina has spent a considerable amount 
of time--in fact, he was kind enough to give me his numbers, and they 
are very nice numbers, presented very nicely, well formatted--on how 
there is no surplus out there besides the Social Security surplus. 
Well, I know the Senator from South Carolina is a student of the 
budget. In fact, he is one of the most knowledgeable people around 
here. I would simply refer him to the CBO numbers which say in the 
outyears there is a surplus independent of the Social Security system, 
independent of the Social Security system. In other words, there is a 
surplus beginning in the year 2005, which is a surplus that is not 
generated in any relationship to the surplus in the Social Security 
trust fund, and in 2006, in 2007, and in 2008, and beyond that maybe--
we hope. But in any event, over that 4-year period, and that adds up to 
almost, by my calculations, $150 billion of surplus, which is an 
onbudget surplus generated not by the Social Security surplus but 
generated after you have taken into account Social Security payments.

  So the CBO is telling us there is a distinct potential for there to 
be a surplus which has nothing to do with the Social Security trust 
funds. Not only is there a potential; they say there is going to be 
one, specifically saying. So I believe the Senator from South Carolina 
has misspoken on that point, or I disagree with his position on that 
point. He may not have misspoken. I am disagreeing with his position, 
because I am looking at the CBO July update which says there is a 
surplus.
  Should we use that surplus for something other than Social Security? 
My own personal opinion is no. No. The onbudget surplus, that I just 
talked about, should probably be also used for the purposes of 
addressing the Social Security issue. That happens to be my personal 
position. The way it should be done is by cutting taxes, which is what 
we happen to mention here in our amendment. We should cut taxes.
  What tax should we cut? We should cut the Social Security tax. Why? 
Because it is the most regressive tax which we have. It is assessed 
across the board. Every wage earner pays it, and it is extraordinarily 
high. In fact, for most wage earners in America today, the Social 
Security tax is higher than their income tax. And it has no 
relationship to your total income; it simply is applied to your wage 
base. So it should be cut.
  That is our proposal. It happens to be a bipartisan proposal. In 
fact, I think it now has something like seven or eight sponsors almost 
evenly divided between the Democrat and Republican side of the aisle 
here. And what we propose is to cut the Social Security tax by 2 
percent, allow people to take that money, invest it in a savings 
vehicle managed by the Social Security Administration, which will give 
them a better return and give them physical ownership of that asset as 
we have discussed earlier.
  So substantively I believe the proposal that I have brought forward 
here that is cosponsored by Senator Lott, Senator Domenici, Senator 
Gramm, and Senator Mack is a better idea. It says, ``Save Social 
Security,'' period. That has to be done. It has to be done first. And 
then if there is a surplus, let's return it to the American taxpayer. 
It doesn't say there will definitely be a surplus, but if we look at 
the CBO numbers, we know there is a distinct possibility that there 
will be a surplus because they are scoring one for us. It does not 
obfuscate the issue with words like ``reserve'' and words like ``fiscal 
year 1999 budget legislation.'' Pretty blunt.
  So I think if the membership wants to choose a clear, concise, 
specific statement that says Social Security will be saved and will be 
saved first, and that then we will look at cutting taxes for the 
American taxpayer, they will want to choose the amendment offered by 
myself. If they wish to choose an amendment which is a little more 
opaque in its presentation and does not address the issue of cutting 
taxes, then they will choose one presented by the Democratic 
leadership.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think we can bring this right into focus for 
everyone. The Senator was reading from page 10 about surplus, and I 
have already been critical, of course, of the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, because that is using surplus funds, that 
is using trust funds and moving them. The question would be--just turn 
the page--on page 11 you have the Federal debt, 2002, $5.927 trillion, 
and then why, if you have surpluses those years that you are talking 
about, and return those surpluses to the taxpayers--why is it, in 2003 
it increases, in 2004, in 2005, in 2006, in 2007, 2008--why does the 
debt go up, if you have surpluses?
  Mr. GREGG. As the Senator knows, there are a lot of other functions. 
But I am looking at the surplus, at the deficit surplus function, on 
budget, July: $37 million, $46 million, $45 million, $1 million, $11 
million, zero; then we go into surplus, $5 million, $44 million, $55 
million, $65 million.
  We can spend the entire day here debating what the CBO means when it 
puts a surplus number out which says an on-budget surplus number. But 
the numbers are there. The Senator said find me a place where we can 
show a surplus. I found him a place. He wants to try to talk now about 
gross debt--
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right, because that is not a surplus. 
They are using trust funds. That is exactly my point. That is what the 
whole debate is about: Save Social Security.
  Mr. GREGG. Didn't the Senator ask me to answer his question? I 
believe I answered his question by pointing out to where it has shown a 
surplus. So, obviously, there is an opportunity here to show a surplus 
independent of the Social Security investments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What fund shows a surplus? Because the Federal debt 
goes up each year. So you show me--that is what I am saying: Name the 
surplus. I agree she used the word ``surplus.''
  Mr. GREGG. That is $169 billion, according to the CBO numbers, 
between the period 2004 and 2008.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is by using, of course, all these Social Security 
moneys.
  Mr. GREGG. No; that is independent of Social Security.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, 2004-2008, you use the year 2004, $154 
billion of Social Security moneys to make it a slush fund; 2005, $166 
billion; 2006, $173 billion; 2007, $181 billion; 2008, $187 billion.
  That is how you use the word ``surplus.''
  Mr. GREGG. No, that is not the same at all.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What fund here is in surplus?
  Mr. GREGG. Let's go back to the unified budget surplus.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Unified.
  Mr. GREGG. If you use the Social Security trust funds, the surpluses 
in 2004 would be $154 billion. If we don't use the unified, you get a 
zero number.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If you use Social Security.
  Mr. GREGG. If you use the unified, you get $171 billion. If you don't 
use--those are surpluses that are independent of the Social Security 
system.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator and I agree that we are using Social 
Security and not saving Social Security. That is what the whole debate 
is about.
  Mr. GREGG. No, we are not using Social Security. If I may restate the

[[Page S8733]]

point, CBO numbers, which came out on July 15, showed fairly 
definitively that there is a surplus, independent of the Social 
Security trust fund, of approximately $169 billion.
  The Senator may not accept those numbers. He may not like those 
numbers. He may feel those numbers are inaccurately, inappropriately 
arrived at. But those are the numbers which we have been given. Which 
leads to the secondary point, because the numbers are really almost 
irrelevant to the debate. It leads to the secondary point here, which 
is the key point, which is that there is a potential to give the 
American taxpayers a tax cut. Let's give it to them. Let's lock in the 
statement, ``We want to give a tax cut, if there is a surplus in excess 
of what we need to benefit the Social Security system and make it 
solvent.''
  Why would we walk away from the opportunity to say to the American 
taxpayer, ``If we can make the Social Security system solvent, after we 
have done that, if we have extra money, we are going to give you a tax 
cut?'' Why would we ever want to walk away from such a statement? I 
think it is a fairly reasonable statement, a clear statement, concise 
statement, unlike the statement from the Democratic leadership which is 
totally--which is very hard to understand because it uses terms like 
``reserve,'' uses terms like ``fiscal year 1999 budget legislation,'' 
both of which are terms of art and which are very hard to understand, 
would be very hard to even get a legal definition of, much less a 
commonsense definition of.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, assuming the Senator was correct, the 
reason you don't walk away, if you can possibly ever quit using Social 
Security as a slush fund, is the almost $1 trillion--that is why I put 
this chart in--from Medicare. We are still using Medicare. There is a 
surplus in Medicare right now. We have debated that. But we are using 
that to balance the budget. Military retirement, civilian retirement, 
unemployment, highway, airport moneys, railroad retirement, the other 
funds there, Federal Financing Bank and others--it is $1 trillion worth 
of other moneys.
  If we could ever stop using those, which are deficits, and make them 
balance, just in the black instead of in the red, then I would go along 
with all the tax cuts. I want to go along with the tax cuts anyway. I 
voted to save the tax increase on guns just yesterday. I voted to cut 
the other so-called penalty, marriage penalty, on another item. I don't 
mind cutting taxes. But, overall, let's not act like we have money to 
spend when we are going broke, and that causes the debt to increase, 
which causes the interest costs to increase, which causes the waste to 
increase.
  They act like, ``We can play the game and we will get to it later.'' 
That is what is really hurting us, the $1-billion-a-day interest costs 
on the national debt for absolutely nothing.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to support Senator Hollings' 
amendment. This amendment puts the Senate on record in support of 
Saving Social Security first. It says before we do anything with the 
budget surplus, whether that is cutting taxes or funding worthwhile 
programs, we must ensure the solvency of Social Security. This is a 
very important vote. It expresses our commitment to the Social Security 
system for the millions of Americans who currently rely on Social 
Security. It also sends a powerful message to the millions of Americans 
who have come to doubt that Social Security will be there for them when 
they retire.
  I support this amendment because I believe that promises made must be 
promises kept. We must be thoughtful and cautious when addressing the 
needs of a system that so many Americans count on, especially elderly 
women and disabled children. We need to ensure that we have the 
resources necessary to put Social Security on a sound footing, for both 
the short-term and the long-term.
  Now we are in the midst of a historic event: the first federal budget 
surplus in decades. We've gone from a record deficit of $290 billion in 
the last year of the Bush Administration to a projected surplus of $80 
billion for fiscal year 1998. There is no end to the proposals on how 
to use this ``extra'' money. I believe that we should follow President 
Clinton's lead and not commit the surplus to any program until we first 
resolve the long-term solvency of the Social Security system.
  When you remove the Social Security Trust Fund from the budget 
calculation, there is no surplus and the budget isn't balanced. The 
Social Security Trust Fund is an important part of our current fiscal 
good fortune. We must continue to work to bring the budget into true 
balance without counting Social Security Trust Fund balances. In the 
past, I have voted to remove the Social Security Trust Fund from the 
federal budget calculation and I will continue to do so in the future. 
While Social Security is still in the overall budget calculation, any 
budget surplus should not be used to justify new spending initiatives. 
Our seniors, disabled, and survivors deserve better.
  We are in the early stages of a deliberative process to determine the 
best way to assure the solvency of Social Security. I am pleased that 
President Clinton started this initiative by putting Social Security 
solvency front and center in his State of the Union Address. Since 
then, various groups, both public and private, have brought forth a 
vast range of proposals. I am taking part in that debate and want to be 
an advocate for the original intention of the Social Security program: 
a safety net for our seniors and for the disabled.
  Let me say again that I believe that promises made must be promises 
kept. I want that to be a guiding principle for any plan to modify the 
Social Security program. I am pleased to support this amendment that 
reaffirms our commitment to Saving Social Security First.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask that Senator Murkowski be added as 
a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as I understand it, there are a few 
minutes left. I wanted to come to the floor to commend the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina on his amendment. I believe 
this is really one of the most critical economic and fiscal decisions 
we will make this year. It will probably affect, more dramatically than 
anything else we do, the budget, the deficit, and, most certainly, 
Social Security. There are four numbers that I think everybody needs to 
understand. I know a lot of this has been discussed before.
  The first number is $520 billion; $520 billion is the projected 
surplus including Social Security trust funds that we anticipate 
between now and the year 2003. If you take out the Social Security 
trust funds, you get to the second number---$137 billion. If we remove 
the Social Security trust funds, we actually have a deficit over the 
next 5 years of $137 billion.
  Let us not kid anybody here. When we talk about a surplus--and I wish 
we could talk more forcefully and more convincingly that, indeed, we 
have a surplus--the reality is that we have a surplus only if we 
include the Social Security trust funds.
  Let's move to the second set of numbers. The first is $1.548 
trillion. All of these figures, by the way, Mr. President, are CBO 
numbers. That figure is the budget surplus including the Social 
Security trust funds that CBO anticipates for the next 10 years.
  The fourth and final number is $31 billion; $31 billion is all that 
CBO anticipates that we will have over the next 10 years in surplus if 
we do not include the Social Security trust funds.
  There should not be any question about our circumstances. Do we have 
a surplus? Yes. But it is yes with an asterisk, and that is what the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina says so forcefully and so 
convincingly. We have a surplus only if we are prepared to drawn down 
those Social Security trust funds that we know we are going to need in 
the outyears.
  When we talk about how do we use the surplus, it is pretty simple. 
The question we should be asking is, How do we use the Social Security 
trust funds? Of the roughly $650 billion over five years and $1.5 
trillion over the next 10 years in Social Security trust funds, how do 
we use them?

[[Page S8734]]

  Most of us believe very strongly that we ought to use those funds for 
one purpose and one purpose only: to pay out the commitment that we 
have made to Social Security recipients in this generation and the next 
and the next.
  That is the question. That is why this resolution is so important, 
and that is why I hope everybody will support the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from New Hampshire 
has 3 minutes 3 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Democratic side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute on the other side.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest we yield back all time and go to a vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3255 offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3255) as modified, was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3254

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 3254 offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3254) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order and 
subject to relevant second-degrees; that following the disposition of 
the below listed amendments the bill be advanced to third reading, and 
a vote occur on passage of the bill as amended.
  I further ask that following the vote on the Senate bill, the bill 
remain at the desk awaiting receipt of the House companion bill, all 
after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2260 be 
inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  I further ask that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint the 
following conferees on the part of the Senate: Gregg, Stevens, 
Domenici, McConnell, Hutchison of Texas, Campbell, Cochran, Hollings, 
Inouye, Bumpers, Lott, Mikulski, and Byrd. Finally, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate bill be indefinitely postponed.
  I submit the list of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of amendments is as follows:

                           Amendments to CJS

       Gregg--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Stevens--Relevant.
       Managers--Relevant.
       Kyl--Border crossing cards.
       Kyl--Internet gambling.
       Kyl--Special masters.
       Specter--Schuykill Courthouse.
       McCain--P.O.W./M.I.A.
       McCain--Patent and trademark office.
       Sessions--Relevant.
       Sessions--Relevant.
       Brownback--Modifies membership of Fed./State joint board on 
     universal service.
       Grams--International criminal court.
       Grams--Extradition of U.S. Nationals.
       Grams--Provides standard notification of UN no growth 
     budget certification.
       Faircloth--Admin. subpoena authority for FBI on child 
     exploitation.
       Inhofe/Brownback--Patent and Trademark office building.
       Nickles--Defense attorneys.
       Smith, Wyden, and Craig--H2-A.
       Hatch--Relevant.
       Hatch--Relevant.
       Thompson--Federalism.
       Allard--Satellite mapping.
       Akaka--Relevant.
       Baucus--Havre Montana training site.
       Biden--Sec. 403, UN arrearages.
       Biden--Violence against women.
       Biden--Relevant.
       Biden--Relevant.
       Biden--Relevant.
       Bingaman--Trademark.
       Bingaman--Relevant.
       Bingaman--Relevant.
       Bryan--Children's online privacy.
       Bumpers--Immigrant investors program.
       Bumpers--Telephone privacy.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Dodd--Blocking software.
       Dorgan--USTR.
       Durbin--Child access protection.
       Durbin--Nursing relief for disadvantaged areas.
       Durbin--Voluntary criminal background check for senior 
     housing volunteers.
       Durbin--Law enforcement training elderly abuse.
       Feingold--Cable rates.
       Feingold--Juvenile detention.
       Feingold--Relevant.
       Feinstein--Gangs.
       Feinstein--Killer clips.
       Ford--Relevant.
       Graham--H2A workers.
       Graham--Tourist visas.
       Graham--Relevant.
       Harkin--Communications.
       Hollings--Manager's amendment.
       Hollings--Relevant.
       Hollings--Relevant.
       Johnson--National Weather Service.
       Johnson--Sentencing commission.
       Kerrey--Copper.
       Kerrey--Money to TIIAP.
       Kerry--Relevant.
       Kohl--Background check.
       Landrieu--Adoption of immigrant children.
       Lautenberg--Funding for prosecutions.
       Lautenberg--Funding for certain police activities.
       Leahy--Kurds.
       Lieberman--Asian financial crisis.
       Moseley-Braun--Embargo prohibition.
       Moseley-Braun--Internet predators.
       Moynihan--Relevant.
       Reed (RI)--TPS to Liberians.

[[Page S8735]]

       Torricelli--Bounty hunters.
       Torricelli--Gun safe.
       Torricelli--New Jersey radio use.
       Torricelli--Nonsource point pollution.
       Wellstone--Battered immigrant spouses.
       Wellstone--Mental health.
       Wellstone--Sexual assault of prisoners.
       Wyden--72 hour holding period.

  Mr. GREGG. Under the agreement which we have been talking about, we 
will now turn to the Senator from Arizona for an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3257

  (Purpose: To prevent any consolidation of the Patent and Trademark 
  Office until the Administrator of General Services conducts a cost-
benefit analysis that is not limited to a specific geographical region 
       and makes a recommendation on the basis of that analysis)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3257.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 page 62, strike ``Provided further,'' on line 3 and all 
     that follows through line 16 and insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under this Act or under any other 
     provision of law may be obligated or expended by the 
     Secretary of Commerce, through the Patent and Trademark 
     Office, to plan for the design, construction, or lease of any 
     new facility for that office until the date that is 90 days 
     after the date of submission to Congress by the Administrator 
     of General Services of a report on the results of a cost-
     benefit analysis that analyzes the costs versus the benefits 
     of relocating the Patent and Trademark Office to a new 
     facility, and that includes an analysis of the cost 
     associated with leasing, in comparison with the cost of any 
     lease-purchase, Federal construction, or other alternative 
     for new space for the Patent and Trademark Office and a 
     recommendation on the most cost-effective option for 
     consolidating the Patent and Trademark Office: Provided 
     further, That the report submitted by the Administrator of 
     General Services shall consider any appropriate location or 
     facility for the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall not 
     be limited to any geographic region: Provided further, That 
     the Administrator of General Services shall submit the report 
     to Congress not later than May 1, 1999.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. I understand we have a time agreement on this amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. There is no time agreement yet, but I would ask unanimous 
consent there be half an hour.
  Mr. McCAIN. This is the Patent Trademark Office relocation. I just 
say to my colleagues I intend to be brief. I would be glad to have any 
time agreement that is reasonable. So I would be glad to enter into any 
time agreement.
  Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have not asked for a unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). There is no unanimous consent 
request pending.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would not ask for a unanimous consent, but I would ask 
unanimous consent for the Senator from Utah to be recognized without 
losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, all I ask is that the Senator from Utah be 
permitted the opportunity to speak following the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I say to those who are interested, 
I will be glad to enter into a very short time agreement. I know the 
Senator from New Hampshire wants to finish up the bill, and so I will 
be glad to enter into a very short time agreement.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It prohibits the Patent 
and Trademark Office from spending any funds to plan for or proceed 
with the consolidation and relocation of its facilities until 90 days 
after the General Services Administration submits a new report to the 
Congress on the costs versus benefits of relocating all Patent and 
Trademark Office facilities to a new facility or location, and the 
costs associated with leasing versus lease-purchase, Federal 
construction, or other alternatives for new space, and finally, a 
recommendation of the lowest cost alternative for the project.
  Most importantly, the amendment requires a GSA report to be prepared 
without regard to a specific geographic location. I want to repeat, Mr. 
President, so all my colleagues know, the amendment requires the GSA 
report to be prepared without regard to a specific geographic location.
  The proposal to consolidate and relocate the various offices of the 
Patent and Trademark Office is an enormous project, the largest real 
estate venture the Federal Government is expected to enter into in the 
next decade. The current proposal raises serious questions.
  First, the project is estimated to cost the taxpayers approximately 
$1.6 billion. About $1.3 billion of this amount is to pay for a 20-year 
lease of a new 2-million-square-foot facility somewhere in Northern 
Virginia. The additional $250 million is what the Patent and Trademark 
Office proposes to spend to ``improve'' the building, to bring it up to 
PTO standards, which appears to me extravagant and luxurious amenities 
that most of America's businesses do not provide to even their senior 
executives.
  Most alarming, the language contained in the committee bill imposes 
no enforceable ceiling on the potential costs of this huge project.
  Both the Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers 
Union have raised serious concerns about the enormous cost of this 
project.
  How can we claim to wisely spend Americans' hard-earned tax dollars 
when we are essentially giving the Patent and Trademark Office a blank 
check for this project? I have no desire to prohibit the Patent and 
Trademark Office from streamlining and improving its operations. It may 
be that the PTO does need to consolidate and relocate. However, we have 
a responsibility to ensure that this consolidation takes place in a 
fiscally responsible manner.
  The proposed Patent and Trademark Office building complex is 
shamefully expensive and extravagant. In addition, in putting the 
proposal together, the Congress limited the Patent and Trademark Office 
to considering only sites in Northern Virginia, which is certainly not 
an inexpensive area for construction and leasing of office space.
  To make matters worse, the bill before the Senate does not 
effectively limit PTO's budget for this project. The amendment I 
propose would require GSA to reevaluate the site selection process and 
look at more cost-effective alternatives which are not tied to one 
specific locality.
  Mr. President, this $1.6 billion project is entirely too expensive. 
Under the current proposal, PTO plans to lease a 2-million-square-foot 
building ``shell,'' which is essentially a structure with walls, 
ceilings, floors, and windows, but without electrical wiring, computer 
and telecommunication lines, carpeting, furniture, and all the other 
necessary interior fixtures.
  The Patent and Trademark Office will not have to pay the costs of 
constructing the building ``shell.'' However, the Patent and Trademark 
Office plans to spend an outrageous amount of taxpayers' dollars to 
bring the building up to its ``standards.''
  First, the PTO is authorized to spend up to $88 million to ``build 
out'' the shell. This includes such necessary items as carpeting, 
electric, plumbing fixtures, and necessary environmental control 
upgrades to support the computer-intensive work of the office.
  Unfortunately, compared to the Government's ``standard'' rate for 
this type of expenditure, building out the PTO building will cost 20 
percent more than most Government buildings.
  For example, the PTO building costs are $44 per square foot. NASA's 
new building was $37 a square foot. FERC's building cost $36 per square 
foot. And the Government standard is $36.69 per square foot.
  On top of that $88 million, the PTO also plans to spend another $29 
million for extravagant amenities, including extra elevators, granite 
and marble decor, jogging and walking trails, sculpture gardens, and 
outdoor amphitheaters.
  That is a total of $117 million to finish the interior of the 
building and to add millions of dollars of extravagant amenities. On a 
per-square-foot basis, that is $58 per square foot of occupiable space, 
or 58 percent over the Government standard. But that is not all. The

[[Page S8736]]

PTO also plans to spend another $135 million to move into the building, 
install the telecommunications equipment and buy furniture. Almost half 
of this money, $65 million, is for the purchase of new furniture and 
furnishings, including $250 shower curtains--$250 shower curtains--
$1,200 chairs, $1,000 coat racks and $562 mailroom stools.
  Mr. President, in case my colleagues missed that, I will repeat, $250 
shower curtains--I would like to view that shower curtain--$1,200 
chairs, $1,000 coat racks, and $560 mailroom stools.
  Altogether, then, the PTO will pay $250 million to bring the building 
up to its standards, standards which far exceed the Government's norms, 
and which can only be called luxurious by any standard.
  After spending $252 million to spruce up the premises, the PTO is 
prepared to pay $50 million per year for a 20-year lease, over and 
above the cost of its improvements listed above. That is approximately 
$1.3 billion in lease payments alone over the next 20 years.
  Altogether, now, the PTO project is expected to cost the taxpayers 
almost $1.6 billion, and we will not even own the building at the end 
of 20 years. Let me repeat, we will not even own the building at the 
end of 20 years.
  Remember how the cost of the Ronald Reagan building skyrocketed? The 
Ronald Reagan building, which is 3 million square feet, began at $362 
million and ended up costing $800 million. That is a huge cost 
increase. This deal will be worse than the Ronald Reagan deal. The PTO 
project involves a 2.3 million square foot facility that will cost $1.6 
billion when finally completed.
  The new PTO building will be smaller than the Reagan building, 
700,000 square feet smaller, and it is much more expensive. We spent 
$800 million on the Reagan Center, but at least we own a building that 
is designed to last at least 200 years and includes rentable space to 
offset its costs. The PTO deal is insane. The taxpayers pay to finish 
the interior building, add a myriad of extravagancies, and then pay to 
lease it for a total of $1.6 billion over 20 years, and at the end of 
20 years, we give the building back to the owner. What kind of a deal 
is that? I think it is remarkable, remarkable.
  The project was destined to become a fiscal nightmare. Our first 
mistake was we didn't allow ourselves to look at all possible locations 
to determine the most cost-effective facility to house the PTO complex. 
Instead, we only looked at sites in Northern Virginia. The sheer 
excesses in the PTO's proposals for the building's amenities are 
unbelievable: $250 shower curtains, $1,000 coatracks, and miles of 
walking and jogging paths. The tax dollars should be spent on 
processing patent applications. We should not be spending America's 
hard-earned tax dollars on extravagant perks. We should be spending tax 
dollars on processing patent applications, and we should make sure we 
spend them in the most cost-effective manner possible, by looking at 
all possible locations for this Government facility, not just one 
region.
  Mr. President, I am not trying to kill this project. Maybe the PTO 
does need to consolidate. However, I think we, as a body, have a 
responsibility to act to ensure that the cost of this project is 
justified and kept in check. The amendment will require the GSA to take 
another look at this project before we spend $1.6 billion on it.
  I would like to quote from a letter from the Citizens Against 
Government Waste:

       At a starting price tag of $1.3 billion, the PTO facility 
     will dwarf the final cost of the $800 million Ronald Reagan 
     International Trade Building, which has 700,000 more square 
     feet. Adding insult to injury, at the end of the 20-year 
     lease period, the government would not even own the PTO 
     building.
       The PTO says it needs 2.3 million square feet. However, the 
     Department of Commerce Inspector General has issued a report, 
     Insufficient Planning is Jeopardizing PTO's Space 
     Consolidation Project, which casts serious doubt on the 
     appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the venture.

  In the letter they mention not only $250 shower curtains and $1,000 
coatracks but $700 baby cribs.

       On behalf of the 600,000 members of [Citizens Against 
     Government Waste], we are pleased to endorse your amendment. 
     . . .

  I have a letter from the National Taxpayers Union.

       . . . the Reagan Building is built to last 200 years, at 
     about half the cost of the proposed 20-year PTO lease.

  That is just the start of this giant boondoggle.

       PTO's costs just for moving into the new headquarters could 
     run more than $130 million. That ought to buy a new building, 
     not just pay for relocation.
       As part of the move, PTO plans to purchase $65 million in 
     brand new furniture, including $250 shower curtains, $750 
     cribs, $309 ash cans. . . .

  On that list are $309 ash cans.

       The environmental clean-up costs of possible PTO relocation 
     sites could be as high as $194 million--some may contain 
     carcinogens or even unexploded ordnance.
       . . . the PTO plan is ``flawed because the lease 
     development project lacks a defined cost ceiling.'' By a 3 to 
     1 margin, PTO employees represented by the Patent Office 
     Professional Association oppose the move to a new complex.

  I am surprised at that. Maybe they don't like $250 shower curtains.

       It would appear that PTO Commissioner Bruce Lehman is 
     seeking a grand monument to his tenure, to be leased at 
     government expense. If your amendment fails, the PTO lease 
     will stand as the largest monument ever erected to government 
     excess.
       For these reasons we endorse your PTO Amendment and urge 
     your Senate colleagues to support it. The vote will be . . . 
     weighted [et cetera].
  I have a letter here from the American Intellectual Property Owners 
association.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am almost finished. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has made frequent use of ``taxpayers 
dollars,'' but I think in a sense of fairness, and I will eventually 
speak in greater detail, primarily the funding for this important 
function is entirely derived from the fees paid by the users of the 
services. It is not involved, these egregious sums of taxpayer dollars. 
I thought the Senator might want to comment on that, because I 
certainly will bring that out.
  Mr. McCAIN. My only comment is when somebody pays a fee to the 
Government for a service, I don't know how you differentiate between 
that and money being taken out of someone's paycheck--because they are 
paying. They are not receiving this Government service for free. So you 
can call it a user fee, but that is the same thing as when you and I 
buy an airline ticket and 10 percent of that goes to the FAA to keep 
the FAA in operation, the air traffic control system, et cetera. Most 
people still view that as a tax.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished friend, when we go to the 
Department of Transportation to consult and get their advice on an 
issue, issues which are very much foremost in my distinguished 
colleague's mind now on aviation, we don't pay any fees. When we go to 
the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice to work with 
other Government agencies and Departments, fees are not paid. This 
thing was devised by Congress, this institution, to operate on a 
rotating basis of fees paid, which fees are passed on down the line to 
the consumers. I just wanted to bring that out.
  Last, you mentioned the IPO. They just sent in a letter today 
endorsing it. I know the Senator is trying as hard as he can to list as 
many persons with an objection, but at the appropriate time I will put 
this letter in the Record. In the meantime, I will get a copy for the 
Senator. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. When he does talk, I 
would be interested in hearing him discuss the $250 shower curtains, 
$750 cribs, $309 ash cans, and $1,000 coatracks. I would be very 
interested in hearing--perhaps he has had an opportunity to view those. 
I would like to see them myself. In fact, perhaps we could have a 
hearing and view some of that, because it must be exciting stuff there, 
and all of the miles of trails.
  Also, I would have to ask about the logic of my friend from Virginia. 
We pay $1.3 billion over 20 years, we take a shell and we put in all 
the furnishings, all the wiring, all the plumbing and everything into 
it, and then after 20 years it is not even ours, after a payment of 
$1.3 billion. I don't understand it.
  By the way, let me mention two things to my friend from Virginia real 
quick. No. 1, I know this amendment will not be agreed to. That is why 
I am willing to have a relatively short time agreement. I have no 
illusions about that. But I think it is important to put all of this on 
the record here.

[[Page S8737]]

  I also am aware both Senators from Virginia are very committed to 
this project. I understand and admire their commitment.
  I also want to mention one thing about the chairman, the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He is going to say, 
and I will respectfully agree with him, he has wrestled with this issue 
for years. He has done everything he can to try to resolve this issue. 
He has my utmost respect and appreciation for his efforts. I just 
happen to think this is the wrong answer. I think it is wrong to pay 
$250 for a shower curtain. I think it is wrong, after 20 years, to have 
to give back a building that you basically built, except for the shell. 
Frankly, I think it is wrong, in all due respect to my two friends from 
Virginia, that we should earmark any Government facility in a 
geographic-specific location. I think there should have been 
competition for this from all over the Washington, DC, area, if not 
from all over the United States of America.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor. Again, I will be glad, for the 
sake of the managers, to enter into a time agreement with my colleagues 
who want to speak on this issue so we can move on to the next 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Utah is to be recognized at this time.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman 
while reserving my rights to the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to reach a time agreement, if possible. I 
understand the Senator from Utah wishes to speak for about 10 minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. Probably less, but if the Senator will list 10 minutes, 
that is fine.
  Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Both Senators, Mr. President, would like, say, 15 minutes 
equally divided between my distinguished colleague and myself.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest all debate on this amendment be concluded within 
25 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. GREGG. The allocation will be 10 minutes--sorry, 30 minutes--10 
minutes to the Senator from Utah, 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia, and 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be the next amendments in order, subject to relevant second 
degrees, and that following debate, each amendment be laid aside to 
reoccur at 9:30 this evening in a stacked sequence in the order in 
which they were debated.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes prior to each 
vote for closing remarks.
  The amendments are:
  The pending McCain amendment, a Durbin amendment on guns, a Thompson 
amendment on federalism, a Bumpers amendment on telephone privacy, a 
Nickles amendment on defenders, a Feingold amendment on child 
exploitation, and a Kyl-Craig amendment on gaming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply state that the next series of 
amendments with rollcalls will be at 9:30 this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that if my remarks are less than 
10 minutes, that it be cut off the time that the Senator asked for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by the Senator from Arizona. If adopted, the McCain amendment 
would result in needless, costly delays in the user process to obtain 
better facilities for the Patent and Trademark Office.
  Look, we studied this thing to death. We know doggone well if this is 
delayed again, you are only going to have one bidder instead of three, 
and there is the question of whether that one bidder will do anything 
to save any money.
  In fact, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Arizona 
would cost a lot more money. Let me make my case.
  The PTO procurement process has been studied to death. We don't need 
another study. Let me catalog for you the attention that has been paid 
to this procurement process. The PTO procurement process has been the 
subject of two comprehensive studies: one by the Inspector General of 
the Department of Commerce and another by an independent consultant who 
reported to the Secretary of Commerce. The independent consultant was 
Jefferson Solutions, which is headed by the former director of OMB's 
Office of Procurement Policy in the Reagan and Carter administrations. 
Both studies agreed that the competitive lease procurement should 
proceed so that the PTO can obtain the benefits of competition. Let me 
emphasize that, from the start, the PTO procurement process followed 
all the rules and complied with all the safeguards in the Standard 
Federal Government Procurement Procedures.
  These studies are in addition to the normal Government procedures. Of 
course, they do provide for competitive bidding. Mr. President, Senator 
McCain's amendment calls for a study of the benefits of leasing versus 
purchase, Federal construction, and other housing alternatives, such as 
lease purchase. This has already been done.
  The GSA, the Department of Commerce, and the OMB thoroughly evaluated 
the options before submitting the lease prospectus for congressional 
approval. Both the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concurred, 
when the prospectus was authorized in the fall of 1995, and in light of 
the limited funds available for capital investment and operating lease 
of the PTO, that is in the best interest of the PTO's fee-paying 
customers, which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has raised.
  Furthermore, in a colloquy between Senators Gregg and Warner 
conducted on the Senate floor during the vote on H.R. 3579, Senator 
Gregg agreed that no funds would be available in the foreseeable future 
to purchase or construct a facility to house the PTO.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate is not in 
order. The Presiding Officer cannot hear the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  H.R. 3579, which became law, required the Secretary of Commerce to 
review the project and submit a report to Congress by March of 1998. 
This is the Jefferson Solutions report that I referred to earlier.
  The cost-benefit analysis that accompanied it, called the Deva 
report, showed the PTO will save $72 million over the 20-year life of 
the lease by consolidating.
  I don't know about the shower curtains, but that is a lot of money to 
be saving compared to what we would lose if we went ahead with the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I know he is trying to save 
money, and I have no problem with that.
  The Jefferson Solutions report found that the consolidation of PTO 
space through a competitive lease would improve workflow efficiencies 
and improve the environment for employee retention, as well as reduce 
costs.
  In addition to these studies and reviews, the procurement process has 
been tested judicially. A 1997 protest by the existing landlord 
alleging improprieties in the terms and conditions of the procurement 
was dismissed. Similarly, an unfair labor practice complaint filed by 
one of the PTO's unions was dismissed earlier this year.
  Given these numerous studies, reviews, and court tests, why is it 
that we are here debating this issue yet once again? There appears to 
be a campaign to delay the procurement process, and I have to ask who 
is behind it. I don't think it is a matter of $250 shower curtains.
  I know that Senator McCain is not motivated by a desire to merely 
delay. I am sure he has real concerns based on facts as he views them. 
But the fact of the matter is, he is talking about peanuts compared to 
the millions and millions of dollars that will be lost if we do another 
study rather than go ahead after all of this work has been done, all 
the studies have been done. It is crazy. Nevertheless, there has been 
an ongoing campaign to delay this.

[[Page S8738]]

  Who is behind it? Is it the parties who use the PTO services? No. The 
parties who use the PTO are the patent applicants, patentees, and 
trademark registrants. They oppose this amendment, and they want the 
procurement process to go ahead.
  But, Mr. President, the current landlord of the PTO makes over $40 
million a year from renting space to the PTO. Would 1 year's additional 
rent be worth mounting a campaign of delay? That is $40 million plus 
the $72 million we are talking about we lose by another study. I think 
you can buy a lot of shower curtains for that.
  It would be to the landlord's benefit to delay it. That is why he has 
hired a major lobbying firm to kill this process. It is not the public 
demanding a delay, it is the PTO's current landlord. I can hardly blame 
him, because he will make $40 million more. But I would blame us if we 
permitted that to go on just because of some shower curtains and a few 
other things that the distinguished Senator from Arizona has mentioned.
  I conclude, Mr. President, with an assurance that I am as concerned 
as anyone with cost overruns and lavish spending in the procurement 
process. I am disturbed by allegations of amphitheaters, exercise 
tracks, and high-priced furniture. I pledge to work with anyone who has 
a concern about specific excesses in the procurement prospectus. In 
fact, I intend to support the Inhofe-Brownback amendment that cuts back 
on build-out appropriations and the ability of the PTO to get more 
money for moving expenses. Congress should investigate these particular 
allegations and take a surgical approach. Another comprehensive study, 
however, is not the answer.
  Let me just say for the benefit of the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, he may have some points here, but they are very, very minor in 
comparison to the moneys that will be saved by moving ahead rather than 
having another delay by losing $72 million on one side and $40 million 
on the other over a few shower curtains. It just seems penny-wise and 
pound-foolish. I am against this amendment. I hope we defeat it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I will be very brief. I concur with the assessment 
just rendered by the distinguished Senator from Utah. My distinguished 
senior Senator, Senator Warner, and I are both very much opposed to 
this amendment. It is a delaying tactic that simply benefits the status 
quo and costs money.
  For the benefit of Senators, I will quote from a couple of the 
reports that were referenced indirectly by the Senator from Utah, if I 
may. The Appropriations Committee, July 2, committee report:

       The committee has reviewed the reports submitted by the 
     Secretary, and does not object to the Secretary's direction 
     that the competitive procurement process should continue.

  An independent report dated May 15, 1998, by Jefferson Solutions, 
Inc., BTG, Inc., Economics Research Associates:

       The PTO has used a sound methodology and valid reasoning in 
     defining its need for new space, in researching its current 
     and future functional needs, and in managing its 
     consolidation and space acquisition process.

  With respect to this, the Department of Commerce inspector general 
report in March 1998 in terms of its fiscal prudence:

       Long-term cost savings should be realized because the 
     current leased PTO space is more expensive than the $24 per 
     square foot authorized by the Congress.

  An independent report, May, 22, 1998, by Deva & Associates:

       The conclusion of this business case analysis . . . is that 
     the PTO should proceed . . . because the agency will incur, 
     over the 20-year lease period, $72,395,278 less in costs.

  A Department of Commerce inspector general report with respect to 
necessity, dated March, 1998:

       Most of PTO's current leased facilities . . . are in need 
     of alterations to comply with fire, safety, and handicapped 
     accessibility laws.
       PTO has a growing workload and is currently occupying 
     noncontiguous space that is operationally inefficient.
       The new facility should promote the collocation of various 
     working groups, thereby improving efficiency and 
     productivity.

  From an independent report by Jefferson Solutions and others, dated 
May 15, 1998:

       The proposed PTO amenity package is not ``gold plated,'' 
     and is consistent with other recent federal and private 
     sector office projects.

  A point that was made earlier by my distinguished senior colleague, 
it is the customers who pay the fees. And here is what they have to 
say, the executive director of the Intellectual Property Owners:

       We are at a loss for why anyone would want to keep the PTO 
     in outdated facilities at higher cost . . .

  The executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law 
Association:

       Further delaying the procurement would likely result in an 
     additional loss of interest. The result would be to award, by 
     default, a sole source lease extension to the existing 
     landlord. Moreover, a new competitive process would almost 
     certainly have to open up the area of consideration to a 
     larger geographic territory, with additional costs and 
     dislocations for [current] PTO employees and [their] users.

  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that to the extent that there are 
any excess costs--first of all, I believe that is a worst case 
scenario.
  Second, it can be addressed by the amendment that is going to be 
offered by Senators from Idaho and Kansas. And I will support that 
amendment, as the Senator from Idaho has indicated he will support it.
  But the bottom line is, this is designed to save $72-plus million. 
Delay will simply continue the inefficiency and cost more money. If 
there is a concern--and I would share the concern that the Senator from 
Arizona expressed about any unnecessary costs--we can address that, but 
do not stop the process that has been ongoing for years, which simply 
will increase the costs in a very significant way.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished 
senior Senator. And I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his 
very clear remarks on this. I worked until late last night with 
Senators Brownback and Inhofe to devise an amendment to which I have 
now added my name. And I send this amendment to the desk just for the 
purpose of filing it. And the managers have indicated--both the 
majority and minority--that it will be eventually accepted as part of 
the managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be printed in the Record.
  (The text of the Amendment (No. 3259) is printed in today's Record 
under ``Amendments submitted'')
  Mr. WARNER. But this amendment achieves many of the goals recited by 
Senator McCain, to crunch this down to a realistic purchase of 
equipment and not have the items which clearly were excessive in cost, 
as recited by our distinguished colleague from Arizona.
  I credit the distinguished Senator from Arizona. He is a constant 
watchdog on these various issues. And I responded to one of his points 
here. This is not taxpayers' dollars. Secondly, the reason we are 
pursuing this type of an arrangement is simply because there are 
insufficient taxpayers' dollars in the Treasury for the Government to 
build the building. And therefore, we have to work on this building 
lease type of financing to lower the burden of cost, indeed, to the 
taxpayers for the construction of a building which is absolutely 
essential.
  This vital function of Government, patent and trademark, is now being 
performed by very loyal, highly skilled Government workers. And they 
are disbursed in a number of buildings--a number of buildings. And 
anyone who understands the simple basis of management and trying to do 
a job knows that if you have your employees, first, in 16 different 
buildings--I want to repeat that; 16 different buildings--this concept 
is to bring it into a central concept financed under a lease 
arrangement, not by taxpayers' dollars, but by the payment of fees.
  So I say to my colleagues, this is a matter which both sides of the 
aisle have addressed in terms of cost containment. Both sides of the 
aisle have addressed in terms of its need and the propriety of a 
process that started in

[[Page S8739]]

1995 in the Senate Environment Committee which has overall oversight of 
this type of work.
  I have today a letter addressed to me from the General Services 
Administration which, once again, reiterates in absolute clarity the 
fact that they have reviewed this process, they have reviewed the 
proposals, and it is their conclusion that it is in the public 
interest.
  This is the Government agency in which we have reposed the trust and 
the confidence to make the vast number of technical decisions which are 
required for a very expensive contract, or in this instance a lease 
arrangement build.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the General Services 
Administration letter and a letter from the IPO printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              General Services Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1998.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: The purpose of this letter is to 
     express my strong support for continuing the ongoing 
     procurement of leased space for the Patent and Trademark 
     Office (PTO) in Northern Virginia. After studying the various 
     alternatives for providing this space; new federal 
     construction, leasing, lease purchase and other alternatives, 
     we concluded that leasing was the most advantageous given the 
     resources available for such activities.
       Since 1993 the PTO and the General Services Administration 
     (GSA) have worked together to meet the requirements 
     stipulated in the authorization provided by the Congress. As 
     a result of this joint effort, we have initiated a 
     procurement which has been both fair to the competitors and 
     efficient in the way it has been accomplished.
       This action has been reviewed by the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Commerce, an independent set of procurement 
     experts hired by the Secretary of Commerce and other 
     independent experts. In each case it has been determined that 
     the proposed action is cost effective and in the best long 
     term interest of the PTO. These studies have shown that a 
     $72,000,000 savings will occur over the term of this action 
     when compared to the current situation.
       Furthermore, this action has the full support of the 
     intellectual property community that the PTO serves.
           Sincerely,
                                                  David J. Barram,
     Administrator.
                                  ____



                                 Intellectual Property Owners,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1998.
     Re IPO's opposition to your proposed amendment to the 
         Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill (S. 2260) 
         that would delay the competitive procurement of new 
         office space by the PTO.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We are writing to urge you not to 
     offer your proposed amendment to the appropriations bill that 
     would have the effect of stopping or delaying the procurement 
     of office space for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
     (PTO).
       Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) is an association that 
     represents companies and individuals who own patents, 
     trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Our members obtain 
     about 30 percent of the U.S. patents that are granted to U.S. 
     residents and pay more than $100 million a year in user fees 
     to the PTO.
       We have followed the plan for procurement of office space 
     by the PTO for the past year, received several briefings, and 
     examined several documents and reports. We are confident that 
     the current procurement of new office space for the PTO on a 
     competitive basis is in the best interest of IPO members. The 
     latest information available to us indicates that the PTO 
     will save $72.4 million over the 20-year term of the 
     projected lease under the competitive procurement, compared 
     with the cost of remaining in existing space. The study on 
     which this conclusion is based prepared by the consulting 
     firm of Deva and Associates, P.C. We understand it has been 
     reviewed by numerous authorities, including a consulting firm 
     hired by Commerce Secretary Daley, the Commerce Inspector 
     General, the PTO, the GSA, and the OMB. Allegations that the 
     PTO is proposing extravagant above-standard fit-out costs, or 
     that the competitive bidding procedure has been mismanaged, 
     are unsupported by any facts, as far as we can determine.
       We have been briefed on the very high costs listed in the 
     Deva report for certain furnishing. We are satisfied that 
     these number do not yet reflect savings that the PTO will 
     realize through mass purchases, standardization, and 
     competition. We hope Congress will not delay the procurement 
     simply because of these cost estimates for furnishing. 
     Congress, with the benefit of advice from PTO users, will 
     have the opportunity to control the costs of PTO furnishing 
     when it approves annual appropriations requests.
           Sincerely,
                                               Herbert C. Wamsley,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to reiterate, I rise today in opposition 
to the McCain amendment which seeks to delay the procurement of space 
for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office pending an evaluation by the 
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). It should be noted that I 
have agreed to accept an amendment offered by my colleagues Senator 
Brownback and Senator Inhofe regarding cost containment measures for 
the PTO consolidation in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations 
bill.
  The Government's prospectus process provided thorough answers to all 
questions raised by the McCain amendment. Through the prospectus 
process, authorized by the Public Buildings Act, as amended, the 
Government submitted to the Congress detailed justification for 
procuring a new consolidated space for PTO.
  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, which I chair, in addition to the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held extensive 
hearings on this prospectus and approved the prospectus in the Fall of 
1995. Both committees concurred that in light of the limited funds 
available for capital investment, an operating lease for the PTO is in 
the best interest of the PTO fee paying customers.
  Mr. President, during these hearings, the government testified and 
the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction agreed, that procuring 
consolidated space for the PTO would achieve greater efficiency as well 
as cost-savings to the taxpayer while providing a more effective work 
environment for the PTO to perform its mission.
  Pursuant to the language in the supplemental appropriations bill, the 
Department of Commerce performed a review of these same issues and 
found conclusively that the PTO consolidation is in the best interest 
of the United States and the procurement should proceed.
  This project has been studied and studied and studied. These studies 
include: the Department of Commerce's Inspector General; an independent 
consultant to the Secretary of Commerce (Jefferson Solutions; headed by 
the ex Directors of OMB's Office of Procurement Policy in the Reagan & 
Carter administrations), both of which agree that the competitive lease 
procurement should proceed, so that the PTO can obtain the benefits of 
competition.
  Mr. President, it should further be noted that GSA, the Department of 
Commerce and OMB thoroughly evaluated the benefits of leasing versus 
purchase, Federal construction and other housing alternatives, such as 
lease purchase, before submitting the lease prospectus for 
congressional approval in the first place.
  The PTO procurement does not involve expenditure of taxpayer money. 
PTO and all its operations and procurement are supported entirely by 
fees paid by its customers. The PTO does not, and will not, receive any 
taxpayer money.
  In a colloquy between myself and the distinguished floor manager of 
this bill, Senator Gregg during the Senate debate on the supplemental 
appropriations bill H.R. 3579, P.L. 105-174, Senator Gregg agreed that 
no funds will be available in the foreseeable future to purchase or 
construct a facility to house the PTO.
  P.L. 105-174 already required the Secretary of Commerce to review the 
project and submit a report to Congress by March 1998. That report, 
conducted by Jefferson Solutions, and the cost benefit analysis report, 
referred to as the DEVA Report that accompanied it, show that the PTO 
will save $72 million over the 20-year life of the lease by 
consolidating.
  Mr. President, this $72 million is a conservative estimate of the 
savings that will be achieved. For example, if the PTO were to purchase 
less expensive furnishings than are reflected in the DEVA Report, the 
cost savings would be greater.
  While Senator McCain and others may charge that the furniture 
estimate used in the DEVA Report is high, I would indicate that the 
DEVA Report shows the ``worst case'' costs. These costs are used to 
calculate the potential savings of consolidation, and are certainly not 
the actual costs that the PTO will spend on furniture.

[[Page S8740]]

  The actual furniture costs will be lower, because they will include 
economies that will be achieved through competition, mass purchase and 
standardization. Therefore, the savings from consolidation will likely 
be higher than $72 million.
  The PTO intends to conduct a furniture inventory and will use 
existing furniture where practicable.
  In conclusion Mr. President, PTO is not contracting for a new $1.3 
billion building. It is contracting for a new competitive 20-year 
lease. It would cost at least $1.3 billion for the PTO to remain where 
it is for the same 20-year period. The offerors in the prospectus have 
the option of building, renovating or consolidating to meet the PTO's 
space needs.
  The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works carefully 
considered the need for the facility, various alternatives, and the 
costs of each approach before authorizing the lease procurement to be 
conducted by the GSA for the PTO.
  PTO will only move if it is economic and efficient to do so under the 
current competition. It is not a foregone conclusion that PTO will 
relocate. Crystal City, the current site of the PTO, is one of the 
three sites competing in the procurement.
  Taxpayer protections include the following:
  The rental rate ceiling of $28.50 per square foot contained in the 
approval resolutions are at or below the rates that PTO is currently 
paying, and current market rates in Northern Virginia; the build out 
allowances for the interior space are fixed in the procurement 
documents at less than $45.00 per square foot; an amount that is 
comparable to most government facilities; PTO currently leases 1.9 
million rentable square feet of office space in 16 separate buildings 
in Arlington, Virginia. The prospectus calls for 2.17 million to 2.39 
million square feet of space, which is between 15% to 25% more than 
currently exists, due to a projected increase in PTO's work from the 
now 5,200 employees to 7,100 employees by 2002. This is overall a 37% 
increase in the work force of PTO, which accounts for the increase in 
space needed to house this growing agency.
  PTO will only move if it is economic and efficient to do so under the 
current competition in which the incumbent lessor is one of the four 
finalists.
  I have seen the PTO study that compares costs of consolidation to 
remaining in existing buildings. Even with all these costs, the bottom 
line is that the PTO will save $72 million over the life of the new 
lease.
  Senator McCain said he would yield back his time. So I say to the 
distinguished manager, the time allocated for debate on this side, 
indeed, with my fellow colleague from Virginia has been completed. And 
Mr. McCain asked me to inform you he would yield back his time.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senators from Virginia for their prompt and 
concise debate. I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. WARNER. We wish to accommodate our distinguished colleagues, the 
managers of our bill.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  Mr. CRAIG. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I do not know of a request. I imagine the manager can 
proceed with the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. Do you wish to have the yeas and nays?
  Mr. WARNER. I do not ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GREGG. I think we will wait for Senator McCain to return to 
determine whether or not we need that.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. I think we should accommodate my colleague and 
friend from Arizona. I just wished to raise the fact that a recorded 
vote had not been sought yet.
  Mr. GREGG. That is absolutely correct. We will now proceed to the 
Durbin amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the Durbin amendment and 
second-degrees--I will reserve my unanimous-consent request.
  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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be 
allowed to lay down his first-degree amendment, that that then be laid 
aside and the Senator from Idaho be immediately recognized to offer a 
first-degree amendment relative to firearms enforcement. Further, I ask 
there be 40 minutes for debate on both the Durbin and Craig amendments 
combined, to be equally divided between Senator Craig and Senator 
Durbin, with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment, 
and following the conclusion or the yielding back of time, pursuant to 
our previous unanimous consent request, a vote will occur at or about 
9:30 in relation to the Craig amendment, to be followed immediately by 
a vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3260

(Purpose: To prevent children from injuring themselves and others with 
                               firearms)

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Chafee, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Lautenberg and Mrs. Feinstein 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3260.

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

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

     SEC. __. CHILDREN AND FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--Section 921(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(34) The term `secure gun storage or safety device' 
     means--
       ``(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, prevents 
     the firearm from being operated without first deactivating or 
     removing the device;
       ``(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm 
     that prevents the operation of the firearm by anyone not 
     having access to the device; or
       ``(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device 
     that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and 
     that can be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, 
     or other similar means.''.
       (b) Prohibition and Penalties.--Section 922 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (x) the following:
       ``(y) Prohibition Against Giving Juveniles Access to 
     Certain Firearms.--
       ``(1) Definition of juvenile.--In this subsection, the term 
     `juvenile' means an individual who has not attained the age 
     of 18 years.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), 
     any person that--
       ``(A) keeps a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and 
     ammunition for the firearm, any of which has been shipped or 
     transported in interstate or foreign commerce or otherwise 
     substantially affects interstate or foreign commerce, within 
     any premise that is under the custody or control of that 
     person; and
       ``(B) knows, or reasonably should know, that a juvenile is 
     capable of gaining access to the firearm without the lawful 
     permission of the parent or legal guardian of the juvenile;

     shall, if a juvenile obtains access to the firearm and 
     thereby causes death or bodily injury to the juvenile or to 
     any other person, or exhibits the firearm either in a public 
     place, or in violation of subsection (q), be imprisoned not 
     more than 1 year, fined not more than $10,000, or both.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (2) does not apply if--
       ``(A) the person uses a secure gun storage or safety device 
     for the firearm;
       ``(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed 
     Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the juvenile 
     obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance 
     of the official duties of the person in that capacity;
       ``(C) the juvenile obtains, or obtains and discharges, the 
     firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or 
     more other persons;
       ``(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on 
     objective facts and circumstances, that a juvenile is likely 
     to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept; 
     or
       ``(E) the juvenile obtains the firearm as a result of an 
     unlawful entry to the premises by any person.''.
       (c) Role of Licensed Firearms Dealers.--Section 926 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) The Secretary shall ensure that a copy of section 
     922(y) appears on the form required to be obtained by a 
     licensed dealer from a prospective transferee of a 
     firearm.''.
       (d) No Effect on State Law.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendments made by this

[[Page S8741]]

     section shall be construed to preempt any provision of the 
     law of any State, the purpose of which is to prevent children 
     from injuring themselves or others with firearms.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3261

(Purpose: To require increased efforts for the prosecution of offenses 
    in connection with the unlawful possession, transfer and use of 
  firearms, particularly in connection with a serious drug offense or 
                            violent felony)

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

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3261.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC.  . INTENSIVE FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES.

       (a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall endeavor to 
     expand the number of cities and counties directly 
     participating in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, 
     as enhanced in this section, (and referred hereafter to as 
     ``YCGll/Exile'') to 50 cities or counties by October 1, 2000, 
     to 75 cities or counties by October 1, 2002, and to 150 
     cities or counties by October 1, 2003.
       (2) Cities and counties selected for participation in the 
     YCGll/Exile shall be selected by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and in consultation with Federal, State and local 
     law enforcement officials. Not later than February 1, 1999, 
     the Secretary shall deliver to the Congress, through the 
     Chairman of each Committee on Appropriations, a full report, 
     empirically based, explaining the impact of the program 
     before the enhancements set out in section on the firearms 
     related offenses, as well as detailing the plans by the 
     Secretary to implement this section.
       (b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, utilizing the 
     information provided by the YCGll/Exile, facilitate the 
     identification and prosecution of individuals--
       (A) illegally transferring firearms to individuals, 
     particularly to those who have not attained 24 years of age, 
     or in violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act; and
       (B) illegally possessing firearms, particularly in 
     violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (g)(1)-(2), or in violation 
     of any provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 in connection with a 
     serious drug offense or violent felony, as those terms are 
     used in that section.
       (2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, commencing October 
     1, 1998, and in consultation with the Attorney General, the 
     United States Attorney for the Eastern District of 
     Pennsylvania, the State of Pennsylvania, the City of 
     Philadelphia and other local government for such District, 
     establish a demonstration program, the objective of which 
     shall be the intensive identification, apprehension, and 
     prosecution of persons in possession of firearm in violation 
     of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (g)(1)-(2), or in violation of any 
     provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 in connection with a serious 
     drug offense or violent felony, as those terms are used in 
     that section. The program shall be at least two years in 
     duration, and the Secretary shall report to Congress on an 
     annual basis on the results of these efforts, including any 
     empirically observed effects on gun related crime in the 
     District.
       (3) The Attorney General, and the United States Attorneys, 
     shall give the highest possible prosecution priority to the 
     offense stated in this subsection.
       (4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall share information 
     derived from the YCGll/Exile with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies through on-line computer access, as soon 
     as such capability is available.
       (c)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall award grants (in 
     the form of funds or equipment) to States, cities, and 
     counties for purposes of assisting such entities in the 
     tracing of firearms and participation in the YCGll/Exile.
       (2) Grants made under this part shall be used--
       (A) to hire additional law enforcement personnel for the 
     purpose of enhanced efforts in identifying and arresting 
     individuals for the firearms offenses stated in subsection 
     (b): and
       (B) to purchase additional equipment, including automatic 
     data processing equipment and computer software and hardware, 
     for the timely submission and analysis of tracing data.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the unanimous 
consent request we have 40 minutes equally divided between the Senator 
from Idaho and myself.
  I say by way of introduction, it is interesting we have two 
amendments that I don't believe are in conflict. I believe they are 
complementary. They both relate to guns. As I understand the amendment 
of the Senator from Idaho, he is seeking to reduce gun crime. I believe 
I will be able to support him. It appears to be consistent with my 
view, that those who misuse guns in the commission of a crime shall be 
accountable, regardless of their age. If that is what the Senator from 
Idaho seeks to do, I fully support it.
  The amendment which I offer is complementary and very important 
because it addresses an issue which all of us, unfortunately, know too 
well. On the floor of the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago, my colleague 
from California, Senator Feinstein, came up and said to me, ``There's 
just been a wire story report that two children in Jonesboro, AR, have 
taken guns and shot classmates and a teacher.'' We couldn't believe 
that horrible story. Then it turned out to be true--four children 
killed, and a teacher, who put her life on the line to protect another 
student, also died.
  As the information started coming in about Jonesboro, AR, we heard a 
story similar to what had happened in Pearl, MS, and what would later 
occur in Springfield, OR. The curious thing about the situation in 
Arkansas was that an 11-year-old child and a 13-year-old child took 10 
lethal weapons and a reported 3,000 rounds of ammunition, went to the 
woods behind the school, activated the fire alarm, and shot away at the 
classmates.
  Where did an 11-year-old child and a 13-year-old child come up with 
10 lethal weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition? That question 
stuck with me as I considered this legislation. The story goes, now, 
that one of the kids went to the parents' home to pick up the guns and 
go about this violent, grizzly business and found out that the parent 
had locked the guns up under lock and key. The kids tried to break open 
the storage locker. They failed. They went to a grandfather's house, 
where they picked up the guns and ammunition and went out in the woods 
and went about their deadly task.
  How many times have we heard this story or versions of it? How many 
variations have we heard? The next day, in Dale City, CA, a high school 
student turns up at school with a semiautomatic pistol. You can bet 
that high school student didn't legally purchase it at a gun dealer. 
And that same day in Cleveland, OH, a 5-year-old turns up at a day care 
center with a loaded handgun.
  The point of my amendment is to say let's get down to the bottom line 
here. We are as concerned about troubled children and violent behavior 
as anyone can be. Let us focus our attention on all that we can do to 
stop that. Make no mistake, a troubled child is a sad reality. A 
troubled child with a gun is a tragedy about to happen, not just to 
himself but to other innocent people.
  This amendment which I am offering, called the Child Access 
Prevention Law, sets to establish a national standard which says that 
every gun owner in America has a responsibility to store his gun 
safely. An adult who has a gun in the house and knows, or should know, 
that a child could gain access to the gun, and a child does gain access 
and thereby causes death or injury or exhibits the gun in a public 
place, is subject to a Federal misdemeanor penalty of up to 1 year in 
prison, with up to $10,000 in fines.

  But the exceptions are important as well. If that adult has stored 
the gun with a trigger lock, with another safety device, or under lock 
and key, then they are not bound by this law; they have met the 
standard of care.
  If the juvenile uses the gun in a lawful act of self-defense, this 
provision does not apply either.
  If the juvenile takes the gun off the person of a law enforcement 
official, the gun law that I have suggested here does not apply either.
  If the owner has no reasonable expectation that children will be on 
the premises, then this law does not apply either.
  Finally--and this is a point I want to make clear--we specifically 
say if the juvenile, the child, came up with the gun as a result of a 
burglary, stealing the gun out of premises where they did not have a 
legal right to enter, then there is no liability on the part of the gun 
owner.
  We are talking about a situation where a gun owner owns guns, knows 
that children are present, and doesn't store them safely. Fifteen 
States have

[[Page S8742]]

already addressed this. Ten years ago, the State of Florida passed the 
first law. They said: ``There are too many children being killed with 
guns accidentally and intentionally. We want gun owners to accept the 
responsibility of storing them safely.'' In the first year after the 
Florida law was passed, gun accidents involving children went down 50 
percent. Fourteen other States have passed this law. Nationally, there 
has been a reduction of 20 percent in the gun accidents that have 
occurred in those States that have already passed a similar law to this 
one.
  What we are talking about here is establishing a national standard 
but not preempting any State law. If your State has a child access 
prevention law, then that will be the controlling law in every 
circumstance, and not this Federal law.
  But I tell you this, you need only sit and talk to parents who have 
been through this to understand how important it is for us to have a 
standard of care for gun owners across America. A woman from my 
hometown sent me a handwritten letter about her little boy going to 
play next door, and another playmate pulls out a gun that his parents 
left unattended. It was loaded. He fired the gun. She wrote:

       That little bullet went through my little boy's heart, and 
     mine too.

  And mine, too.
  Susan Wilson who came here just a few weeks ago, the mother of a 
little girl that she sent off to school, gave her a kiss goodbye and 
sent her off to school in Jonesboro, AR, never to see her alive again.
  This suggestion for a change in law is not about taking anybody's 
guns away, it is about taking guns seriously. It says to every gun 
owner: You not only have the right to own a gun and the right to use it 
legally and safely, you have a responsibility--a responsibility--to 
store it safely and keep it away from children.
  One of the experts on the Senate floor when it comes to guns is the 
Senator who is engaged in this debate with me, the Senator from Idaho, 
Senator Craig. Yesterday, during the course of a debate on trigger 
locks, Senator Craig said:

       Proper storage of firearms is the responsibility of every 
     gun owner.

  And then Senator Craig said:

       A general firearm safety rule that must be applied to all 
     conditions is that a firearm should be stored so that it is 
     not accessible to untrained or unauthorized people.

  And, in Senator Craig's words:

       That is the right rule. That is the one that really fits. 
     That is the one that really works well and then you don't 
     have the accidents to talk about.

  I think that is as strong an endorsement of the bill that I am 
offering as any language I could offer as part of this record.
  I will tell you what I have found as I have traveled around and 
talked about establishing this standard of care so kids don't have 
access to guns. What I have found is overwhelming support from law 
enforcement. These are the men and women who answer the calls after 
there has been a terrible accident or a child has taken a gun out and 
shot someone intentionally. There has been solid support on this 
proposal from teachers. Can you imagine, a teacher who goes into a 
classroom, prepared to teach children, wonders if one of those kids has 
brought a gun to school. In my home State of Illinois, last school 
year--not this last one, the one before--144 kids were expelled for 
bringing weapons to school. It is, unfortunately, a growing trend in 
America.
  In most instances, those weapons came from homes where the guns had 
not been safely stored. Mark my words, a child will always find 
Christmas gifts and a gun, no matter where you hide them. If you put it 
in the back of the drawer, behind the T-shirts, or up on the shelf in 
the closet, it is not good enough. We are a nation of 265 million 
people. We are a nation of 300 million guns, or more--300 million. At 
this moment, it is estimated that half of those guns are readily 
accessible to children, and a third of all guns are loaded. That is a 
tragic accident about to occur.
  My goal in introducing this is not to send people to jail. My goal is 
to initiate a national conversation raising the level of awareness and 
saying to gun owners nationwide: Accept your responsibility to store 
your guns safely. If you want to own a gun, if you want to exercise 
your right, exercise your right responsibly. Save the children from 
these tragedies. Save the parents from this grief. Save innocent 
victims from what might occur.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment will 
be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3261), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``--. INTENSIVE FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES.

       (a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall endeavor to 
     expand the number of cities and counties directly 
     participating in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, 
     as enhanced in this section, (and referred hereafter to as 
     ``YCGII/Exile'') to 50 cities or counties by October 1, 2000, 
     to 75 cities or counties by October 1, 2002, and to 150 
     cities or counties by October 1, 2003.
       (2) Cities and counties selected for participation in the 
     YCGII/Exile shall be selected by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and in consultation with Federal, State and local 
     law enforcement officials. Not later than February 1, 1999, 
     the Secretary shall deliver to the Congress, through the 
     Chairman of each Committee on Appropriations, a full report, 
     empirically based, explaining the impact of the pre-existing 
     youth crime gun interdiction initiative on federal firearms 
     related offenses. The report shall also state in detail the 
     plans by the Secretary to implement this section and the 
     establishment of YCGII/Exile program.
       (b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, utilizing the 
     information provided by the YCGII/Exile, facilitate the 
     identification and prosecution of individuals--
       (A) illegally transferring firearms to individuals, 
     particularly to those who have not attained 24 years of age, 
     or in violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act; and
       (B) illegally possessing firearms, particularly in 
     violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1)-(2), or in violation of 
     any provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 in connection with a 
     serious drug offense or violent felony, as those terms are 
     used in that section.
       (d) Within funds appropriated in this Act for necessary 
     expenses of the Offices of United States Attorneys, 
     $1,500,000 shall be available for the Attorney General to 
     hire additional assistant U.S. attorney and investigators in 
     the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a demonstration 
     project to identify and prosecute individuals in possession 
     of firearms in violation of federal law.
       (3) The Attorney General, and the United States Attorneys, 
     shall give the highest possible prosecution priority to the 
     offenses stated in this subsection.
       (4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall share information 
     derived from the YCGII/Exile with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies through on-line computer access, as soon 
     as such capability is available.
       (c)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall award grants (in 
     the form of funds or equipment) to States, cities, and 
     counties for purposes of assisting such entities in the 
     tracing of firearms and participation in the YCGII/Exile.
       (2) Grants made under this part shall be used--
       (A) to hire additional law enforcement personnel for the 
     purpose of enhanced efforts in identifying and arresting 
     individuals for the firearms offenses stated in subsection 
     (b); and
       (B) to purchase additional equipment, including automatic 
     data processing equipment and computer software and hardware, 
     for the timely submission and analysis of tracing data.''.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in section (2) of my original amendment, 
this was the same language with the same intent. Senator Specter, who 
has this initial program in Philadelphia, had some concerns about the 
language. I will be happy to provide you with a copy. It doesn't change 
the intent of the amendment at all.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois, in all respects, I am sure, 
approaches this Senate with the right intent, an intent that I think 
all of us would honor--that is, to try to make the world a safer place, 
to try to make people more responsible. There is a problem, a very real 
problem. Our bills are different, and I think they are very 
incompatible in that regard. I hope the Senator from Illinois can 
support my legislation. I wish I could support his, but I cannot.
  Mr. President, here is the reason I cannot. The Senator from Illinois 
would like to take a victim and make that individual a criminal. In 
other words, if an adult owns a gun and a child of that adult, or a 
friend of that adult who happens to be less than 18 years of age, or a 
nephew, finds that

[[Page S8743]]

gun and that gun is used in an accident or in the commission of a 
crime, or certainly when a death occurs, the victim--the person who had 
his or her gun stolen from them--all of a sudden becomes the criminal. 
That is an interesting juxtapose in our society from which we really 
have tried to stay away. We have focused on criminals and criminal 
acts. But a failure to make secure or to abide by what the Senator 
would say is a safekeeping of all 300 million guns in this society 
would make a person a criminal.
  We know how guns are used. In high crime areas, they are used for 
self-protection. In high crime areas and urban housing--not the nice, 
suburban household the Senator might envision in his debate--oftentimes 
a gun is kept loaded. Is that house totally secure? Do children come 
and go from it? Is it in a high-rise suburban environment, where there 
might be gang violence, where some members of gangs might have full 
access to the house because they are cousins or the children of that 
person using that gun for self-protection? That is very possible. Those 
exceptions are not provided for here. They must be provided for here if 
the Senator from Illinois is to have a law with any teeth in it.
  The reality is simple. We reverse, for the first time in our society, 
the kind of a test as it relates to an act of violence. In this case, 
the person who has the gun stolen from them all of a sudden becomes the 
criminal. That is an interesting and strange argument that we have 
never had put before us before. All of us are interested in controlling 
violent acts and criminal acts that occur in the commission of a crime. 
My amendment moves very directly to do that.
  In fact, my amendment is a movement in a direction that I think is 
extremely positive and is already underway. It is already underway 
because what it says is that the Federal firearm laws we have on the 
books will be implemented and they will be enforced. Judges don't like 
them. They don't like to play around with them. They don't necessarily 
like to prosecute them. Yet, where it happens, crime rates go down and 
life becomes much safer.
  What I am talking about and what I wish the Senate to vote on and 
place into law is the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which is 
currently a 17-city demonstration project aimed at reducing youth 
firearm violence and expanding this initiative by putting some real 
teeth in it, much like the model of the Richmond, VA, program that I 
will discuss in a few minutes. My idea, although it is not novel, is 
that when most Federal firearm laws were enacted, the notion was to 
punish criminals who commit violent firearm crimes, not to go after the 
innocent victim who might have had their guns stolen from them. This 
has not happened.
  We already heard on the floor yesterday that this administration has 
cut the prosecution of violent acts where guns are used by nearly half. 
They simply don't pursue the criminal. Yet, it ought to happen. My 
amendment suggests that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in 
consultation with the attorney general, work with the State of 
Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia to establish a demonstration 
program where the objective will be to identify, apprehend, and 
prosecute all persons who commit firearm violations.
  Let me tell you about something happening in Richmond, VA. Down 
there, a Federal prosecutor said to law enforcement officers, ``If you 
will report to me felons who are arrested in the commission of a crime 
who are using a firearm, I will prosecute them. Plain and simple. No 
plea bargaining. We are going to prosecute.'' That Federal officer 
handed out this little card to every cop in Richmond, VA. This card has 
a listing of all of the Federal gun possession crimes. It goes on to 
list them. There is a number to call. An individual officer can call 
the ATF, and there is a pager number.
  Here is the rest of the story. Gun-related homicides dropped from 140 
last year to only 34 this year.
  Now, what I am saying is what we ought to be doing in Richmond and in 
Philadelphia, and a lot of other places across the Nation, is 
incorporating Federal authority along with local authority to go after 
the criminal who uses the gun. I am sure the Senator from Illinois and 
I have voted for laws or bills that create laws that say if you do thus 
and so, and you use a gun, it is a Federal firearms violation. But we 
don't get the courts to prosecute them, and we don't follow through; we 
don't insist.
  This administration, by their own statistics, has truly been asleep 
at the switch. Let's incorporate juveniles, education, tracking, gun 
trafficking, and all of those combinations together, and go after the 
people who are truly responsible. Guess what happens? The crime rate 
goes down. Incorporate that with the kind of work that has already been 
done and you will create a safer place.
  The Philadelphia Exile Project--generally called Project Exile all 
over the country--creates that kind of dynamic. Then I go on to expand 
it, so that we go from 50 cities to, by October of 2000, 75 cities, and 
by 2002, to 150 cities and counties across our country. This is the 
kind of proactive thing that goes directly at the problem. What does it 
say? It doesn't say to the innocent victim who has had their property 
stolen and it gets used in a crime, and if you didn't do all of these 
right things, guess what, you are the criminal.
  Now we haven't criminalized a child taking a car and having an 
accident against the parent--especially if they stole the car, took it 
without permission. Yet, today we would be doing that with guns. I 
think that is wrong. I think the Senator from Illinois is right. He 
should be able to support my amendment because it goes at the root 
cause. It incorporates all of the agencies, and it makes real the very 
thing that he and I want done. We want the laws enforced. We want 
criminals prosecuted. We know that 90 percent of the crime out there is 
the result of not new action, but old action --people with criminal 
records. That is what this is all about.

  We have taken the concept of going after the criminal, we have 
incorporated it with the juvenile crime gun interdiction initiative, 
brought those kind of things into combination, and I think we have a 
dynamic force here.
  What do we do?
  We provide new information about illegal firearm activities to 
communities. We identify differences in adult, juvenile, and youth 
illegal firearms activities. We extend access to firearm-related 
enforcement information. We initiate community, State, and national 
reporting on firearms trafficking. We enable enforcement officers to 
focus their resources where they are likely to have the greatest impact 
on illegal trafficking to juveniles and violent youth gang members.
  I think for those who were listening yesterday, when we look at the 
deaths created by juvenile activities with firearms today, the vast 
majority of the 95 percent are in that higher bracket. The accidental 
are there--not insignificant, but very, very small.
  That is the reality of what I attempt to do. It incorporates 
demonstration projects today that are working. It makes them Federal 
law. It expands them across the Nation. It goes after the criminal, and 
not the innocent victim who has had their property stolen. My colleague 
from Illinois would like to make them the criminal. That is a strange 
position to have in Federal law. We ought to leave that alone.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that I might have 7 minutes to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would appreciate it if the Chair would let me know when 
the 7 minutes are up.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to yield to my cosponsor of 
this legislation, the Senator from Rhode Island, 7 minutes.
  I say at the outset that I support the bill offered by the Senator 
from Idaho. It is a good bill. It tries to establish more care with 
handguns. But it doesn't address the issue which the Senator from Rhode 
Island and I seek to address.
  I yield to him.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the Senator 
from Idaho and his remarks.
  He indicated that it was a ``shocking''--if I am quoting him 
correctly--``shocking'' event to punish the person

[[Page S8744]]

whose weapon caused the damage; the person who is careless in the 
storage of that firearm under this legislation pays a penalty. The 
Senator from Idaho, as I understood him, thought that was a very 
strange procedure.
  I will say this, Mr. President. I think every one of us know that if 
you own a pit bull, and you don't keep that pit bull tied up properly, 
and it mauls some innocent child, that the owner of that pit bull is 
liable. We have a situation akin to that--not pit bulls, but 
dangerously loaded weapons that are carelessly strewn about someone's 
home. A youngster comes in and gets hold of them and uses it for 
destructive purposes. That person that owns that weapon ought to pay 
the penalty. The suggestion that this is something strange and unheard 
of strikes me in itself as being strange.
  Mr. President, we have seen, all of us, these horrible incidents that 
have taken place over the past year in schools where youngsters have 
obtained weapons frequently because the weapons are not properly 
stored. They are not properly locked up. They are left around not only 
carelessly, but they are loaded.
  Let's just review these, if we might.
  In October, a 16-year-old at Pearl High School in Mississippi went to 
school with a hunting rifle. He shot and killed a student and a 
teacher, leaving a second teacher with a bullet wound in the head.
  In December, a student at Heath High School in West Paducah, KY, used 
a pistol to kill three other students.
  I mean, this is what is happening in our schools.
  The shooter was 14 years old.
  In March, two boys in Jonesboro, AR, one 11 years old and the other 
13 years old, pulled the fire alarm in their school. As students and 
teachers left the building, the two boys began shooting. They killed 
five people: Four young girls, and a teacher.
  In April, a 14-year-old boy in Edinboro, PA, went to a school dance 
with a gun he apparently removed from his father's bureau drawer. He 
killed a science teacher and injured two students and another teacher.
  At Thurston High School in Springfield, OR, a 15-year-old who was 
suspended for carrying a gun to school returned to school the next day 
and opened fire in a crowded cafeteria. He killed two students and 
wounded 19 others--19 others. He killed two, and wounded 19 others. 
Police suspect he shot and killed his parents as well.

  These are terrible, tragic shootings.
  According to Handgun Control, 91 percent of handguns involved in 
unintentional shootings come from the home where the shootings occur.
  Mr. President, this is a national disaster. There are 192 million 
firearms--192 million firearms--in the possession of private citizens 
in our Nation, and 35 percent of American homes contain at least one 
gun.
  Each year, more than 500 children accidentally shoot themselves or a 
sibling, a family member, with a family gun.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, the firearms-related 
death rate for American children under the age of 15--I mean, I think 
it is important we realize what we are talking about here. These 
youngsters are under 15. The rate in the United States for the death 
rate of these children through guns is 12 times higher than that of the 
other 25 industrialized nations combined.
  One thing is certain. It is simply too easy for children to get a 
gun. At the very least, adults should be encouraged to store their guns 
in a manner and a place that is inaccessible to children. If they 
don't, and if the child uses the gun to harm himself or someone else, 
the adult should be held responsible.
  I find it hard to argue with that premise. As I say, if there is a 
pit bull, no one would argue a bit that the pit bull should be chained 
up. We have seen incidents--certainly, I have seen them in my State--
where they are not chained and they maul some youngster terribly. The 
owner of that dog, that pit bull, is held responsible. And the owner of 
a gun that is far more dangerous than that pit bull should likewise be 
held responsible.
  Are we embarking on something radical here, something that is 
unacceptable by the public?
  In April, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was taken--a bipartisan 
poll by Peter Hart and Bob Teeter, whom most of us know. We know Bob 
Teeter. We have worked with him. Others on the other side have worked 
with Peter Hart.
  This is the question:

       Congress is considering legislation that holds adults 
     criminally responsible if they allow young children to have 
     access to firearms that are used to injure or kill another 
     person. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?

  That was the question. You are going to hold adults criminally 
responsible if young children have access to firearms that are used to 
injure or kill another.
  The answer was 75 percent said they favored this type of legislation; 
21 percent said they opposed it, and 4 percent were undecided.
  It seems to me that it is time that we in Congress caught up with the 
American people on this issue. Here is an opportunity to encourage gun 
owners to act responsibly by keeping their weapons out of the reach of 
children.
  This amendment does not prevent anybody from owning a gun. That is a 
red herring, if anybody suggests that. It says if you are a gun owner 
who has reason to expect a child to be on the premises, you must store 
your gun safely. I don't think the National Rifle Association would 
object to that. Certainly, it seems to me, they would encourage people 
to store their weapons safely. If they failed to store them safely, and 
a child uses it to harm himself, or someone else, the gun owner can be 
held criminally liable. That makes total common sense to me.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense approach to 
gun safety.
  I thank my cosponsor who worked so hard on this, and I thank the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes thirteen seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me only make a few comments as it 
relates to what Senator Chafee has said, because I think it is 
important that we understand the reality of some of what he has 
portrayed. The pit-bull argument sounds not only exciting, it sounds 
horrifying. Now, there is a little thing in law called, in this 
instance, the first bite. In other words, if it is known that the dog 
is dangerous, then there is a responsibility. If it is not known that 
the dog is dangerous and the dog has never shown dangerous tendencies, 
then the owner is not liable, and that has stood up in court. But if 
the dog is known to be dangerous, and the dog is chained in the 
backyard, and the backyard is fenced, and the gates are locked, and a 
child crawls in the range of the dog that is chained and is injured, 
the owner is not liable.
  But what the Senator is saying is, if you have a gun in your house 
and your house is gained access to by someone, oh, yes, if the door is 
open and a child invites another child in, and that child finds a gun 
and misuses it, then, of course, the owner of the gun is liable.
  I don't believe that is the pit-bull argument. And I don't think it 
can be, because the owner may have put the gun away, and did in this 
instance.
  What if the owner had it locked up but the child of the owner knew 
where the key was? Now, who is liable there? A lot of definitions go on 
wanting and my argument still holds, I do believe, that the victim in 
this instance, the owner of the gun, who has had the gun stolen from 
him, all of a sudden becomes the criminal.
  The pit-bull argument cannot and does not hold in this instance, nor 
should it. We understand those kinds of arguments. You can store your 
gun in safety, and all of a sudden it is taken and used and you are 
liable. The victim should not be the criminal.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to offer my support of the 
Durbin Amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Department 
Appropriations Bill. The recent tragedies in Arkansas and Pennsylvania 
call our attention once again to the youth violence facing our nation: 
the pointless injury and loss of life, the families that are ripped 
apart, the classmates who witness the horror or lose a friend, and the 
communities consumed in fear. No one can calculate the direct and 
indirect costs flowing from any one of the 14 times every day in which 
a child dies

[[Page S8745]]

from a gunshot wound. National response to this death toll has been 
minimal, and little has changed in our approach to regulating guns 
since 1973. Although no one can replace what was lost, we can at least 
take steps to prevent future tragedies.
  But as we know from harsh experience, you can't arrest your way out 
of these problems. We must be equally credible on enforcement and 
prevention to have an impact. And we have to keep guns out of the reach 
of our children. We need to keep children away from guns. And it means 
adoption of the Durbin amendment, which requires adults to lock up 
their guns. The guns used in school shootings in Arkansas and 
Pennsylvania belonged to adult relatives of the children who used them. 
Fifteen states already have child access prevention laws, and those 
laws work.
  What we are talking about here today is taking responsibility for the 
safety of our children. That means all of us taking responsibility to 
change the culture of violence, and taking sensible steps to keep 
children safe. The Durbin amendment takes such a step and it deserves 
to be enacted this year by this Congress. How much longer must we 
endure the horrors of juvenile violence before we respond with measures 
that we already know are effective?
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield 1 minute of the 3 remaining to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  I compliment both Senators for this legislation. I think it is common 
sense. I think it is long overdue.
  I most profoundly disagree with the Senator from Idaho. If the gun is 
under lock and key, the owner is exempt from criminal liability. Let me 
repeat that. If the gun is under lock and key, the owner is exempt from 
criminal liability.
  On Monday, a 4-year-old boy in Maryland was shot with his 
grandfather's .22 caliber handgun. The gun was loaded. It was not 
equipped with a trigger lock. The children were playing with the gun. 
The gun discharged and struck the 4-year-old in the face. Fortunately, 
the boy was not seriously injured and is expected to recover.

  On Tuesday, unfortunately, 61 Senators voted against a common-sense 
requirement to require handgun manufacturers to include childproof 
trigger locks with every handgun they sell. A simply safety requirement 
that would help to stop the growing number of accidental gun-related 
injuries and deaths that involve children every year.
  In my view, the sharp contrast between these two events is striking. 
One day, a child is shot in the face because the gun he and his 
playmates find does not have a trigger lock. The next day, the Senate 
votes against requiring all guns to be sold with trigger locks.
  What is the matter when we cannot fulfill our basic responsibility to 
keep children safe from the dangers of irresponsible gun ownership?
  I believe that the legislation currently before us authored by 
Senators Durbin and Chafee, offers an excellent avenue for ensuring 
that gun owners who allow children access to their guns are held liable 
when their negligence leads to death or injury.
  The bipartisan Child Firearm Access Prevention Act will keep kids 
from taking guns owned by adults and, either purposely or accidentally, 
killing or injuring themselves or another person.
  The legislation puts the burden on the adults who own the guns to 
store their guns in a safe and secure manner--with a trigger lock, a 
combination lock, in a gun safe, or in a lock box.
  If an adult who owns a gun chooses to store the firearm in a loaded 
condition--unlocked and unsafe--and a child uses that gun to kill or 
injure someone or exhibits that firearm in a public place, then that 
adult can be imprisoned for 1 year and fined as much as $10,000.

  The need for this legislation should be entirely obvious. I would 
wager that there is not a single Senator who hasn't heard of the parade 
of senseless violence that has plagued our nation's schools.
  Some recent incidents include:
       Barry Loukaitas, 14, February 2, 1996, Moses Lake, 
     Washington: Allegedly shot and killed two students and a 
     teacher at his school. In his confession Barry said he got 
     two of his guns from an unlocked cabinet in his house and one 
     from the family car.
       Evan Ramsey, 17, February 19, 1997, Bethel, Alaska: Shot 
     and killed a student and a principal, and wounded two other 
     students, at his high school. According to police, the gun 
     Evan used was kept unlocked at the foot of the stairs in his 
     house.
       Luke Woodham, 16, October 1, 1997, Pearl, Mississippi: 
     Allegedly stabbed his mother and then shot nine students, 
     killing two, at his high school.
       Michael Carneal, 14, December 1, 1997, West Paducah, 
     Kentucky: Accused of killing three students and wounding five 
     students who were participating in a high school prayer 
     circle.
       Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, March 24, 
     1998, Jonesboro, Arkansas: Accused of shooting to death four 
     girls and a teacher, and wounding ten, at his school. The 
     boys took the guns they used in the crime from Andrew's 
     grandfather who said he usually kept his guns unlocked in the 
     house.
       Andrew Wurst, 14, April 24, 1998, Edinboro, Pennsylvania: 
     Shot a teacher to death at a school dance.
       Jacob Davis, 18, Fayetteville, Tennessee, May 19, 1998: 
     Allegedly shot and killed a high school classmate.
       Kipland ``Kip'' Kinkel, 15, Springfield, Oregon, May 21, 
     1998: Shooting spree at both home and school which left four 
     dead and twenty-two injured.
  In all, these tragedies total 20 deaths and 48 injuries.
  Other non-fatal incidents include:
       A 5-year-old kindergarten student in Memphis who took a 
     loaded .25-caliber pistol to school because he wanted to kill 
     his teacher for putting him in a ``timeout'',
       A police officer's 10-year-old son who was arrested when he 
     took an unloaded, semiautomatic pistol to school in his 
     bookbag,
       A 15-year-old high school student who was arrested when 
     authorities confiscated 20 pistols, rifles, and shotguns from 
     his home after the boy threatened his 9th grade teacher,
       And a 16-year-old boy, suspended from school for vandalism, 
     who was caught by authorities on campus with a .22-caliber 
     revolver in his front pocket.
  Indeed, the scope of this problem is reaching epic proportions.
  The National School Safety Center indicates that, during the 1997-
1998 school year, there were 41 school-associated violent deaths in the 
United States. That's nearly a 61 percent increase from the year before 
when there were 25 such incidents.
  And it's no wonder the incidents of school violence are increasing. A 
1998 study by the National Center for Education Statistics and the 
Bureau of Justice showed that, of 10,000 students surveyed, 1,200 
students knew someone who had taken a gun to school. It is amazing to 
me that, given the large number of students who have taken guns to 
school, there haven't been even more gun related deaths in our schools.
  Since the National School Safety Center began keeping track of 
school-associated violent deaths in July 1992, there have been 227 
students who have died on campus. 53 of them--nearly 1 out of every 4--
were from my home state of California.
  In fact, the problem of gun fire on campuses has gotten so bad that 
students in some California schools practice ``duck and cover'' drills 
much in the same way that students in the 1950's and 1960's practiced 
taking cover during nuclear air-raid drills.
  An article in the Los Angeles Times last August detailed how the 
threat of gun fire has become like the new nuclear threat looming over 
today's elementary, middle, and high school students.
  The article reads: ``They're called drop drills, crisis drills, and 
even bullet drills. In many schools, a special alarm sounds, as it 
would during an actual nearby shooting. Teachers shout ``Drop!'' and 
students duck under their desks or sprawl on the ground, covering their 
heads. Many schools also immediately initiate a lock-down during the 
drill, as they would with a shooting, sealing the campus off from the 
violence outside.''
  And it continues: ``The drop procedure was used by students at 
Figueroa Street Elementary School in February 1996 when teacher Alfredo 
Perez was hit by a stray bullet. Perez's fifth-graders ducked when the 
bullet flew through the window, and then they crawled out of the room 
and stayed on the floor until teachers told them they could get up.
  Principal Rosemary Lucente credits the drop bill, which they practice 
at least once a month, with keeping the students out of further 
danger.''
  And so it has come to this. Our students are forced to practice duck 
and cover drills because their schools have gotten too hazardous for 
them to focus on what they're there for in the first place which is to 
learn.
  When the situation has gotten that bad it is my view that it is our 
responsibility to try and help provide some sanity in our schools and 
protect children from guns.

[[Page S8746]]

  We can do that by holding adults who own guns responsible if their 
careless storage of dangerous firearms results in the threat of death 
or injury. What's more, we must also encourage parents to spend more 
time with their children, to reconnect with them, to teach them that 
guns are not toys, and to teach them the difference between right and 
wrong.
  Opponents of this bill will argue that it won't solve all the 
problems of kids with guns, that it won't stop kids from getting killed 
or injured by firearms. Frankly, I don't know if that's true or not. 
But I do know that one thing this legislation will do is it will force 
adults to be more safe and more responsible with their guns and that 
will save lives.
  I support this legislation whole-heartedly and I encourage my 
colleagues in the Senate to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 6 minutes 43 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Illinois has 2 minutes 4 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let's talk about that tragic situation in 
Jonesboro, AR. What the Senator from Illinois is proposing would not 
have solved the problem in Jonesboro, AR, even though that young child 
obtained his gun from a grandfather who had locked his house and the 
child entered the home without permission and the gun was locked in a 
case. I don't know how we legislate against that. My guess is, we do 
not, not very successfully. All of a sudden grandpa becomes the 
criminal, and you are going to go after grandpa at a time when his 
grandchild has done that onerous act?
  Now, the Senator mentioned 15 States that have similar laws and yet 
the courts very seldom use them and juries very seldom give decisions 
because we know the parent is in a horrible situation at the time that 
kind of accident occurs. They are the victim, and they become the 
criminal. We all know that underage children in our care who act as 
those children do, we are every bit as much the victim.
  Why don't we pass the legislation that I have proposed that 
incorporates the forces of the Federal Government, the State 
government, and local government, and goes after criminals who use guns 
and criminal acts and bring down our crime rates and work to take the 
guns out of the hands of the juveniles where the killings are really 
going on in this country?
  No, it isn't as dramatic; it doesn't make for the political speech in 
the Chamber, but it sure makes the streets a lot safer. It doesn't take 
law-abiding citizens and make them criminals. That is what this Senate 
ought to be doing, and I hope the Senate will do that tonight. It is 
the right and the responsible approach.
  Let me, once again, briefly go through my proposal. It is patterned 
after the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative that is working right 
now in Philadelphia. It incorporates the Project Exile in Richmond, VA, 
where a Federal prosecutor says, ``Report to me felons who are using a 
gun in the commission of a crime, and I will prosecute them, and I will 
put them away.'' He has, and the crime rate has plummeted. Bring those 
two forces together and we make this world a safer place. And we take 
guns out of the hands of juveniles.
  No, we don't deal with the accident. I am not sure I know how to do 
that. I don't think we can do that here. I don't think we can make 
parents criminals. We have chosen not to do that in the past for a 
variety of reasons. We have argued safety. We have educated safety. We 
hope parents and adults will be responsible with their rights. In this 
instance there is a clear division. It is an important division. Our 
institutions have to recognize that juveniles in our society today are 
more violent than they have ever been, and we are searching for answers 
to that. We do not know all of the answers, but we do know we have a 
problem. Our problem is to penalize the parent who has tried to act 
responsibly? I don't think so. It is certainly our job to encourage 
greater parental responsibility, and we all know that a person who owns 
a gun in a law-abiding way has a responsibility for his or her right in 
this society. And we encourage that. But we say a $10,000 fine and a 
Federal offense and you are a criminal if somebody misuses the gun? I 
hope not. I hope that is not the case.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe I have 2 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 3 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, with every right in America, there is a 
responsibility, even with the second amendment right to bear arms. 
Every gun owner has a responsibility to store his gun safely.
  What I find interesting about the argument from the Senator from 
Idaho is that when I speak to responsible gun owners across America, 
the first thing they tell me is, ``Senator, I do not want any of my 
guns to harm any of my children or anyone else's children or any 
innocent person. I understand I have a responsibility to store them 
safely.''
  The Senator from Idaho is arguing that gun owners have no 
responsibility and should have no responsibility under the law to store 
their guns safely.
  That is not a fair standard. The overwhelming majority of the 
American people may support an individual's right to own a gun, but the 
overwhelming majority of the American people also understand that right 
carries a responsibility to protect innocent children. The fact that 
there has not been an enforcement action in 15 States where the laws 
are on the books should be heartening to the Senator from Idaho, and 
not discouraging, because in those same States that have passed laws 
just like this, the number of accidents involving firearms with 
children have gone down over 20 percent.
  We can save children's lives with this amendment by saying to gun 
owners: ``Take this issue responsibly.'' Let us send America's kids 
back to school safely, schools that are gun free and violence free, and 
let the parents of those kids realize they have a responsibility, if 
they are gun owners, to store their guns safely so their children 
cannot get their hands on them and hurt themselves or others.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Illinois can say a good many things on 
this floor, but he cannot say something I did not say and attribute it 
to me. I did not say there was not a responsibility to manage and 
handle your guns in a law-abiding and safe way.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the arguments made both by 
the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Illinois that it is very 
useful to have a Federal crackdown on those who violate the law with 
guns. When I was district attorney in Philadelphia, I sought to have 
the Board of Judges impose a standard rule that there be at least some 
jail time for those who violate the law with guns, and was unsuccessful 
in that effort.
  One of the first pieces of legislation I introduced on coming to the 
Senate provided for the armed career criminal bill, which mandates a 
sentence of 15 years to life for a career criminal who has been found 
in possession of a firearm.
  I am pleased the legislation offered by the Senator from Idaho will 
encompass the City of Philadelphia on a Federal crackdown.
  Let me say, parenthetically, this is the first opportunity I have had 
to take the Senate floor. I thank my colleagues for the standing 
ovation which I received when I returned and thank them for the very 
many good wishes.
  I wish I had longer to talk about this issue. But I do believe the 
Federal jurisdiction, with the speedy trial rules and the tougher 
sentencing and the avoidance, at least in my experience, in the 
Philadelphia State courts of judge shopping and plea bargaining, will 
be a great boon to cracking down on those who violate the law with 
guns.
  Just a word or two about a couple of earlier votes. I supported the 
proposition to allow counsel into the grand jury room. That is sort of 
an onerous proceeding, where the prosecutor is present with the witness 
and up to 23 grand jurors. It is a little anomalous, given the right to 
counsel, that the witness must appear alone in the grand jury room, 
which is a closed Star Chamber proceeding, but I think the orderly 
administration of criminal justice will be served better if a witness' 
counsel is permitted to be present.
  An earlier vote, too, occurred on an effort by the Senator from 
Alabama,

[[Page S8747]]

Senator Sessions, to allocate more funds to law enforcement as opposed 
to rehabilitation. I supported the motion to table Senator Sessions' 
amendment because I believe there ought to be more on the seamless web 
for rehabilitation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from South 
Carolina.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a legislative 
fellow in the office of Senator Wyden of Oregon, Martin Kodis, be 
permitted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent, on both the Craig amendment and 
the Durbin amendment, the yeas and nays be ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to ordering the yeas and 
nays en bloc at this time?
  Without objection, it is in order.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, so my colleagues know where we stand--and I 
certainly thank the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Idaho 
for their timely discussion of what was a fairly complicated issue; 
both Senator Hollings and I greatly appreciate their courtesy in moving 
debate along--we are now waiting for Senator Thompson, who I understand 
is on the way to the floor to offer his amendment. Then we will go to 
Senator Bumpers. We will probably be skipping over the amendment by 
Senator Nickles. As I understand it, he is not available until probably 
9 or 9:15. So we will go to Senator Feingold after Senator Bumpers.
  That is the order we are proceeding under, under the previous 
unanimous consent. As soon as Senator Thompson arrives, we shall take 
up his amendment.
  I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMPSON. 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. 3256, As Modified

   (Purpose: To reinstate certain principles, criteria, and policies 
            relating to Federalism, and for other purposes)

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3256 and I 
send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], for himself, Mr. 
     Lott and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 3256, as 
     modified.

  Mr. THOMPSON. 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, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . POLICIES RELATING TO FEDERALISM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     repeal Executive Order No. 13083, issued May 14, 1998 and 
     should reissue Executive Order No. 12612, issued October 26, 
     1987, and Executive Order No. 12875, issued October 26, 1993.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment is offered to protect and 
preserve federalism. If there is one concept in recent years that has 
gained in credence, it is the concept of federalism. We have seen a lot 
of innovation happen in this country that has started at the State and 
local level. We have paid credence to it with regard to welfare reform 
and other measures.
  The Supreme Court, in recent years, has struck down cases based upon 
the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment has been reinvigorated, and I 
think we have come together as a nation in many respects in our belief 
that many of our problems need to be addressed at the State and local 
level, and that is what our original framers of the Constitution had in 
mind. Not only is it constitutionally sound but it has worked in 
practice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Majority Leader Lott and 
Assistant Leader Nickles be added as cosponsors. They have long fought 
for the principles of federalism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, in May the President issued Executive 
Order 13803 which purported to set out a new definition of 
``federalism.'' However, it explicitly replaced President Reagan's 
Executive order on federalism and, in reality, the new order undermines 
federalism.
  Furthermore, it was written in secret without even any consultation 
with State and local officials. Every major State and local government 
group opposes this so-called federalism order, and they have asked the 
President to withdraw it.
  My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the President 
revoke his May 14th order and help restore the proper respect for State 
and local government and in our Federal system by reinstating both 
President Reagan's and his own prior orders on this subject.
  The Founding Fathers believed that the Federal Government had limited 
powers. The tenth amendment states that the powers not delegated to the 
States are reserved to the States or to the people. The public clearly 
wants important decisions to be made closer to home and not dictated 
from Washington, DC.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton's order will undermine federalism 
and promote Federal meddling into local affairs. President Clinton's 
order revokes President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 which was a 
clear commitment to the tenth amendment principles of a limited Federal 
Government. The new Clinton order shifts the Reagan presumption against 
Federal involvement in State and local matters to a presumption for 
Federal intervention. President Clinton's new order also revokes his 
own 1993 Executive Order 12875 which directed the Federal Government to 
avoid unfunded mandates.
  To add insult to injury, the White House never talked with State or 
local governments while the new order was being developed. Ironically, 
it was issued from England. More ironically, White House officials did 
not consult with local officials on an Executive order which itself 
calls for more consultation with local officials. In a recent 
Washington Post article, one anonymous White House official admitted, 
``This was a mistake. We screwed up.'' Mr. President, I agree.
  The White House belatedly has offered to delay the order and take 
comments from State and local officials, but the Clinton administration 
has shown no willingness to rescind this order, as State and local 
officials have requested.
  State and local officials were understandably irritated that the 
White House shut them out of this process. But more importantly, they 
immediately saw through the rhetoric that was coming out on this matter 
and saw the real purpose of the Executive order. State and local 
officials know that the order is basically a Government power grab at 
the Federal level that will undercut their ability to serve the public, 
and that is why they are so exercised about it.
  President Clinton was asked to rescind the order by the ``big 
seven,'' as they are called--big seven State and local government 
groups. They include the National Governors Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislature, the Council of State Governments, the 
National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
National League of Cities, and the International City/County Management 
Association.
  Mr. President, this order will promote Federal intrusion into local 
decisionmaking, and it shows contempt for the ability of State and 
local officials to manage their own affairs. We don't want that. That 
is not the message that has been coming out of this Congress. That is 
not even the message that has been coming out from prior Executive 
orders by this administration, as late as 1993.
  Even though, as I say, it was promoted as a concept that would 
enhance federalism, and it has a lot of good language in there about 
the principles of federalism, when you get right down to it, it 
rescinds the basic presumption that when Federal agencies look at a

[[Page S8748]]

matter, it basically presumes, unless it is very clear, that the 
matters should be resolved at the State and local level. That is a 
presumption that has worked very well for us, and I urge the adoption 
of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the seven state and local 
organizations, an article from the Washington Post, and a letter from 
Governor Voinovich of Ohio be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC July 17, 1998.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing on behalf of the 
     nation's elected state and local government leaders to 
     request that you withdraw Executive Order 13083. We urge this 
     action to provide for meaningful consultations with state and 
     local officials not on E.O. 13083, but on whether any changes 
     ought to be considered with respect to Executive Orders 12875 
     (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership) and 12612 
     (Federalism). No state and local government official was 
     consulted in the drafting of E.O. 13083. In contrast, this 
     administration fully engaged state and local officials and 
     their associations in the drafting of your E.O. 12875.
       While we appreciate the offer by your administration to 
     extend the comment period by 90 days, we feel that Executive 
     Order 13083 so seriously erodes federalism that we must 
     request its withdrawal.
       Because we all have imminent meetings of our elected 
     leaders, we believe it especially critical for you to 
     consider and act upon our request to withdraw the order as 
     quickly as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Governor George V. Voinovich,
       Chairman National Governors' Association.
     Senator Richard Finan,
       Senate President, President, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures.
     Commissioner Randy Johnson,
       Hennepin County, Minnesota, President, National Association 
     of Counties.
     Deedee Corradini,
       Mayor of Salt Lake City, President, The U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors.
     Representative Charlie Williams,
       Chairman, Council of State Governments, Mississippi.
     Brian O'Neill,
       Council Member, City of Philadelphia President, National 
     League of Cities.
     Gary Gwyn, City Manager,
       Grand Prairie, Texas, President International City/County 
     Management Association.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 16, 1998]

 Executive Order Urged Consulting, but Didn't; State, Local Officials 
                          Want Federalism Say

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Two months ago, while attending the economic summit of 
     industrial nations in Birmingham, England, President Clinton 
     signed Executive Order 13083 on federalism. After setting 
     forth nine conditions for when federal intervention and 
     preemption is justified, it required every executive agency 
     to ``have an effective process to permit elected officials 
     and other representatives of state and local governments to 
     provide meaningful and timely input in the development of 
     regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
       On Tuesday, two months to the day after Clinton signed the 
     order, the Washington representatives of the ``Big Seven'' 
     organizations of state and local government had a stormy 
     meeting with Mickey Ibarra, the chief of White House 
     intergovernmental relations, and then drafted a letter to 
     Clinton demanding that he withdraw the executive order.
       The reason: No state or local government official was 
     consulted in the drafting of the executive order, a directive 
     the Big Seven officials said in the draft ``calls into 
     question fundamental principles of federalism.''
       Because the new order revokes the previous federalism 
     guidelines signed by former President Ronald Reagan and by 
     Clinton himself in 1993, the draft letter said ``we are 
     concerned that all references to the Tenth Amendment, 
     identification of new costs or burdens, preemption and 
     reduction of unfunded mandates are revoked. . . . We believe 
     the changes in the order and the manner in which they were 
     made raise serious questions'' about the administration's 
     commitment to partnership with state and local governments.
       White House officials yesterday denied the order signaled 
     any change of policy and scrambled to appease the Big Seven, 
     knowing that almost all the groups will be meeting in the 
     next few weeks and that congressional Republicans are on the 
     trail of the controversy. Indeed, yesterday afternoon, Barry 
     J. Toiv, a White House spokesman, said administration 
     officials had decided to recommend to the president that he 
     issue another order delaying implementation of the first one 
     so officials would have the opportunity to meet and discuss 
     the issues with state and local authorities.
       ``We thought there were no real substantive changes . . . 
     but in retrospect, it wouldn't have hurt'' to review the new 
     language with the state and local officials, Toiv said. The 
     first executive order was not scheduled to go into effect 
     until Aug. 14.
       Another Clinton aide, who did not want to be identified, 
     said of the lack of consultation, ``This was a mistake. We 
     screwed up.''
       William T. Pound, executive director of the National 
     Conference of State Legislatures, welcomed the news of the 
     planned delay.
       ``It's a first step. A second step is--we clearly want 
     substantive changes,'' Pound said.
       Officials said the staff work on the executive order had 
     been done by Sally Katzen, who supervised regulatory work at 
     the Office of Management and Budget until recently becoming 
     deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, 
     and by lawyers in the White House counsel's office.
       After the meeting with Ibarra and White House lawyers, 
     Pound said, ``They gave us no good reason why this was done 
     without consultation. They order everyone else to consult, 
     but then do exactly the opposite. It's a slap in the face, 
     really.''
       The other groups that attended the meeting were the 
     National Governors Association, the Council of State 
     Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
     League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and 
     the International City/County Management Association.
       The long delay in the group's explosive reaction came 
     about, Pound said, ``because none of us knew they were going 
     to do this, and none of us knew they had done its. It was a 
     stealth executive order.
       The first official to raise the alarm was Rep. David M. 
     McIntosh (R-Ind.), a subcommittee chairman on the House 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and a man who 
     had occupied the same OMB position as Katzen during the 
     Reagan administration. He wrote Clinton saying that in 
     revoking the previous orders, ``you stripped the most basic 
     protection accorded the states, the preparation of a Federal 
     Assessment,'' which required agencies to analyze the burdens 
     any new regulation imposes on state and local governments.
       Instead of requiring federal agencies to ``refrain to the 
     maximum extent possible from establishing uniform national 
     standards for programs,'' as the previous orders did, 
     McIntosh wrote, ``your order requires no restraint or 
     deference to the states.''
       In a July 1 letter of reply, White House counsel Charles 
     F.C. Ruff said the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, passed in 
     1995, requires the same kind of assessments the old orders 
     did. But McIntosh said yesterday the administration does not 
     practice what it preaches, pointing to the recent 
     administration directive--that states said was done without 
     adequate consultation--that states must pay for Viagra 
     prescriptions for Medicaid patients no matter what the cost.
                                  ____

                                              George V. Voinovich,


                                        Office of the Governor

                                      Columbus, OH, July 22, 1998.
     Hon. Fred Thompson,
     Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thompson: I am writing in strong support of 
     your amendment to repeal President Clinton's Executive Order 
     13083 (Federalism).
       Executive Order 13083 undermines and replaces previous 
     Executive Orders 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
     Partnership) and 12612 (Federalism), which recognized and 
     guaranteed the division of governmental responsibilities 
     embodied in the Constitution.
       Executive Order 13083 was promulgated without any 
     consultation with state and local elected officials. I 
     strongly oppose Executive Order 13083 because it 
     fundamentally contradicts the 10th Amendment to the 
     Constitution and the basic principles of federalism.
       Previously, the leaders of the seven bipartisan 
     organizations representing state and local elected officials 
     wrote to the President stating, ``Executive Order 13083 so 
     seriously erodes federalism that we must request its 
     withdrawal.'' I appreciate your efforts to repeal this 
     unfortunate attempt to justify and broaden federal preemption 
     of state and local governments.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
                                              George V. Voinovich,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am still nonplused as to the 
particular content of those Executive orders. I say nonplused. I know 
the President,

[[Page S8749]]

and if there is one group he really yields to, it is local and State 
governments, having been a Governor, having come to office as a new, 
whatever they call this thing--leadership, Democrat, or whatever else. 
He hadn't been necessarily on the side of the Federal Government but on 
the side of State and local governments.
  I understand the misgivings of the Senator from Tennessee, and I 
understand what he said, that the Governors have asked and yet, 
apparently, the White House has declined. That is why I am nonplused, 
because I would like to know a little bit more about it, and I am 
checking right now those Executive orders and with members of our 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which does have jurisdiction on this 
particular matter.
  In short, in other words, Executive Order 12612 and Executive Order 
12875, the Senator from Tennessee says they change a basic presumption 
from federalism--local and State levels to be employed and approached, 
before we take over at the Federal level--with which I agree. I happen 
to think that the President agrees, too. That is why I want a little 
time to check this out.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest it might be acceptable to the Senator from 
Tennessee, because the Senator from South Carolina does have concerns 
that haven't been addressed and he has to get information, maybe we can 
set this amendment aside and move on to the Bumpers amendment. We are 
going to have votes at 9:30. Prior to the 9:30 period, if the Senator 
from South Carolina feels he needs to come back for further debate, we 
can go to it at that time.
  Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will yield, I will be most happy to 
proceed in that direction. I suggest perhaps I consult with the Senator 
from South Carolina. I have the Executive orders here.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate that. I am sort of ready to go along with 
what the Senator from Tennessee said. Let me look at those Executive 
orders.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Very well.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. McCAIN. 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. 3257

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
No. 3257.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. I suggest at this time we turn to the amendment from 
Senator Bumpers. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized on his 
amendment, that there be 40 minutes, equally divided, on the Bumpers 
amendment, and that at the conclusion of that, that we turn back to the 
Thompson amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator be willing to add a requirement that 
no second-degree amendments be in order? I do not anticipate any. I am 
just thinking we could save some time.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, the unanimous consent agreement 
did not preclude second-degrees. At this time I am not in a position to 
preclude second-degrees. I do not expect one. I am not aware of one, 
but I am not in a position to agree to that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I was thinking, in exchange for a time agreement I 
thought we could agree that there will be no second-degree amendments. 
Is that not the case?
  Mr. GREGG. That was not my understanding.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments 
be in order on the Bumpers amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that there also be no second-
degrees on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3262

(Purpose: To require a report by the Judicial Conference of the United 
   States concerning whether the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
 should be amended to provide for the presence of witness' counsel in 
                          the grand jury room)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in order to 
expedite the passage of this bill, that an amendment that has been 
cleared on both sides and offered by Senator Hatch and me--that we 
dispose of that now before I offer the other amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment No. 3262.

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

     ``SEC.   . REPORT BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.

       ``(a) Not later than September 1, 1999, the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States shall prepare and submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and of the 
     House of Representatives, and to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a 
     report evaluating whether an amendment to Rule 6 of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permitting the presence 
     in the grand jury room of counsel for a witness who is 
     testifying before the grand jury would further the interests 
     of justice and law enforcement.
       (b) In preparing the report referred to in paragraph (a) of 
     this section the Judicial Conference shall consider the views 
     of the Department of Justice, the organized Bar, the academic 
     legal community, and other interested parties.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall require the Judicial 
     Conference to submit recommendations to the Congress in 
     accordance with the Rules Enabling Act, nor prohibit the 
     Conference from doing so.

  Mr. BUMPERS. This is the amendment that Senator Hatch and I agreed to 
this morning which would modify the grand jury amendment that I lost. 
This morning, Senator Hatch and I agreed to a plan that recommended 
that the issue be submitted to the Judicial Conference for study and a 
report back to Congress.
  I have talked to the floor managers who have agreed to it.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3262) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3263

     (Purpose: To make it illegal, in most cases, to tape a phone 
            conversation without the consent of all parties)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3263.

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

       At the appropriate place add the following:
       Sec. --. Subsection 2(d) of Section 2511 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``2(d)(i) Except as prohibited by subsection (ii), it shall 
     not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting 
     under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic 
     communication where such person is a party to

[[Page S8750]]

     the communication or where one of the parties to the 
     communication has give prior consent to such interception 
     unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of 
     committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
       ``(ii) It shall be unlawful under this chapter for a person 
     not acting under color of law to intercept a telephone 
     communication unless
       ``(A) all parties to the communication have given prior 
     consent to such interception, unless such communication is 
     intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or 
     toritous act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the 
     United States; or
       ``(B) such person is an employer, or the officer or agent 
     of an employer, engaged in lawful electronic monitoring of 
     its employees' communication made in the course of the 
     employees' duties; or
       ``(C) such person is a party to the communication and the 
     communication conveys threats of physical harm, harassment or 
     intimidation.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope that we can probably yield time 
back on this amendment. Senator Hollings is a cosponsor of the bill 
which this amendment is based on, as are several other Senators. It is 
a very simple amendment.
  I first brought this issue to the Senate's attention in 1984 when it 
was determined that Charles Wick, who at that time was head of the U.S. 
Information Agency, had been tape recording conversations with just 
about everybody he talked to, including President Reagan and President 
Carter, without their knowledge or consent.
  He revealed that he had recorded over 80 conversations--Cabinet 
members, Presidents, everybody. They did not even know it. I do not 
mind telling you, while I knew that that was legal, I was deeply 
offended by it. And I am still offended by it. This is an area, that is 
so often the case, where the States are way ahead of the Senate.
  Recently, Attorney General Janet Reno testified before our 
Appropriations Committee, and I asked her, ``General Reno, I have a 
bill pending in the Congress that would make it a crime to tape record 
conversations where only one party knew it was being tape recorded; 
namely, the person doing the recording, and the other person didn't 
know it. How do you feel about that, General Reno?''
  ``Well,'' she said, ``you know, that came up in the Florida State 
legislature back in the early 1970s. And we passed a law in Florida 
that made it a crime to tape record telephone conversations where only 
one party knew about it.'' And I said, ``Well, let me ask you this: 
What were you doing at the time?'' I guess she was district attorney or 
whatever they describe that position in Dade County, FL. And finally I 
said, ``Well, General Reno, how did you feel about the Florida 
legislation?'' She said, ``I favored it.'' Well, I favor it, too.
  And Charles Wick is not the first, and he certainly will not be the 
last, to have ever recorded telephone conversations without telling 
people.
  I have introduced this legislation three times--1984, 1993 and 1998. 
I will never understand--as those of us who lose never seem to--how, on 
God's green Earth, anybody would vote against prohibiting and outlawing 
such an outrageous invasion of people's privacy.
  Sometimes I am sitting in my office and talking on the telephone to 
people back home that are wanting me to support legislation, and 
sometimes I am sort of hanging foot loose and fancy free, saying things 
that I would not say publicly. And do not be offended; that applies to 
every single Member of this body. Every one of them have done it.
  Sometimes I say things, and later on I get to thinking, ``You know 
what? If that guy was tape recording that''--he had a perfect right 
to--``I wouldn't have to know about it.'' And you know something else? 
Approximately fifteen States have done exactly what Florida did; they 
have outlawed this.
  The Congress is the last one to ever get the word. On that grand jury 
amendment I offered this morning, 28 States allow a witness' attorney 
in a grand jury room. And Congress is still dithering and ringing its 
hands and saying--``Well, I don't know. We need to study it.'' And here 
we are with one of the most egregious abuses known-- and we continue to 
tolerate it.

  What if you called from Maryland to Virginia? Let's just assume the 
Governor of Maryland calls the Governor of Virginia. Now, the Governor 
of Maryland assumes that he is protected because Maryland has a law 
against recording a telephone conversation when both parties are not 
privy to it. But the Governor in Virginia can tape-record the 
conversation and he hasn't violated Maryland law because he isn't in 
Maryland, he is in Virginia, where it is legal to tape-record such 
conversations. If for no other reason, we should have a Federal law to 
make the matter consistent.
  Now, in 1984, when I joined with Senator Metzenbaum on a floor 
amendment on this subject, I listened to the arguments over and over 
again that this would impede law enforcement. I want to tell you, so 
there will be no misunderstanding about this, I don't want any Senator 
coming on this floor and asking me, ``How about law enforcement?'' I 
have exempted intelligence gathering; CIA, DEA, everybody else is 
exempt; I have exempted the FBI, every sheriff, every police 
department. I have exempted anybody who even professes to know anything 
about law enforcement or intelligence gathering. I have exempted 
telemarketers, whose bosses have a right to monitor their conversations 
to see how effectively they are doing on the telephone.
  We have made this provision as palatable as we can possibly make it, 
and we have done it in a sensible way. Colleagues, you will never get a 
chance to vote for an amendment that has been thought out any better 
than this one has. It has now been 14 years since I first gave the 
Senate an opportunity to pass such an amendment as this. As I say, it 
is very narrowly tailored.
  All I could do, if I wanted to use up the entire 40 minutes, is to 
stand here and repeat over and over again how offended I am at the 
thought of somebody tape-recording a conversation with me and not 
telling me about it, and the first thing you know, I see it on the 
front page of the Washington Post.
  This amendment has nothing to do with Linda Tripp. This is not a 
partisan, political amendment. I am telling you, I introduced a bill on 
this subject in the Senate in 1984, and I introduced a similar bill in 
1993, and I am offering it to this body in 1998. Linda Tripp played no 
part. You make up your own mind about that case, whatever it may be. I 
am just telling you, as a general principle and as a citizen of the 
Nation that values the privacy of its citizens above all, please 
support this amendment and let's put this one to rest once and for all.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. 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 the call of the 
quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to make one other point that was 
brought to my attention by the floor managers which I failed to mention 
a moment ago. That is that my amendment also provides an exemption for 
anybody, male or female, who is threatened by a stalker. They would be 
exempt if they tape-recorded a conversation.
  I wanted to make that clear so everybody would understand that is 
also covered as an exemption under this amendment.
  I yield the floor and 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 (Mr. COATS). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we have been in a quorum call. Who is the 
time being charged against under the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have had 2 quorum calls in place. One was 
charged against Senator Gregg who asked it be charged against his time, 
and the other was charged against the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So under the order, a quorum is charged against whoever 
asked for the quorum call?

[[Page S8751]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That's correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I won't be asking for a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time will be charged equally.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the time being charged equally now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest that for the next 5 minutes the 
time be charged to my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next 5 minutes of time will be allocated 
to the time of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do the opponents of the amendment have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14 minutes 
49 seconds. The Senator from Arkansas has 2 minutes 16 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from New 
Hampshire that the 5 minutes allotted to him have now expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the next 5 minutes also be 
allocated to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that 
all time be yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time 
is yielded.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we will now move on to the Feingold 
amendment. For Members' notice, the next item in order will be Senator 
Feingold's amendment dealing with the cable issue. I presume he will be 
here at any time to start that. Those Members wishing to speak on that 
amendment should be on the floor as I assume there will also be a time 
limit on this amendment. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on the Feingold amendment be limited to 40 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the Senator propounding a unanimous consent 
agreement with regard to my amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just asked that there be a time limit of 
40 minutes equally divided on the amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Does that include the understanding that there will be 
no second-degree amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. At this time I can't agree with that. I am not aware of a 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object, momentarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The consent order has already been agreed to. 
The Senator would have to ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previous order be vitiated pending a few moments to talk with the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  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. FEINGOLD. 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. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3264

     (Purpose: To require a report from the Federal Communications 
           Commission with respect to cable television rates)

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3264.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 page 135, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 620. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Since the adoption by the Federal Communication 
     Commission of the so-called ``Going Forward Rules'' to relax 
     regulation of cable television rates in 1994, cable 
     television rates have increased by 6.3 percent per year. 
     Since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-104), such rates have increased by 
     approximately 8.2 percent per year.
       (2) The rate of increase in cable television rates has 
     exceeded the rate of increase in inflation by more than 3 
     times since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996. The increase in such rates is faster than when such 
     rates were not regulated between 1986 and 1992. Such rates 
     are rising 50 percent faster than the Commission predicted 
     when it adopted the so-called ``Going Forward Rules''.
       (3) In 1996, many United States cities experienced 
     increases in cable television rates that exceeded 20 percent. 
     Overall, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable 
     television rates increased at an annual pace of 10.4 percent 
     in 1996, compared with 3.5 percent for all consumer goods.
       (4) The Nation's largest cable television company boosted 
     its rates approximately 13.5 percent in 1996. In Denver 
     alone, it raised rates by 19 percent in the summer of 1996, 
     then another 8 percent in June 1997. The Nation's second 
     largest cable television company increased its average rates 
     12 percent in the New York City area in 1996.
       (5) The cable television industry continues to hold the 
     dominant position in the market for multichannel video 
     programming distribution (MVPD) with 87 percent of MVPD 
     subscribers receiving service from their local franchised 
     cable television operator.
       (6) Certain factors place alternatives to cable television 
     at a competitive disadvantage. For example, direct broadcast 
     satellite (DBS) service is widely available and constitutes 
     the most significant alternative to cable television. 
     However, barriers to both the entry and expansion of DBS 
     include--
       (A) the lack of availability of local broadcast signals;
       (B) up front equipment and installation costs; and
       (C) the need to purchase additional equipment to receive 
     service on additional television sets.
       (7) Telephone company entry into the video programming 
     distribution business has been limited.
       (8) With the increased concentration of cable television 
     systems at the national level, the percentage of cable 
     television subscribers served by the 4 largest cable 
     television companies rose to 61.4 percent in 1996.
       (9) Recent agreements in the cable television industry have 
     given TCI and Time Warner/Turner Broadcasting ownership of 
     cable television systems serving approximately one-half of 
     the Nation's cable television subscribers.
       (10) Financial analysts report that cable television 
     industry revenue for 1995 was $24,898,000,000 and grew 8.9 
     percent to $27,120,000,000 in 1996. For 1996, revenue per 
     subscriber grew 5.6 percent to reach $431.85 per subscriber. 
     Analysts estimate 1997 year-end-total revenue for the 
     industry was approximately $30,000,000,000, an increase of 
     9.9 percent from 1996 year-end revenue.
       (b) Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission 
     shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the 
     assessment of the Commission whether or not the findings 
     under subsection (a) are consistent with the Commission's 
     fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Cable 
     Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 
     (Public Law 102-385) and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
     to promote competition in the cable television industry and 
     ensure reasonable rates for cable television services.
       (2) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that 
     the findings under subsection (a) are consistent with the 
     fulfillment of the responsibilities referred to in that 
     paragraph, the report shall include a detailed justification 
     of that determination.
       (3) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that 
     the findings under subsection (a) are not consistent with the 
     fulfillment of the responsibilities referred to in that 
     paragraph, the report shall include a statement of the 
     actions to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the 
     responsibilities.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is prompted 
by the continuous rise in cable rates across this country over the past 
few years. You will remember when Congress passed the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, we were promised that competition would 
bring lower cable rates for consumers. Well, it hasn't happened. In 
fact, rates have gone up--alot--in many communities around the country.
  About two-thirds of the households in this country now rely on cable 
for their television programming. More

[[Page S8752]]

and more, cable is part of the monthly budget for the average consumer. 
It is not a frill or a luxury. We rely on cable for information and for 
entertainment. And instead of the cost going down because so many 
people now use the service, the cost just keeps rising.
  In my home state of Wisconsin, the cable company in the Madison area 
raised its rates by 9% in June. That's on top of a 7% increase just a 
year ago, and an 18.8% increase in 1996. According to the Federal 
Communications Commission, average cable rates across the country rose 
8.5% from July 1996 to July 1997, three to four times faster than the 
rate of inflation.
  Now, Mr. President, I voted against the Telecommunications Act in 
part because I was concerned that it would not really promote 
competition in the cable industry. And look what has happened. The top 
two cable companies now have over 50% of the market in this country, 
and the top four cable companies have over 60% of the market.
  And the biggest problem, of course, is that despite the promises of 
those who promoted the new telecommunications law, there is no 
competition at all in the vast majority of cable markets. In all but a 
handful of communities in this country, consumers still have no choice 
in buying cable service. Alternatives to cable, such as satellite 
services, are not readily available to most consumers, or they are too 
expensive to offer much competition. The number of areas where 
consumers have a choice between cable operators is very small indeed. 
Only five million homes out of the 94 million that are capable of 
receiving cable programming can now choose between two cable operators.
  Now here's a shocking statistic from the FCC's most recent annual 
study of competition in the video programming market: Cable rates have 
gone up more slowly in areas where there is competition!
  Mr. President, in a truly competitive market, the cable companies 
would try to keep their rates as low as possible to retain their 
customers. Companies could charge higher rates based on new investment 
in facilities or programming only if they could convince their 
customers to accept those increases rather than take their business 
elsewhere to a competitor in the same town.
  Just think about it. You get a notice that your cable bill or a bill 
for any other crucial service is going to go up significantly. What is 
the first thing you would do? The first thing you would do in a 
competitive situation is check out the competitor's rate, of course. 
But without competition, cable companies are able to increase rates 
with very little fear of losing their customers. Most people will 
endure a pretty big increase before they decide to give up their cable 
service. But even a minor increase might prompt a call to the 
competitor down the street, if only such a competitor actually existed.
  The FCC has made it very clear that notwithstanding the fact that its 
authority to regulate cable rates does not expire until March 1999, it 
does not intend to take any action this year to hold down cable rates. 
I am concerned that when the power expires next year we will see even 
greater rate increases than we have seen since the Act passed in 1996. 
And those have already been dramatic increases.
  Earlier this year, I wrote to the Chairman of the FCC, asking him to 
give serious consideration to a request that had been filed by 
Consumers Union to freeze cable rates until the FCC could investigate 
the reasons for the recent increases and also determine whether current 
cable TV rates are reasonable.
  In response, FCC's Chairman William Kennard indicated that he 
believes a rate freeze would be unfair to cable companies that have 
acted responsibly, and that it would hurt small independent cable 
operators. With all due respect, I don't think this is an adequate 
response. The FCC has essentially said that it does not know why cable 
rates are going up. If that is the case, then it has no idea whether 
cable companies are acting responsibly or not. And it certainly is in 
no position to ensure that cable rates are reasonable for consumers. 
Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act has already deregulated the 
small operators who serve rural communities. So that is not 
particularly relevant or a justification for not examining what is 
happening with these cable companies.
  At the same time, Mr. Kennard told me that the FCC ``continues to 
aggressively enforce its cable rate regulations to ensure that cable 
rates are reasonable under the law.''
  I'm not sure what the FCC means by aggressive enforcement, but I 
don't see it, and certainly consumers whose rates have risen at three 
times the rate of inflation are not seeing the aggressive enforcement 
either.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Chairman 
Kennard and his response be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             United States Senate,
                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 1998.
     Hon. William Kennard, Chairman,
     Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennard: I was very disappointed to hear of 
     your decision, conveyed in remarks to the Washington Post 
     last Thursday, that the FCC will take no action this year to 
     hold down cable TV rates. Abdicating the FCC's responsibility 
     in this area is a serious mistake. I urge you to reconsider 
     your position.
       Cable television rates across the country have risen by 
     more than 5 times the inflation rate over the past year. In 
     my own state of Wisconsin, the cable franchise operator in 
     Madison recently announced a rate hike of 9 percent that will 
     take effect in June. That follows a 7% increase just a year 
     ago, and an 18.8 percent increase in 1996. Increases of this 
     size are unconscionable, notwithstanding the cable companies 
     dubious argument that they are justified by investment in new 
     equipment and by increased programming costs.
       In a truly competitive market, the cable companies would 
     try to keep their rates as low as possible to maintain their 
     customer base. New investment in improved facilities or 
     programming could be reflected in increased rates only 
     insofar as consumers are willing to accept those increases 
     rather than take their business elsewhere. Real competition 
     is still only found in only a handful of communities. In that 
     environment, the cable companies are able to increase rates 
     without fear of losing market share. Only the FCC can step in 
     and demand that rate increases be justified.
       Your frank admission to the Washington Post that the FCC 
     does not know why cable rates are going up is disturbing. If 
     that is the case, how can the agency fulfill its statutory 
     obligation to assure that the rates for basic cable service 
     are reasonable and do not exceed the rates that would be 
     charged if there were real competition in the market? Even 
     though the FCC's authority to regulate cable rates does not 
     expire until March 31, 1999, is the Commission now just 
     taking the cable companies' word for it that rate increases 
     are justified?
       Despite the promises of those who supported the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996, competition has not yet 
     arrived in the cable industry. Until it does, or until the 
     FCC's statutory authority expires, the FCC has an obligation 
     to protect consumers from the kind of price gouging that is 
     now going on in the cable industry. I urge you to reconsider 
     your decision to advance the date of complete deregulation in 
     the cable industry by almost a year. Instead, the Commission 
     should give serious consideration to the pending petition to 
     freeze cable rates. Anything less is an abdication of the 
     Commission's statutory responsibility and an abandonment of 
     the consumers that the agency is supposed to serve.
           Sincerely,
                                              Russell D. Feingold,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____

                                            Federal Communications


                                                   Commission,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 1998.
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     the recent article in The Washington Post discussing the 
     regulation of cable television rates and the sunset of the 
     Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate the 
     rates charged for cable programming services. I appreciate 
     learning your views on cable regulation and welcome your 
     perspective on this issue.
       The Commission is committed to protecting consumers from 
     unreasonable cable television rates and to promoting the 
     development of strong competition in the marketplace for 
     multichannel video programming. Like you, I am concerned 
     about the recent trend in cable television rates. In many 
     communities, cable rates are increasing at a rapid pace. In 
     some cases, cable rates are going up much faster than the 
     general rate of inflation.
       Please be assured that the Commission continues to 
     aggressively enforce its cable rate regulations to ensure 
     that cable rates are reasonable under the law. Indeed, since 
     the adoption of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
     Competition Act of 1992, the Commission has received more 
     than 17,000 cable programming services tier rate complaints 
     and ordered a total of $84 million

[[Page S8753]]

     in refunds to more than 58 million cable subscribers. In 
     addition, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which 
     modified the rate complaint procedures, the Commission has 
     resolved more than 670 rate complaints and order total 
     refunds of more than $13 million to 9.4 million subscribers.
       While I have indicated that I believe some of the 
     Commission's cable rate regulations may need to be 
     reevaluated, I am concerned that we do not have sufficient 
     information nor adequate time to develop and adopt revised 
     regulations before the Commission's authority to regulate the 
     rates charged for cable programming services terminates on 
     March 31, 1999. I believe we need to attain a better 
     understanding of the behavior of cable rates before we 
     undertake any steps to change our rules. Moreover, at this 
     time, with the sunset of cable programming services 
     regulations less that one year away. I am not persuaded that 
     a major reformation of our rules would be the most productive 
     use of the Commission's limited resources. This should not be 
     interpreted to mean that the Commission does not intend to 
     vigorously enforce its current rate regulations.
       At the same time, I am not convinced that a freeze of cable 
     television rates is appropriate and in the public interest. A 
     broad rate freeze would arbitrarily penalize cable television 
     system operators who have acted responsibly. A rate freeze 
     also could undermine the important capital investment that 
     the cable industry must make to modernize its networks and 
     bring new services and choices to consumers. I am also 
     concerned that a freeze may have an adverse and 
     disproportionate effect on small independent cable operators 
     which would jeopardize the provision of new services to small 
     towns and communities across the country.
       As pointed out in the Washington Post article, the 
     Commission can play an important role in collecting and 
     analyzing the information you and other policymakers will 
     need to determine whether cable rate regulation should be 
     extended beyond March 31, 1999. To begin this effort, I 
     recently directed the Cable Services Bureau to undertake a 
     review of a number of issues related to cable television rate 
     increases, including the sources of programming cost 
     increases. We are interested in learning more about 
     programming costs and the revenues cable operators generate 
     from sources other than monthly subscription charges, such as 
     advertising, commission, and program launch fees. The review 
     also will help us determine if the relationships that have 
     developed between cable system operators and programmers 
     affect the prices charged for programming as well as the 
     availability of the program services to competitive 
     multichannel video programming distributors. As part of this 
     review, the Bureau recently asked several large cable 
     television companies to complete a questionnaire to 
     supplement the information they provided to the Commission 
     for the 1997 Cable Price Survey. I expect the Bureau to 
     complete its work this summer and to report its findings to 
     the Commission soon thereafter.
       Because competition is the optimum way to discipline cable 
     television rates, the Commission also continues its work to 
     promote increased competition in the marketplace for 
     multichannel video programming. For example, the Commission's 
     program access rules have been credited as an important 
     factor in the development of both the direct broadcast 
     satellite and the multichannel multipoint distribution 
     industries. Moreover, the Commission has adopted a Notice of 
     Proposed Rulemaking that is designed to strengthen our 
     program access rules and enhance the competitive position of 
     alternative multichannel video providers.
       Similarly, the rules the Commission adopted to implement 
     section 207 (Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception Devices) 
     of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have helped to bring 
     new choices to consumers and promote competition in the video 
     distribution market. In addition, the Commission recently 
     issued its cable inside wiring rules designed to facilitate 
     competition among video service providers in apartment 
     buildings and other multiple dwelling units.
       As important as the Commission's initiatives may be, in 
     some cases, enhanced competitive opportunities in the 
     multichannel video programming distribution market may 
     ultimately depend more upon changes in the law than on 
     additional actions by this Commission. For example, some 
     direct broadcast satellite providers contend that their 
     service had limited consumer appeal because they are 
     generally prohibited by the Satellite Home Viewer Act from 
     providing local television broadcast signals to consumers. 
     These same provider also may be placed at a competitive 
     disadvantage because the current compulsory license regime 
     requires direct broadcast satellite providers to pay 
     substantially higher copyright fees than cable operators pay 
     for the same programming. As Congress considers potential 
     reforms in these and related areas, parity among the various 
     multichannel video programming distributors should be a 
     primary goal.
       I appreciate hearing from you on these important issues and 
     hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me on 
     these and other communications matters of concern.
           Sincerely,
                                               William E. Kennard,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is designed 
to tell the FCC that this situation is unacceptable. It makes findings 
to which I have alluded here--that cable rates are rising and there is 
no competition in the cable market--and asks the FCC to report back to 
us within 30 days as to whether it believes that these findings are 
consistent with the FCC having fulfilled its responsibilities under 
federal law to promote competition and ensure that cable rates are 
reasonable.
  I do not believe that the FCC will be able to tell us in the face of 
these findings that it has fulfilled its responsibilities. The 
amendment therefore requires that the FCC inform us of the steps it 
intends to take to ensure that those responsibilities are fulfilled.
  The Telecommunications Act was enacted in early 1996. For over two 
years, the American people have watched with alarm as cable rates have 
gone in exactly the wrong direction. It is time for the Congress to 
tell the FCC that is not what was supposed to happen, and that the 
Commission has to do something to change it. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment. It, of course, will not singlehandedly solve 
the problem, but it should move the Commission, and I hope cable rates, 
in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two newspaper articles 
concerning rising cable rates and the FCC's decision not to take 
action, one from USA Today, and one from the Washington Post, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the USA TODAY, Mar. 16, 1998]

        Cable's Cash Cow Operators Pad Channel List To Pad Bills

                          (By David Lieberman)

       NEW YORK--For the third year in a row, the nation's 65 
     million cable subscribers are getting hit with an average 8% 
     hike in their monthly bills.
       That's an increase of four times the inflation rate for 
     what has become a staple of the American media diet--channels 
     such as CNN, MTV, Nickelodeon and ESPN.
       The typical family now pays more than $31 a month for 
     standard cable fare, up from $28.83 last year. And some 
     households pay nearly twice that amount once the cost of 
     premium channels, such as Showtime and HBO, and services like 
     pay-per-view are added.
       Cable operators justify the rate hikes, citing higher 
     programming costs, among other things. But what most 
     consumers don't know--and what the cable industry usually 
     doesn't tell you in their bill stuffers--is that the lion's 
     share of the extra money they're charging you for expanded 
     basic cable pays for new services that few consumers want.
       Operators, eager to improve cash flow, are using lax 
     federal rules to raise rates by adding channels that few 
     customers want and that some times cost companies nothing. 
     They're charging consumers for expensive equipment that most 
     can't use yet. And they're making customers subsidize 
     construction of interactive phone and video services that 
     won't be available to most for years. Once they are, some 
     services--such as high-speed Internet--will be so costly that 
     they'll appeal only to affluent videophiles and technophiles.
       Cable operators still think their current rates are a good 
     deal and that future services will make cable even more 
     appealing. ``The rate increase that we put in has, by and 
     large, been accepted because it's usually been in the context 
     of a system that is upgrading and providing more services,'' 
     Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin says.
       But consumers--unwilling to give up what has become for 
     them must-have TV and weary of the government's failure to 
     rein in cable rates--are quietly seething.
       ``It's never going to change,'' says cable subscriber Dory 
     DeAngelo, 59, a local historian in Kansas City, Mo. ``I 
     looked into a satellite dish, but I'd still need cable to get 
     the local channels . . . A lot of people are very tired of 
     this.''


                         a good deal for cable

       When city officials were asked last fall which problems are 
     getting worse in their communities, 72% mentioned cable 
     rates, up from 62% in the 1996 and 47% in 1995. It was the 
     most frequently mentioned growing problem in the annual 
     survey conducted by the National League of Cities.
       Members of Congress and the Federal Communications 
     Commission (FCC) have soured on rate regulation. Economists 
     say current federal rules let companies charge as much as 
     they want. Consumers Union telecommunications expert Gene 
     Kimmelman calls the regulations ``worthless.''
       During the past two years, medium and large systems with no 
     local competitors have added about six channels, to an 
     average of 51, the FCC says. That wasn't necessarily because 
     most subscribers wanted them. It was because federal rate 
     rules gave cable companies a great deal. They could charge 
     consumers the full cost of carrying up to six new channels--
     plus tack on a profit of 20 cents per subscriber per month 
     for each channel. Forever.

[[Page S8754]]

       The FCC found the average cost per channel rose from 57 
     cents to 60 cents from 1995 to 1997 at the noncompetitive 
     medium and large systems.
       ``Loading channels on is a nice thing from their 
     perspective,'' says Larry Irving, President Clinton's chief 
     telecommunications adviser. ``But do I get what I'm asking 
     for? With cable, I get to write a check whether or not I want 
     them.''
       Even without the 20-cent profit, cable companies have 
     incentives to add channels and raise rates:
       Several channels--including Fox News, Animal Planet and 
     Home & Garden TV--paid cable companies to get on the dial.
       Others--including MSNBC, TV Food Network and BET on Jazz--
     give local systems three minutes of ad time to sell each 
     hour, instead of the usual two minutes.


                            profiting twice

       The arrangement is especially sweet for most large opeators 
     because they also own, or invest in, cable programming.
       For example, Time Warner owns CNN, TNT and Cartoon Network. 
     Tele-Communications Inc. has stakes in Discovery, Fox Sports 
     and Odyssey. MediaOne, Comcast, Cox and Cablevision Systems 
     also have major investments in cable channels.
       ``It creates an odd paradigm,'' says Bruce Leichtman of The 
     Yankee Group, a research and consulting firm. ``It's kind of 
     a shifting from one pocket to the next.''
       Operators say they're giving the public what it wants by 
     adding services such as Animal Planet, MSNBC, FX, ESPN2 and 
     ESPNews.
       ``Every one of those channels gets a good rating,'' Comcast 
     President Brian Roberts says.
       But FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani, for one, is concerned 
     that cable operators will continue to add unwanted 
     programming just to rake in more money from subscribers.
       ``This may not have been a significant problem in a 30- or 
     40-channel universe,'' she said recently. ``But in a 70-, 80- 
     or 100-channel universe, these unwanted channels can have a 
     dramatic effect.''


                              future shock

       Operators are getting more flexibility to add channels as 
     they upgrade equipment. Yet state-of-the-art digital cable 
     boxes--which most companies may eventually offer--also could 
     deliver huge profits. Systems plan to sell a new tier of 
     channels, including lots of premium services and pay-per-
     view, that consumers who have those boxes could order.
       But in a coup for the cable industry, the law allows 
     operators to pass the costs of those units on to all 
     subscribers--not just the people who have them installed in 
     their homes. A system with 10 million subscribers that bought 
     100,000 boxes for $400 apiece could raise everyone's rates by 
     33 cents a month, according to an example prepared by Paine 
     Webber.
       Fees add up quickly. The typical subscriber pays about 67 
     cents a month in 1998 to compensate operators who buy 
     upgraded boxes. That will rise to $1.47 in 1999, $2.59 in 
     2000 and $3.04 in 2001, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette 
     estimates.
       The arrangement benefits the few customers who get the 
     latest equipment but does nothing for others--including the 
     nearly 50% of today's subscribers who don't use any decoder 
     box at all.
       Cable operators, however, are thrilled. An estimated 37 
     million subscribers will pay $7.2 billion for digital 
     programming in 2005.
       What's more, the digital services could slow the growth of 
     satellite services such as DirecTv and Echostar. Their 
     ability to offer up to 175 channels has been a big selling 
     point with the 6.6 million satellite subscribers.
       If you build it . . .
       The average cable customer is paying other fees, too. An 
     estimated $1.75 per month goes to help operators upgrade 
     their systems and offer a host of other interactive 
     services--including high-speed Internet access and telephone 
     services.
       The major operators, Morgan Stanley forecasts, will spend 
     about $46.7 billion between 1996 and 2004 to replace old 
     wires with high-capacity fiber-optic cables and buy 
     sophisticated technologies capable of handling two-way 
     digital communications.
       ``I raise the rates so that we can fulfill the promise of 
     this network to be digitally capable by the year 2000,'' Time 
     Warner's President Richard Parsons says. ``Most of the money 
     we get goes right back into the system in terms of 
     upgrades.''
       Operators say consumers will benefit from cable's 
     investment in local telephone service. That will introduce 
     competition, possibly lowering prices. Some systems, for 
     example, plan package deals for customers who buy cable and 
     phone service. ``Doesn't everybody have a telephone?'' says 
     Cablevision Systems CEO James Dolan, whose company is far 
     ahead of most operators in preparing for telephony. ``We're 
     going to offer those discounts to everybody.''
       Yet critics say it's unfair to ask all subscribers to help 
     pay for upgrades largely designed to help operators enter new 
     businesses--not to improve existing cable service. And lots 
     of today's subscribers won't want the new products. For 
     example, only about 5% of all adults say they are willing to 
     buy high-speed Internet service at the expected price of 
     about $40 a month, according to a survey by The Yankee Group.
       And it will take years before most subscribers get a cable-
     provided dial tone. Only about 3.4 million will subscribe to 
     a cable system's telephone service by 2002, Montgomery 
     Securities estimates.
       That projection might be optimistic at a time when 
     technology and the economy are changing so fast. AT&T 
     recently observed that wireless services may become potent 
     competitors to local phone providers. ``Companies say, `We're 
     building for the future,' '' Harvard Business School 
     Associate Professor William Emmons says. ``Well, that's a 
     little dicey. What if they're building huge systems that will 
     be obsolete? Or what if nobody wants them?''


                              cable's edge

       For now, cable companies assume that lots of people--
     particularly those who are well-to-do--will want the new 
     array of services. Although all subscribers, rich and poor 
     alike, are paying for the upgrades, the most advanced systems 
     tend to be in affluent communities, including Orange County 
     and Fremont, Calif.; Long Island, N.Y.; Arlington Heights, 
     Ill.; and West Hartford, Conn.
       The cable industry also believes that it has a big lead 
     over other businesses--including phone companies--in 
     delivering advanced video and communications services.
       ``The surprise to most has been how slow the competition is 
     developing,'' former Continental Cablevision CEO Amos 
     Hostetter says. ``All that talk about (phone companies) 
     getting into the video business has been hollow.''
       That's one reason most Wall Street analysts say basic cable 
     rates will rise--albeit at a more moderate pace--even after 
     operators are through making big expenditures for their 
     upgrades. They anticipate that operating cash flow for most 
     companies will grow an average of nearly 13% a year over the 
     next five years, vs. about 7% growth now.
       The assumption contributed to the 87% appreciation in cable 
     stocks in 1997, a year when the Standard & Poor's 500 grew 
     31%. ``The market decided that government policies were a 
     failure, and competition presents no risk to cable now and in 
     the foreseeable future,'' Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Tom 
     Wolzien says.
       That's good for cable, but it isn't the way things were 
     supposed to turn out when the federal government in 1992 
     tried to crack down on soaring cable prices and then pulled 
     back in an attempt to encourage competition.
       ``There are going to be people paying for things they don't 
     want,'' says Michael Katz, a professor of economics at the 
     University of California at Berkeley and a key architect of 
     the cable rules as the FCC's chief economist in 1994 and 
     1995. ``It's one of the unintended consequences of 
     regulation.''
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 15, 1998]

FCC Chief Declines To Curb Cable Prices; Kennard To Await Deregulation 
                                in March

                            (By Paul Farhi)

       Consumers looking for relief from rising cable TV bills 
     won't be getting it any time soon from federal regulators.
       Though he declared earlier this year that ``cable rates are 
     rising too fast,'' the head of the Federal Communications 
     Commission said yesterday that his agency won't step in to 
     freeze or roll back cable prices before a congressionally 
     ordered deregulation of cable prices kicks in next March.
       FCC Chairman William E. Kennard says his agency will 
     continue to study the problem, with an eye toward influencing 
     debate in Congress. Cable prices have been rising at more 
     than five times the rate of inflation.
       ``We're running out of time'' to enact new regulations, 
     Kennard said. Besides, he added, ``it doesn't make a whole 
     lot of sense for us to try and create a whole new regulatory 
     regime only to have [deregulation] in March of 1999.''
       In December and January, Kennard had raised the possibility 
     of putting new controls on the rates.
       Kennard's statements yesterday, made in an interview with 
     The Washington Post, amount to a major victory for the cable 
     industry, which has been fighting efforts at tougher 
     regulation for months. It is also a political victory for 
     Republicans in Congress, who have pressed the FCC to avoid 
     more regulation.
       ``This is good to hear,'' said Torie Clarke, spokeswoman 
     for the National Cable Television Association in Washington. 
     ``It means the FCC is paying attention to what the industry 
     is doing, and that it won't get into micromanagement and 
     regulation that will stall everything.''
       Added Clarke, ``We're spending a lot of time and effort 
     trying hard to deliver on our promise to customers. We're 
     fulfilling a lot of those promises, and we think the 
     government should stay out of our business.''
       But consumer advocates were seething. ``The FCC has reached 
     a new low,'' said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers 
     Union's Washington office. ``The agency . . . won't lift a 
     finger to stop spiraling cable rates. This is irresponsible. 
     They're thumbing their noses at the American public.''
       Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America 
     asked the FCC in September to freeze rates, but the 
     commission has not yet acted on that petition.
       Cable TV prices rose an average of 7.9 percent in the 12-
     month period that ended March 31, according to the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics. That is more than five times the general 
     inflation rate of 1.4 percent during the same period.
       In the early 1990s, with price hikes running at only three 
     times inflation, a Congress controlled by Democrats enacted a 
     law designed to bring cable prices back to a ``reasonable'' 
     level.

[[Page S8755]]

       The FCC subsequently wrote regulations that succeeded in 
     restraining--and in some cases reducing--the average monthly 
     bill. But the FCC liberalized its rules in 1995, after the 
     cable industry complained that the price controls were 
     smothering innovation. There followed another price spiral. 
     In 1996, the Republican-dominated Congress agreed to phase 
     out most of the price rules by early 1999.
       Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (R-La.), who chairs the House 
     Subcommittee on Telecommunications, accused the FCC of 
     ``ignoring'' vigorous enforcement of its price rules. But 
     Tauzin and other Republicans have repeatedly inveighed 
     against tougher regulations, such as a rate freeze or an 
     extension of the current rate rules, saying incentives to 
     help other companies be more competitive with cable are 
     preferable.
       Only a handful of the nation's 11,000 cable systems have a 
     direct competitor, despite years of efforts to ignite 
     competition by phone, cable, satellite and other TV 
     providers. Earlier this week, Joel I. Klein, the Justice 
     Department's top antitrust enforcer, said the cable industry 
     held ``a significant, durable monopoly'' over subscription TV 
     services.
       Kennard said he isn't exactly sure why rates are rising so 
     fast and has directed his agency to gather information from 
     the cable industry about the potential causes. Without 
     drawing conclusions, he said the problem probably has several 
     facets, including the rising cost of producing programs. He 
     added that the regulations themselves may be to blame because 
     they gave the industry too much latitude to raise prices.
       ``We don't have a firm comprehensive analytic study as to 
     why rates are going up,'' said Kennard. ``We hope to have a 
     definitive answer'' in time to effect debate in Congress next 
     year about possibly extending the current rules.
       Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has proposed an extension of 
     the regulations past March, and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) 
     has proposed an immediate freeze.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the concern 
expressed by consumers about rising cable rates, and share the desire 
of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] to better 
understanding the reasons for this trend. While further attention to 
this matter is warranted, I am not persuaded that the amendment before 
us will substantially further that worthy goal.
  The amendment is intended to compel the FCC to tell us how it plans 
to address cable rates. But the FCC is already required to report on 
competition in the cable industry at the end of this year. The 1992 
Cable Act requires the FCC to conduct an annual study on the status of 
competition in the cable industry, and our focus should be on ensuring 
that that study sheds new light on this issue.
  The FCC has done little about cable rates, and the agency's track 
record raises doubt that yet another study by that agency, the very one 
that the Senator from Wisconsin faults for inaction, will add to public 
understanding of this matter. In addition, the amendment requires a 
report within 30 days, which is woefully inadequate to achieve any real 
information about an issue of this scope.
  There are initiatives under way which should add to the policy 
debate. The senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I have asked the 
independent General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the causes 
of increasing cable rates. It is my expectation that this review will 
provide new evidence about steps we need to take to help control cable 
rate increases.
  In addition, as the distinguished Ranking Member of both the Commerce 
Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State [Mr. Hollings] 
has said, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on cable 
rates next week. As noted by the Senator from South Carolina, the 
Senate need not prejudge that hearing and the findings of the committee 
of jurisdiction with a premature amendment.
  Indeed, the Commerce Committee is fully capable of ensuring that the 
existing statutory requirement to study this issue is fulfilled in a 
manner that answers the concerns raised by the Senator from Wisconsin 
and other members of the Senate. I encourage my colleagues on that 
committee to vigorously exercise their oversight responsibility in this 
area.
  Mr. President, this amendment, while well-intentioned, is not the 
answer to our constituents' frustration about their cable rates. 
Hopefully, the FCC study currently underway and required by year's end, 
and the GAO review, will shed new light on this issue.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that 
all debate on the Feingold amendment be completed at 8 o'clock, the 
time between now and 8 o'clock be divided between Senator Feingold and 
Members or a Member in opposition, and that no second-degree amendments 
to the Feingold amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on this particular amendment, I talked 
previously with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. I thought it 
was in conformance with the actions of the committee with respect to 
the cable rates. When we passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we 
mandated that cable rates would not increase, under that particular 
act, until March of 1999. Thereafter, of course, rates did increase in 
accordance with the 1992 act.
  The 1992 act allowed increases with respect to additional channels 
and additional services and costs incurred in expanding and in 
competing. That, generally speaking, is as I understood it with the 
cable companies. Because we have had complaints I, myself, looked at it 
earlier this year. The FCC has been monitoring it. We discussed this 
with Chairman Kennard and the other Commissioners as they came on in 
their confirmation hearings. They have been monitoring it.
  As I understand, the distinguished chairman of our Commerce 
Committee, Senator McCain of Arizona, is headed to the floor. Because I 
have been engaged in other matters, I didn't even realize we had a 
hearing scheduled for Tuesday of next week on this same thing, to hear 
from the Commissioners on what has occurred. So I would not favor this 
particular resolution. It is not just a matter of 30 days, it sort of 
preempts the committee in its action with respect to listening to the 
Commission and finding out.
  I know, good and well, we are all familiar with the 1996 
Telecommunications Act provision against increase in rates through 
March of 1999. Of course, then we relate back in all of these 
percentages. It sounds, in the resolution of the distinguished Senator 
from Wisconsin itself, that all you need to do is look at the 
percentages and they are in excess of the inflation rate and everything 
else. The inflation rate is not the question. It is the question of the 
services, the channels, and the programming itself, and the costs of 
expanding and competing.
  I think perhaps this would have a disruptive effect on that 
particular trend at this time. The committee has yet to have heard from 
the Commission itself and from those engaged in this particular 
business.
  So I just comment that the chairman of the committee and the chairman 
of the subcommittee, Senator Burns of Montana, are on their way, as I 
understand it, to the floor. I didn't want to just waste this time and 
let it go past on the premise: Wait a minute, in 30 days----
  Incidentally, the Federal Communications Commission is just like a 
tenth-round boxer. They have more mergers, more rulings, and everything 
else like that, trying to implement all the petitions that they have 
before them. You could not find fault if they could not find out in 30 
days, 60 days, or 90 days.
  So I do not think this is well taken, with respect to what the 
Congress has asked the FCC to do. They have had one backup of time, 
trying to make findings here, after their particular investigations. 
Mind you me, if there are 60,000 lawyers registered to practice in the 
District of Columbia, 59,000 are communications lawyers. They have more 
appeals and petitions and reviews and everything else of that kind. So 
the work at the FCC is not necessarily the most prompt, or what we 
would wish to have, but it has to be understood. The committee itself 
is working.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

[[Page S8756]]

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the ranking 
member, the Senator from South Carolina, about the amendment. I simply 
want to point out that, in fact, this 30-day period is not 30 days from 
today that the FCC would have to complete this report, it is 30 days 
from the time of enactment of this bill, if the amendment were 
successful, and that is obviously some weeks, if not months, down the 
road, to the point where the President would actually sign it.
  All we are asking here is that a report be issued, not that actions 
be taken to change the cable rates during this period, but that the 
Commission actually give us a sense of whether they agree with the 
findings we have in this report or not and what they intend to do about 
the problem. I don't think that is an unreasonable request for a 30-day 
period, or even realistically what it is more likely to be, which is a 
60-day to 90-day period.
  Just to illustrate why we are concerned, why we think it 
is appropriate that Congress agree to this amendment and make this 
statement, it is because, in fact, the studies the FCC is doing now I 
don't think are getting done in a timely manner to answer the questions 
that have to be answered.

  For example, Chairman Kennard recognized that there was a problem 
with regard to its annual assessment of competition in the video-
programming market when he said in his statement:

       Less than 15 months away from the sunset of most cable rate 
     regulation, it is clear that broad-based, widespread 
     competition to the cable industry has not developed and is 
     not imminent.

  He also noted that perhaps the Commission ought to do something to 
address the problem. He said:

       When confronted with allegations of price gouging, cable 
     operators reflexively point to additional programming costs. 
     The Commission's own rules and policies may be a source of 
     this problem. We need to examine whether there are targeted 
     adjustments that should be made to our rate rules. For 
     example, our rules allow programming cost increases to be 
     passed on to subscribers. But is this right?

  The Chairman went on to say that the FCC was going to look at the 
problem of programming costs, and that is the study that has been 
referred to. He said about this:

       I am therefore directing the Cable Services Bureau to 
     commence a focused inquiry into programming costs to 
     determine the sources of these increases, the variance in 
     costs among various distributors, whether existing 
     relationships impact the prices charged, and if programmers 
     restrict consumer choice. This inquiry will require the 
     cooperation and forthrightness of the industry.

  I don't know if the FCC got the cooperation of the industry. What I 
do know, and what is in response to the comments of the Senator from 
South Carolina, is that it is now July and there is still no report or 
result from that inquiry.
  I also know, as I have indicated before, that rates have continued to 
go up, with many increases taking effect at midyear. I also know that 
in May the Chairman told the world that the FCC was not going to take 
any further action to address rising cable rates.
  So, this amendment is not duplicative of what is going on at the FCC. 
It has a deadline and a requirement the FCC outline a specific action 
plan to address the problem of the lack of competition in the cable 
industry.
  Based upon the track record that I have just described with respect 
to the narrower issue that there was supposed to be a study on, it is 
not getting done. I think we need to follow up on previous 
congressional directives and have the entire Senate and the other body 
direct that a more specific study and plan of action result within the 
timeframe that this amendment calls for.
  Mr. President, I think this is a reasonable amendment. It is not too 
much to ask this agency to take a look at the dramatic increases, 
whether they are reasonable and what they intend to do about it.
  I urge my colleagues to back the amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will simply note for my colleagues that 
we are making pretty good progress through these amendments that have 
been lined up. We lined up seven amendments to do before 9:30. We are 
making excellent progress. If there are Members who have other 
amendments, it is possible we can work them in. If they can come down 
to the floor and discuss them, that will be helpful. We are going to 
stay on the bill until it gets done, if I have my option. The sooner we 
can wrap up these amendments, the better.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withdraw that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to the amendments pending, 
I know the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, the Senator from Oregon, 
Senator Wyden--I think that one can be worked out or I think it perhaps 
may have already been worked out--Senator Leahy from Vermont, Senator 
Dorgan from North Dakota, and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts have 
amendments, if they are within the view and sound of the action on the 
floor, please be alerted. We want to bring up those amendments. I am 
asking the staff to contact them.
  Mr. President, with respect to this particular study, there is an 
action required here, as I read it. In other words, it is not just a 
study, but a report. The purpose is to require a report from the 
Federal Communications Commission, but the report really is a 
resolution requiring action, because the very last paragraph, Mr. 
President, reads as follows:

       (3) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that 
     the findings under subsection (a) are not consistent with the 
     fulfillment of the responsibilities referred to in that 
     paragraph, the report shall include a statement of the 
     actions to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the 
     responsibilities.

  I think that is just a little too mandatory; an unfunded mandate, I 
think we call that here in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I always enjoy debating with the Senator 
from South Carolina. I have to differ, though, with the 
characterization of the words that are in this amendment. It says:

       . . . the report shall include a statement of the actions 
     to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the 
     responsibilities.

  If the Commission determines it doesn't need to take any action, this 
doesn't require them to do anything. There is no mandate at all. We 
just want to know what they are planning to do. That is all this calls 
for, a statement of the actions to be undertaken by the Commission.
  There is simply nothing mandatory about that language at all. We are 
just asking for a statement of the ideas they have about what to do 
about the increases in cable rates, if anything.
  I differ with the Senator from South Carolina that there is no 
language in here that asks for anything other than a report as to what 
the Commission may plan to do in the future about the problem of cable 
rates.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the 
previous consent agreement dealing with disposition of this bill after 
final passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that S. 2260, as passed, be held at the desk 
and not engrossed, and that after Senate passage of H.R. 4276, the 
House companion measure, that the vote on S. 2260 be vitiated and S. 
2260 be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be

[[Page S8757]]

yielded back on the Feingold amendment and all debate on that amendment 
be concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the information of our Membership, we 
are waiting for two Members who have amendments on the list to go 
before 9:30: One dealing with gaming, Senator Kyl; and one dealing with 
defenders, Senator Nickles. As soon as they arrive we will begin those 
amendments and begin debate on those amendments.
  As I mentioned earlier, if there is a Member who wishes to bring 
forward an amendment at this time, it appears we have some time to do 
that. We will welcome their attendance on the floor.
  Mr. President, 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. WYDEN. 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. 3265

   (Purpose: To amend section 505 of the Incentive Grants for Local 
Delinquency Prevention Programs Act relating to the illegal possession 
                       of firearms by juveniles)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer a bipartisan amendment that has 
been authored by Senator Smith of my State and myself and a number of 
other Senators.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Is the Senator willing to enter into a time agreement on this 
amendment?
  Mr. WYDEN. I certainly am. The chairman of the subcommittee has been 
very gracious. I do not anticipate going more than 15 minutes myself, 
and I think Senator Smith will be coming shortly. I know he would 
probably want 15 minutes or less, as well.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask that all debate on this amendment be completed by 
8:25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN], for himself and Mr. 
     Smith of Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 3265.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 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:

       On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 121. Section 505 of the Incentive Grants for Local 
     Delinquency Prevention Programs Act (42 U.S.C. 5784) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) court supervised initiatives that address the illegal 
     possession of firearms by juveniles.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``demonstrate ability in'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``have in effect'' after 
     ``(1)'';
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``have developed'' after ``(2)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (D) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``are actively'' after ``(3)''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) have in effect a policy or practice that requires 
     State and local law enforcement agencies to detain for not 
     less than 24 hours any juvenile who unlawfully possesses a 
     firearm in a school, upon a finding by a judicial officer 
     that the juvenile may be a danger to himself or herself, or 
     to the community.''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, Senator Smith and I, having 
visited with our constituents at home and in Springfield, OR, after the 
terrible tragedy at Thurston High School, believe it is absolutely 
critical that concrete steps be taken between now and the beginning of 
the school year to increase the safety for our young people in schools 
across the land.
  We believe this legislation, which has now been agreed to by both the 
majority and the minority, can be the first concrete step that will be 
taken to ensure that this fall our young people and their families can 
have an added measure of safety when they attend our Nation's schools. 
We believe that when a young person brings a gun to school, that ought 
to set off a five-alarm warning that there are problems for our 
society.
  Our colleagues on several occasions have mentioned today that in a 
number of States it has been documented that in several hundred 
instances a year young people bring a gun to school, disciplinary 
action is taken, but then it is essentially at the discretion of law 
enforcement officials and others as to what additional steps will be 
taken.
  Law enforcement officials across our State and across the country 
have made it very clear that they don't believe it is appropriate to 
put that discretion in their hands. They would like to make sure that 
government sets out a policy that would stipulate that when a young 
person brings a gun to school, that that young person will be detained 
for an adequate period of time to have a mental health assessment, to 
have law enforcement officials involved, to have health policymakers 
participate in what action should then be taken to best promote safety 
in our society. If my home State of Oregon had this policy in effect at 
the time of the tragedy at Thurston High School, Kip Kinkel, who is 
alleged to have perpetrated these crimes, would have been before a 
judge and held, and, in my view, unquestionably, would have been 
detained rather than sent home, where he allegedly killed his parents 
and then came back, literally, within a relatively short time, and shot 
and injured more than 20 young people at Thurston High School in 
Springfield.
  What our legislation does is ensure that States that have put in 
place a policy of detaining a student caught with bringing a gun--that 
States with that policy would be accorded a priority for title V 
funding, the prevention and delinquency funding program, under this 
legislation. That way, we would ensure that, on an ongoing basis, every 
State in our country would have an incentive to ensure that when young 
people bring guns to school, as was done in the case of the Springfield 
tragedy, rather than simply leave to fate what happens next, there 
would be a finding of what was the most appropriate step to take to 
ensure the safety of the community.
  Mr. President, I think we all agree that our schools ought to be 
places of learning, not of tragedy and violence. One lesson that has 
been learned from the tragic shootings in Oregon and Arkansas and other 
States is that clearly there is something wrong today with the policies 
for dealing with young people and guns. The policies today aren't 
working. Young people are falling through the cracks, and some of them 
are shooting other children. Bringing a gun to school ought to be a 
warning signal, an early sign, that there is a serious potential threat 
for our society. When that act takes place, it is important to get the 
student out of the classroom, off the streets, and in front of a 
professional who can make a determination of how much of a threat that 
student is to the community.
  I think most legislators would agree we don't have all the answers, 
but we do know that keeping an angry student with a gun out of the 
classroom and off the schoolyard ought to be part of the solution. That 
is why the amendment that I sponsor today, with Senator Gordon Smith of 
my home State, focuses on two tracks. First, Senator Smith and I seek 
to remove the threat of violence from our schools as soon as it is 
identified. Second, we help our communities find the resources they 
need to identify and serve at-risk students so it is possible to 
prevent a potential health and safety problem from becoming the sort of 
tragedy that was seen at Thurston High School.
  This amendment provides concrete incentives to States to immediately 
remove any student who brings a gun to school and to get that student 
before a judge and other qualified professionals. If the judge 
determines that student is a threat to the community or to the 
individual themselves, the State must hold that student for a period of 
time that would allow for an appropriate placement that protects our 
society.
  If a State has in place this sort of policy to protect the community, 
families, and students, our legislation will give that State priority 
when it comes to funding juvenile justice grants. That

[[Page S8758]]

means they will be in a position to devote more resources to make sure 
that at-risk students don't follow that path of crime and delinquency, 
and it will be possible with these grants to target high-risk young 
people for aggressive and early intervention so these young people can 
be reached with appropriate treatment before they fall through the 
cracks.
  What has been learned in Springfield and the other communities across 
this country is that expelling a student for bringing a gun to school 
may adequately punish the student's behavior, but it is not enough to 
protect the community and our society.
  It is important to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken at 
that time--at that time when the student is apprehended by school 
officials, so that that student has every opportunity to work through 
potential problems they may be having at home, or with their peers, and 
our society can find a balance between preventing these crimes from 
occurring and punishing them when they actually take place.
  There isn't a Member of this U.S. Senate who is not deeply concerned 
about this set of incidents across our country--literally across our 
Nation--where young people have been taken from us by school violence. 
In Springfield, OR, where Senator Smith and I visited with the 
President--who deserves great credit, in my view, for supporting our 
bipartisan legislation--the community promised Senator Smith and I that 
they wanted to let the violence end here.
  It is our hope that this legislation will give States the incentive 
they need to enact tough detention statutes to ensure that what 
happened in Thurston doesn't happen across this country. My friend and 
colleague, Senator Smith, is here and I want to yield the floor in just 
a moment. I want to thank him for the bipartisan effort that has been 
made on this legislation and on so many other issues that have been 
important to the people of Oregon. The people of Oregon and the people 
of our country do not see these as bipartisan issues. There is not a 
Democratic approach to preventing school violence and a Republican 
approach to preventing school violence. I tell our colleagues that the 
approach Senator Smith and I bring before the U.S. Senate tonight has 
been supported by those who oppose gun control and those who are for 
gun control because they see this as commonsense Government that will 
be good for our students and our families.
  I will close by saying that when the Senate acts tonight, this can be 
the first concrete step that actually protects students and families 
when school starts this fall. So we are very grateful to our colleagues 
for helping us, including our friends Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg, 
and Senator Leahy, who is not on the floor, and Senator Hatch has been 
so helpful. Senator Sessions has added an innovative approach with 
respect to establishing a court supervisory initiative to addressing 
unlawful juvenile gun use. This is a bipartisan step forward in making 
our schools safe across this land.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oregon, Mr. 
Smith, is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to publicly thank my 
colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue. He and I 
recently faced a tragedy in our State that, frankly, left us speechless 
and groping for a way to respond to an unspeakable tragedy--that of a 
young person, troubled, from a good family, but in possession of 
weapons and willing to use them on his parents and his fellow students.
  In the face of that kind of violence--a young man who would violate 
four gun control laws to do what he did--Senator Wyden and I, frankly, 
struggled to find out how we can respond to this, how we can, as public 
servants, lay down a new marker, provide a new barrier for stopping 
this kind of violence. Also, how can we do it in a way that doesn't 
impose the Federal will upon the States, but provides a carrot, and not 
a club, for them to enact laws that would have captured this young man 
and prevented a horrible tragedy from being visited upon our State and 
the city of Springfield.
  We are not alone in this. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania 
have also suffered these kinds of tragedies. So it is a growing 
national concern. The reason I commend this legislation so strongly to 
my colleagues is because it is, in fact, bipartisan because it does 
enjoy the support of gun control advocates and antigun control 
defenders. As my colleague described, what this does is simply put in 
place a new safety net, so that if a young person does bring a gun to 
school, they will be detained--not to be just released to their 
parent's custody, but actually to undergo an evaluation in terms of 
their psychological health and their safety to the community at large.
  It is unfortunate that this has to occur, but it has to occur 
because, at the end of the day, no other communities should suffer this 
consequence again. So I commend my colleague for his leadership. I also 
want to thank Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
and Senator Sessions, for their input into this amendment; it was 
considerable. We worked it out with them. I think we have, in the end, 
an amendment that doesn't fix the situation entirely, but it goes a 
long way toward accomplishing that very thing.
  I thank all my colleagues for indulging us. I ask for their support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3265) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now in order to go to Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3266

                (Purpose: To prohibit Internet gambling)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 3266.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                Amendment No. 3267 to Amendment No. 3266

  (Purpose: To provide an exception for ``fantasy'' sports games and 
                               contests)

  Mr. BRYAN. 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 Nevada [Mr. Bryan] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3267 to amendment No. 3266.

  Mr. BRYAN. 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 page 3, strike lines 9 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(iii) a contract of indemnity or guarantee;
       ``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance; 
     or
       ``(v) participation in a game or contest, otherwise lawful 
     under applicable Federal or State law--

       ``(I) that, by its terms or rules, is not dependent on the 
     outcome of any single sporting event, any series or sporting 
     events, any tournament, or the individual performance of 1 or 
     more athletes or teams in a single sporting event;
       ``(II) in which the outcome is determined by accumulated 
     statistical results of games or contests involving the 
     performances of amateur or professional athletes or teams; 
     and
       ``(III) in which the winner or winners may receive a prize 
     or award;

     (otherwise know as a `fantasy sport league' or a `rotisserie 
     league') if such participation is without charge to the 
     participant or any charge to a participant is limited to a 
     reasonable administrative fee.


[[Page S8759]]


  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment 
does and indicate the degree of support that exists for it. Before I do 
that, let me say that this amendment passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee with one dissenting vote several months ago. It had been our 
intention to bring the amendment to the floor as a separate, 
freestanding bill, but because there was not floor time available to do 
that, we have had to resort to the amendment process under this bill. I 
regret that we have to do that, but that is the only way we would get 
this important piece of legislation before the full Senate.
  Frankly, Mr. President, it has been good because, during the interim, 
we have been able to work with parties who had concerns about the bill, 
and I think, for the most part, we have worked the concerns out. I know 
that one matter remains to be dealt with later. But except for that, we 
have been able to improve on the bill since it passed out of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  As a result of that, I report to my colleagues that some of the 
groups and organizations that support this legislation--to give you an 
idea of the breadth of support we have, it came up because of the 
Attorneys General of the United States; all 50 attorneys general from 
our States approve of this and support this legislation and, frankly, 
they are the ones that asked the Judiciary Committee to move forward 
with the legislation.
  Jim Doyle, the Democrat attorney general from Wisconsin, testified 
two times before our committee strongly in support of this legislation. 
One of the things he said was--I will quote it; I will find the quote.
  But, in effect, what he said was ordinarily attorneys general don't 
come to the Federal Government and ask for statutes to be federalized; 
they like their own jurisdiction. But in this case they had to come 
before the Congress. The individual attorneys general simply cannot 
enforce their own State prohibitions. Why is that so? Because, if the 
State of South Carolina, for example, has made a public determination, 
as it has done, that this kind of gambling is illegal and ought to be 
illegal, and a neighboring State--let's say North Carolina--should 
allow people to broadcast into South Carolina these virtual casino 
games that people can now find on the Internet, or let's say that comes 
even from outside the country, which is where these actually emanate 
from for the most part, then the people of South Carolina cannot be 
protected even though their State policy is that their people not be 
subjected to this kind of gambling. That is why all 50 State attorneys 
general got together and came to us, and said, ``Would you please help 
us solve this problem?''
  We have to be able to have a Federal law that is enforceable through 
the Federal courts as well as the State courts to prohibit this kind of 
activity. That was why we introduced the legislation and moved forward 
with it. But what we soon found was that the support for the 
legislation was much broader than that. You might expect that Louis 
Freeh, Director of the FBI, has expressed strong support for it.
  But we have also had strong support coming from amateur and 
professional sports organizations. You can understand why, because the 
integrity of sports depends upon people knowing that the outcome of any 
sporting event is not determined by someone gaming the system.
  Unfortunately, we have seen these kinds of stories about point 
shaving and the like. I will give you an example from my own State of 
Arizona where a student got deeply into debt. He played basketball and 
ended up pleading guilty to shaving points and trying to throw games in 
order to pay off his gambling debt. Neither amateur nor professional 
athletics can stand that kind of attack on the integrity of sports, and 
as a result they came to us.
  We have strong support for this legislation from the NCAA, the 
Amateur Athletic Association, from the National Football League, the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League, 
the National Basketball Association, major league baseball, and a lot 
of different organizations that understand how insidious gambling can 
be when it is conducted in a medium such as the Internet, and as a 
result they strongly support this legislation.
  We also like to say until he moved on that, this legislation is 
supported all the way from Ralph Reed to Ralph Nader. Ralph Reed has 
moved on, but the Christian Coalition still supports the legislation; 
as does Ralph Nader, the Public Citizen organization which he 
represents, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the 
National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Focus on the Family, 
Family Research Council, and many other organizations.
  The reason I wanted to mention this at the very outset is simply to 
illustrate the fact that this legislation has broad, widespread support 
from a variety of organizations and interests around the country.
  In the meantime, from the time it passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee, we have been able to work with the so-called horse industry 
and the pari-mutuel betting to assuage concerns that they had 
originally expressed.
  We have also worked with the Internet providers who will be an 
integral part of the enforcement of this legislation. We have a letter 
from the main Internet providers indicating that they have no objection 
to this legislation passing in the form that it has passed.
  Mr. President, I have kind of given you an idea of the kind of 
support that we have for it.
  It is opposed, frankly, by two groups. One you will hear from--at 
least one Indian tribe. And perhaps some other Indians would like to 
have a carve-out; they would like to be excepted from this. Second, 
naturally the gambling interests offshore who stand to make billions of 
dollars from this illegal activity do not like it. So that is who is 
against it.
  Mr. President, I said this ``illegal activity,'' and I did that with 
a reason. The activity that we are largely prohibiting tonight is 
already illegal. The Wire Act, so-called, Telephone and Wire Act of 
1961, makes it illegal to conduct sports gambling over the telephone, 
or a wire. So much of what is being prohibited in this legislation is 
already illegal.
  For those people who say, ``Well, we would like to be able to conduct 
this activity,'' their beef is not with our bill. Their beef is with 
existing law. One of these days wires are not going to be the means of 
electronic transmission. It is going to be fiber-optic cable or 
microwave transmission through satellites. We are not at all sure that 
when that happens that the Telephone and Wire Act will be able to be 
used by prosecutors in their prosecutions.

  Just a couple of months ago, the district attorney for the district 
of New York indicted 14 people for conducting this kind of illegal 
activity under the Telephone and Wire Act. But, Mr. President, that 
might not be possible in the future. That is why we want to update the 
Telephone and Wire Act.
  In addition to that, the second thing that this bill does is to 
ensure that, whether it is sports betting or not, the activity is 
illegal on the Internet because what has cropped up in recent months is 
something called the ``virtual casino.'' It looks a lot like a casino 
that you would go to that is perfectly legitimate such as Las Vegas or 
Atlantic City. It is on the Internet, and it comes outside of the 
country, because, of course, it is not illegal outside the United 
States--at least in some countries. But that is being, in effect, sent 
to American citizens in our country.
  The attorneys general of Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, and other 
States have no way to stop it under existing law. Our bill ensures that 
kind of ``virtual casino'' over the Internet is illegal, and that it is 
enforced through not only the usual means of enforcement but also with 
the ability of the prosecutors to go to the court and after a finding 
that this activity is being conducted over the Internet, to enjoin its 
further conduct by bringing in the Internet service provider, in most 
cases, and asking the Internet service provider to cut off the service, 
to pull the plug on the service from that particular web site. In some 
cases it will be very easy to do. In other cases, it is more 
complicated. We provided for that in the legislation.
  As I said, the Internet service providers--at least some of the 
largest groups, and I can provide the names if anyone is interested--
are satisfied that the language that we have worked out in the bill for 
this purpose is at least not objectionable to them.

[[Page S8760]]

  Let me indicate that this is a relatively new phenomenon, but it is 
pretty clear that we need to stop it now because it is quickly 
becoming, or will become, a multibillion-dollar activity.
  A recent ``Nightline'' piece, which was devoted to Internet gambling, 
reported that there are now an estimated 140 gambling sites online. Two 
years ago, Internet gambling was a $60 million business. Last year it 
grew to $700 million, and some believe that by the year 2000 the figure 
will be $10 billion.
  Mr. President, if we don't stop this activity now, the money that is 
generated by this kind of illegal activity is going to, I am afraid, 
become so influential in our political process that we will never get 
it stopped. That is why we have to act this year.
  I might add, Mr. President--and I am so delighted to have the 
expertise and the support of the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan--
that one of the reasons why the legitimate gaming organizations and 
activities in our country are also in support of this legislation is 
because they understand. They don't want gambling to get a bad name. A 
lot of money is made, and a lot of people are employed in the gaming 
industry in these States. They are highly regulated.
  When you go to a gaming activity in Las Vegas, you know that you are 
going to be treated fairly. If you win, you will get the money. You 
know exactly what the odds are. And there is a regulation commission 
that ensures that the rules are abided by. But that is not the case on 
the Internet.
  Here is the problem.
  Young children are getting really good at logging onto the Internet. 
They can log on in the morning. You have to put down a deposit of $100 
or $500--whatever it might be. You do that with a credit card, 
frequently. And this child, in the privacy of the home, without any 
supervision, can simply gamble away whatever fortune the family had 
tied up in that particular credit card with no supervision.
  The kind of gaming that we have legalized in this country is the kind 
of thing where you have to go to that site. You have to engage in the 
activity there. It is highly regulated.
  One of the reasons this kind of activity is so dangerous is because 
there is nobody there to check the activity. It occurs in the privacy 
of your own home with nobody there to say, ``Wait a minute. Haven't you 
done this long enough? Haven't you lost enough money?''
  Dr. Howard Schaeffer of the Harvard Center for Addictive Studies 
predicts that within 10 years youth gambling will be more a problem to 
society than drug use. And the youth of our society are the most at 
risk for conducting Internet gambling. First of all, they are the most 
adept at using the Internet. Secondly, they are in college and school, 
and this is where a lot of the computers are that our kids start on 
today. And on every major campus today there is organized gambling 
activity, according to law enforcement officials. Sports is the 
preferred subject of the gambling.

  So it doesn't take any imagination to appreciate that our Nation's 
children are at risk. And there is much more risk in this Internet 
gambling activity than in any of the other kinds of legalized gaming, 
highly regulated gaming, that is authorized in our country today.
  I won't go into all of the details about bankruptcies and suicide and 
that kind of thing except just to cite a couple of things here that 
ought to cause us pause. We know that about 5 percent of the people who 
gamble will become addicted. It is an addiction. Of those, about 80 
percent will contemplate suicide, and about 17 percent of those will 
commit suicide. Bankruptcies are huge and growing. As a matter of fact, 
Ted Koppel noted that in his ``Nightline'' program, that last year 
1,333,000 American consumers filed for bankruptcy, thereby eliminating 
about $40 billion in debt. And he talked about the percentage of that 
which is attributable to gambling, going into some of the statistics 
about a large percentage of that--in fact, something like 60 percent of 
people will get gambling debts that they can't pay.
  In fact, up to 90 percent of pathological gamblers commit crimes to 
pay off their wagering debts. That is the testimony before our 
committee. So suicides, bankruptcies, crimes committed to pay off 
debts, and the effect, of course, on the families.
  What does this have to do with our bill? This is the kind of activity 
that, by definition, is not regulated and is susceptible to addiction 
because there is nobody there. There is no inhibition in your own home; 
you just log on and you go do it. Of course, these virtual casinos are 
really good-looking things when you look at them on the screen. You can 
pull them up tonight, as a matter of fact.
  So, as I say, what we have done in the Judiciary Committee is to 
focus on this specific kind of activity as (A) needing to be updated 
because wire may no longer be the method of transmission of data and 
(B) because of these virtual casinos offshore.
  Let me describe a couple of the problems that we have dealt with in 
the legislation. One of the concerns was that the service providers 
would have difficulty in stopping the activity. Remember, what we have 
done here is to say that this activity is illegal, just like the Wire 
Act does. Theoretically, you could even prosecute the bettor, although 
that has never been done, and I don't anticipate it being done.
  What we are after here are the people running these gambling 
operations. The U.S. attorney in New York has indicted some people, 
some of whom were in the United States. So they have actually acquired 
personal jurisdiction over those people. They might be able to 
prosecute them, fine them, and send them to jail. But for the most 
part, these activities are going to be abroad, because the activity is 
illegal in all 50 States. As a result, you are not going to be able to 
get personal jurisdiction over the offender.
  How do we, therefore, stop the activity? That is where the service 
providers come in. And after, as I say, a finding of illegality has 
occurred, they will be brought in to appear before the court and be 
asked to pull the plug on a service that they are providing or, through 
them, is being provided to people on the net here in the United States.
  As I said, in the case of a direct provider, it is a little more 
technical than this but almost as easy as pulling the plug, because 
each of these sites has an identifier, an identifying number for 
billing purposes. Of course, you know that and you can simply cut off 
that particular service. In other cases, it will be more complicated 
than that.
  So what we have done is to provide a complex series of protections 
for the Internet provider to ensure, for example, that if they are 
asked to participate in this law enforcement activity, first of all, 
there won't be any injunction issue against them if it is not 
technically feasible; and, secondly, that they can demonstrate, if it 
is the case, it is not economically feasible for them. Then the 
injunction could not issue. This isn't a matter of what they are 
permitted to argue; these are actually conditions for the imposition of 
the injunction.
  I want to make it perfectly clear to my colleagues, up until a few 
days ago, you may have been contacted by various Internet providers, 
people like America Online, for example, or U.S. West. Their 
representatives, who are all over this town, may have told you that 
there were certain problems with this language. But they are among the 
organizations that have bought off on the language that I have 
painstakingly negotiated with them to ensure that, while they are 
helping law enforcement, we are not imposing an impossible burden on 
them. They are not going to have to do something that is not 
technically feasible, and they are not going to have to face 
unreasonable costs in complying with law enforcement.

  I know some people say they are part of the problem because they are 
actually transmitting this illegal information. But I don't think it is 
fair to ask them to monitor this activity or to stop it unless law 
enforcement deems it sufficiently serious to stop. And that is why we 
have only provided for them to be involved in this process in that 
eventuality. I think that is very, very fair.
  A second group that we have had discussions with is the virtual 
casino networks and operators. I know that Senator Bryan is going to 
talk to that because that is a part of his amendment. I must say that I 
totally support the amendment of Senator Bryan to add the protections 
in this legislation to

[[Page S8761]]

those who are providing the games involving, for example, baseball 
where you get together with other people and you create your own 
baseball team and you then are judged by how well those teams and 
players do in the future. Sometimes there are prizes awarded, and 
sometimes there are not. But in any case, you usually pay a fee to do 
that, and if you win, you can win the prize.
  Now, the people who operate these kinds of activities on the Internet 
have variously claimed that it is not gambling or that no prizes are 
awarded. And if that is the case, then they have nothing to worry about 
under this legislation because both of those are requirements for it to 
be considered gambling. We also make it clear, if they charge 
administrative fees rather than collecting money to pay off bets, they 
would be exempt.
  I indicated before that we had solved the problems of the horse-
racing industry. We essentially said with respect to that industry that 
this legislation does nothing to take away from any of the activity 
that they can do today, and, in fact, given the fact they are going to 
be using computers in their operation, and also in their advertising in 
the future, we make sure that activity is not prohibited. So, as I 
said, they are supportive of the legislation.
  I want to make it clear to anybody who has heard from anybody with 
respect to first amendment rights that the first amendment is totally 
protected here. All advertising is permitted. Any kind of advertising 
of legal activity is absolutely legal, and it would not even be 
constitutional for us to try to prohibit it. We have not done that.
  That leads me, Mr. President, to the last point which has to do with 
the treatment of the Native Americans. Now, under the IGRA, the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act, Native Americans are permitted to enter into 
compacts with States to conduct the same kind of gambling or gaming 
that is legal in those States. They can't do any more than what is 
legal in the States, but they can compact to do that which is legal. We 
have provided in this legislation an explicit recognition of the Indian 
tribes to conduct that kind of activity on their reservations. We have 
also made it clear that they can engage in the kind of pooling 
arrangements that many of them will engage in and that that would not 
be illegal.
  So everything that is done by every tribe except one, which may be 
violating the law today and that you will hear more about here--
everything that is currently being done and can be done legally is 
treated as legal in this legislation and would be permitted to 
continue.
  To the extent that the tribes were also concerned about enforcement 
by States attorneys general, we have made it clear that the States 
attorneys general are not to enforce this law against Indian tribes; 
that the only time a State attorney general could be involved is if the 
tribe itself compacted for that, so the tribe would have had to have 
agreed to it in the first instance.
  So we have satisfied all of the concerns of the tribes except one, 
and what you will hear is that they want to be able to do anything that 
is so-called legal or lawful under IGRA.
  But the problem with that is this. This legislation, just like the 
Wire Act that is still the law today, makes it illegal to conduct these 
kinds of activities. So since the Wire Act exists, a tribe could not 
conduct this activity claiming it to be legal under IGRA, because IGRA 
says you cannot do it if you do not have a compact, and you cannot have 
a compact unless it is legal.
  So, because this legislation and the Telephone and Wire Act both make 
it illegal to conduct this kind of activity, or continue to make it 
illegal, then, by definition, it would not be possible for a tribe to 
conduct this activity.
  What I am concerned about is that trying to add any other language 
that suggests that, if it is lawful under IGRA it would still be OK, 
would very much confuse and complicate the issue and raise a question 
about what the basic intent of this legislation is. And, at worst, it 
would actually permit the Native Americans or Indian tribes who wish to 
do so, to do something that nobody else in the country would be able to 
do, that would be illegal for every other American. What we have done 
is to treat the Native Americans fairly, to treat them like everybody 
else--no better, no worse. It would be, I think, a grave injustice to 
everyone else to allow a special exception for the Indians that nobody 
else in the country would have.
  Mr. President, I will have some more to say about a couple of the 
details of what we do, especially if there are questions, and also to 
further talk about the kind of testimony that was presented to the 
Judiciary Committee in support of this legislation. As you might 
imagine, there was a wide variety of testimony provided by law 
enforcement officials, people familiar with gaming and with addiction, 
people who understood the Internet and wanted to advise us about that. 
Frankly, we just had a lot of great testimony that supports this.
  I will just close with this one comment that I think helps to make 
the point. I mentioned the attorney general from Wisconsin--I was going 
to quote this before--James Doyle. He is the head of the Attorneys 
General Association. He said:

       Gambling on the Internet is a very dumb bet because it is 
     unregulated. Odds can be easily manipulated and there is no 
     guarantee that fair payouts will occur. Internet gambling 
     threatens to disrupt the system. It crosses State or national 
     borders with little or no regulatory control. Federal 
     authorities must take the lead in this area.

  I close where I began. For State attorneys general to urge the 
Federal Government to take Federal jurisdiction over something like 
this is almost unprecedented. They wouldn't do it if they didn't feel 
that the problem societally justified it and, from a law enforcement 
standpoint, that it was the only way to ensure that this illegal 
activity could not be continued.
  So, as a result of that, we have adopted this legislation out of the 
committee and brought it to the floor under this mechanism because, as 
I said, it is really the only way we could bring it to the floor. I 
urge my colleagues to support the legislation and to support the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to preface my comment, before 
I say anything specific about the legislation, commending the Senator 
from Arizona for his untiring and unflagging efforts, trying to perfect 
an amendment which I am pleased to cosponsor. The junior Senator from 
Arizona has spent the better part of this past year working with 
various groups, specifically the States' attorneys general who are the 
prime movers in this amendment. I believe the amendment which he has 
offered, and the underlying amendment which I have offered as a second-
degree amendment, accomplishes the purposes that we intend.
  This amendment is supported by a wide spectrum of interest. I am 
aware that within this Chamber there is a broad diversity of 
perspectives and viewpoints on gaming. Some States, such as my own, 
have adopted for decades open and regulated casino gaming. Other 
States, such as the States of Utah and Hawaii, by their public policy 
pronouncements through their legislative actions, permit no gaming at 
all. But I think it is indicative of the broad spectrum of support that 
this Internet gaming prohibition amendment enjoys, that from Ralph Reed 
to Ralph Nader, all of the groups that may represent the spectrum in 
between, have joined with Senator Kyl and me in supporting this 
amendment: The Christian Coalition, the National Association of 
Attorneys General, from public citizen to the National Football League, 
and other groups as well.
  Let me cite, if I may, a couple of reasons for that. The National 
Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the 
National Hockey League, Baseball, Office of the Commissioner, National 
Basketball Association, major league soccer, are in strong support of 
the Internet gaming prohibition amendment that we are debating this 
evening. In a letter received by my office on March 25:

       We are writing to urge you to support the passage of S. 
     474, [that is in effect the amendment that we have before us] 
     the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act of 1998. As amateur and 
     professional sports organizations, we believe that S. 474 
     would strengthen existing enforcement tools to combat a 
     growing national problem--illegal sports gambling conducted 
     over the Internet.


[[Page S8762]]


  I ask unanimous consent the letter I have identified be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Richard Bryan,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bryan: We are writing to urge you to support 
     the passage of S. 474, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act 
     of 1998. As amateur and professional sports organizations, we 
     believe S. 474 would strengthen existing enforcement tools to 
     combat a growing national problem--illegal sports gambling 
     conducted over the Internet.
       Sports gambling tarnishes the integrity of athletic 
     competition. It taints the way fans view sports contests. It 
     creates suspicion and cynicism about game and performance 
     outcomes and degrades players in the eyes of fans. The 
     amateur and professional sports organizations have long 
     understood this problem and have aggressively policed the 
     relationship between gambling and sports.
       Congress has also long recognized that gambling has no 
     place in amateur and professional sports. For example, under 
     the Interstate Wire Act of 1961 (18 U.S.C. 1084), it is a 
     federal crime to use wire communication facilities in 
     interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of sports 
     gambling. Faced with efforts to establish sports lotteries 
     and other forms of legalized sports betting in the late 
     1980s, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports 
     Protection Act (28 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) in 1992, prohibiting 
     any further legalization of sports betting by states or other 
     governmental entities.
       Despite existing federal and state laws prohibiting 
     gambling on professional and college sports, sports gambling 
     over the Internet has become a serious--and growing--national 
     problem. Many Internet gambling operations originate from 
     offshore locations outside the U.S. The number of offshore 
     Internet gambling websites has grown from two in 1996 to over 
     70 today. It is estimated that Internet sites will book over 
     $600 million in sports bets in 1998, up from $60 million just 
     two years ago. These websites not only permit offshore 
     gambling operations to solicit and take bets from the United 
     States in defiance of Federal and state law but also enable 
     gamblers and would-be gamblers in the U.S. to place illegal 
     sports wagers over the Internet from the privacy of their own 
     home or office.
       S. 474 would strengthen the tools currently available to 
     enforce existing federal and state laws prohibiting sports 
     gambling. If enacted, this legislation would make it more 
     difficult for Internet gambling operators as well as the 
     individuals who gamble to evade the law. S. 474 would extend 
     criminal penalties to include individuals who gamble on the 
     Internet, not just those who operate Internet gambling sites. 
     Most importantly, S. 474 would provide law enforcement 
     officials with an effective and much-needed civil enforcement 
     mechanism to keep the Internet or any other interactive 
     computer service from being used to place, receive or 
     otherwise make a sports bet or wager.
       S. 474 makes it clear that a new communications medium, the 
     Internet, cannot be used to circumvent existing federal and 
     state laws that prohibit sports gambling in this country. We 
     strongly urge you to vote in favor of S. 474 when it is 
     considered on the Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
     National Collegiate Athletic Association.
     National Football League.
     National Hockey League.
     Baseball, Office of the Commissioner.
     National Basketball Association.
     Major League Soccer.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, the National Association of 
Attorneys General have been the prime mover of this legislation. The 
distinguished occupant of the Chair has served as an attorney general 
from his State and, indeed, headed the National Association of 
Attorneys General. As the distinguished occupant of the Chair and 
others know, States' attorneys general do not frequently come to the 
Congress of the United States and ask for legislation unless they are 
of the opinion that State action is insufficient and incapable of 
addressing the problem. That is the view of the National Association of 
Attorneys General in urging Senator Kyl and me and others to move 
forward with the legislation that bears the S. 474 designation, and 
which, in essence, is the amendment we are debating on the floor this 
evening.
  The attorneys general make a very important point. They say, in part, 
in a letter which was sent to me on March 20 of this year, and signed 
by a number of States' attorneys general that:

       The potential problems cautioned by the availability of 
     games worldwide through the Internet are exacerbated because 
     of the current inability of Internet technology to address 
     many of the policy considerations that have caused states to 
     create such widely disparate legal and regulatory schemes.

  Then they go on to say in this letter:

       Additionally, there is currently no [I want to emphasize 
     ``no'' effective technological means to verify the physical 
     location of players and proprietors in order to ensure the 
     participants and businesses are operating under the laws of 
     the individual jurisdictions where they are physically 
     located.

  That is the view of the Nation's attorneys general as they have come 
to the Congress and asked us to support this legislation.
  Again, I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me dated March 
20, 1998, from the National Association of Attorneys General, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                            Attorneys General,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 1998.
     Hon. Richard H. Bryan,
     Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bryan:
       As the members of the Internet Working Group of the 
     National Association of Attorneys General, we write to 
     express our support for S. 474, the Internet Gambling 
     Prohibition Act. As introduced by Senator Kyl in March of 
     1997, the bill closely modeled the changes in federal law 
     suggested by a resolution adopted by the National Association 
     of Attorneys General in June, 1996. Although the bill has 
     undergone several substantive changes prior to reaching the 
     Senate floor, it continues to be the most appropriate measure 
     to address the growing problem of gambling via the Internet.
       Gambling laws and regulations have more state-to-state 
     variety than almost any other area of law. Each state's 
     gambling policy is carefully crafted to meet its own moral, 
     law enforcement, consumer protection and revenue concerns. 
     Most states believe they have crafted the perfect 
     combinations of law and policy to address their own 
     populations' needs. The Internet threatens to disrupt this. 
     As recently noted by the U.S. District Court for the Western 
     District of Wisconsin, ``[The State] has a powerful interest 
     in enforcing its anti-gambling laws which would be 
     substantially undermined if defendant could evade enforcement 
     through Internet gambling.''
       The threat of technology provides the only exception to the 
     preeminent role of the states to regulate gambling and 
     control gambling policy formulation. Today, the federal 
     government's only role in gambling policy formulation relates 
     to specific instances where technology threatens to disrupt 
     the individual states' carefully balanced policy choices in 
     this area. For example, the Interstate Horseracing Act, 15 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1301 et seq., addresses the use of wires and 
     satellites to facilitate the combination of parimutuel 
     wagering on horse races and prevent different pools from 
     endangering the integrity of the horse racing industry. The 
     Lottery Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1301 et seq., allows states to 
     limit import of out-of-state lottery tickets via mail and 
     other forms of transportation. The Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1171 et seq., places limits on the interstate 
     transportation of slot machines, using our national 
     transportation infrastructure, allowing states to make their 
     own determinations on whether they will allow those machines 
     in their states. Finally, the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1081 
     et seq., prohibits the use of the wires to transmit wagering 
     information.
       The proposed Internet Gambling Prohibition Act would 
     provide the same appropriate degree of federal involvement 
     for the Internet. The Internet represents the latest form of 
     technology that threatens to disrupt state policies: almost 
     anything that can be done on a computer, like gambling, can 
     be done via the Internet anyplace in the world where a 
     connection is available. A wide variety of card, dice and 
     other games of chance can be entertainingly simulated on a 
     computer screen via the Internet. In addition, traditional 
     forms of horse and race betting are well-suited to 
     computerized participation. All of these activities can be 
     conducted on a computer, and the Internet allows this conduct 
     to be made available worldwide and across state lines, 
     regardless of any state's carefully crafted and explicitly 
     stated gaming policy, laws and regulations.
       The potential problems caused by the availability of games 
     worldwide through the Internet are exacerbated because of the 
     current inability of Internet technology to address many of 
     the same policy considerations that have caused the states to 
     create such widely disparate legal and regulatory schemes. 
     These crucial policy concerns include general moral attitudes 
     towards gambling, basic issues of game integrity, effective 
     customer dispute resolution procedures, underage gambling, 
     cash controls to hinder money laundering and other criminal 
     activity, as well as efforts to recognize and treat problem 
     gamblers. Additionally, there is currently no effective 
     technological means to verify the physical location of 
     players and proprietors in order to ensure that participants 
     and businesses are operating under the laws of the individual 
     jurisdictions where they are physically located.
       The proposed Internet Gaming Prohibition Act, in its 
     current form, continues to address the important policy 
     concerns we first expressed in the summer of 1996. We urge 
     your

[[Page S8763]]

     continued efforts in making this bill the law of the land.
           Sincerely yours,
         James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Co-Chair, 
           NAAG Internet Working Group, Hubert H. Humphrey, III, 
           Attorney General of Minnesota, Co-Chair, NAAG Internet 
           Working Group, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of 
           California, Co-Chair, NAAG Internet Working Group, 
           Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, Dennis 
           C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York, Heidi Heitkamp, 
           Attorney General of North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery, 
           Attorney General of Ohio, Hardy Myers, Attorney General 
           of Oregon, Mike Fisher, Attorney General of 
           Pennsylvania, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of 
           Rhode Island, John Knox Walkup, Attorney General of 
           Tennessee, William Sorrell, Attorney General of 
           Vermont, William U. Hill, Attorney General of Wyoming, 
           Christine O. Gregoier, Attorney General of Washington,

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think my colleague has done an 
extraordinarily good job and given a very clear explanation of what we 
are seeking to create in this amendment. This simply represents an 
update to reflect the change of technology. Under current law, it is 
illegal to wager over mail and telephone communications. We simply 
intend, by this amendment, to bring current technology into compliance 
with the technology that was covered previously by this prohibition. 
Internet gambling is spreading exponentially. It approaches nearly $1 
billion of annual revenue; 140 web sites currently operate on the 
Internet. It will be, as my colleague from Arizona indicated in his 
comments, a multibillion-dollar industry by the turn of the century.
  Why have the States' attorneys general approached us and asked us to 
enact this legislation? What vice exists with respect to Internet 
gambling that does not exist with respect to regulated gaming in the 
various forms the States have chosen to adopt?
  First of all is access. Whether one favors gaming or one has a strong 
religious or moral view opposed to gaming, I believe that all would 
acknowledge that gaming ought to be an adult recreational activity--
underscoring the word ``adult.'' When one accesses the Internet and the 
various web sites that are currently on the Internet, there is no 
means--no means to enforce the age of that individual who is accessing 
the Internet. We all know from our children and grandchildren that 
today's youngsters enjoy a proficiency and sophistication, if you will, 
in terms of their ability to surf the net, to understand the world of 
computers. It is very easy--very easy for very young children to gain 
access to the Internet and thereby to participate in Internet gambling.
  I repeat, whether one supports the open casino style of gaming that 
Nevada has legalized for more than six decades, or takes the more 
restrictive view that the policymakers of the States of Hawaii and Utah 
have adopted, and that is to permit none, no one can justify access to 
a gaming experience to young children who may be 12, 13, or 14 years of 
age. And there is no way to enforce limited access to the Internet and 
to limit it to only those who are adults.
  Second, let me make the point that in those States that have chosen 
to adopt, and those tribes that have adopted forms of gaming pursuant 
to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, there is or ought to be mechanisms 
in place that make sure that the individuals who are licensed to 
operate those games have been carefully screened for both integrity, in 
terms of their records, and suitability. Nobody is permitted, in the 
State of Nevada, for example, to operate a gaming activity unless he or 
she, or its corporate officers, have been carefully screened by the 
State Gaming Control Board and ultimately approved by the State Gaming 
Commission.
  When you participate in a gaming experience in States that permit 
some form of gaming, it is regulated. You know the individual operators 
of the game. In the world of cyberspace, you know not with whom you are 
communicating. Nobody, Mr. President--I repeat, nobody--has screened 
those individuals in terms of background, who they are, in terms of 
their track record, their integrity or their suitability. You are, in 
effect, participating in a gaming experience in which you do not know 
who the people are who are running that particular web site.
  No. 3: the actual virtual gaming experience itself. Every gaming 
device that is made available in my own State for customers to 
participate in has been approved by the Nevada Gaming Control Board and 
the Gaming Commission to make sure that the device provides a 
reasonable and fair opportunity for the player to win, so that the game 
is not rigged, so that under no circumstances could the player win. 
None of us is naive enough not to recognize that the odds clearly favor 
the house. That is not my point. But the game of chance is an honest 
one. Participants, players, have an opportunity to win, and, indeed, 
many of them do.
  In the world of cyberspace, no one, but no one, has regulated that 
particular device that is being offered. There is no way for the player 
to know whether that virtual game is rigged in such a way that it is 
impossible for him or her to win under any circumstance.
  Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that one does participate 
and does win, how do you know whether anybody is going to be around 
when you come to collect the money?
  Mr. President, the Internet and the e-mail system is filled with 
dozens and dozens of people who have had experiences that highlight the 
point I am seeking to make this evening. I will not impose upon the 
patience of this Chamber to cite all of them, but a couple of them, I 
think, are illustrative and make the point.
  This is in a communication dated April 1 of this year by an 
individual who had participated in Internet gambling. I quote from his 
letter:

       I tried both of the above online casinos, and I'm beginning 
     to notice a strange trend. When I played the games offline 
     just for practice, the odds seemed to conform, but when I 
     played online for real money, the win-loss ratio seemed very 
     disproportionate compared to what they were when I was 
     playing offline. Of course, I may have been just very unlucky 
     playing online, but I'm strongly suspicious. I suspect that 
     the odds for real play and the practice are quite different. 
     I think these guys cheat somehow, and I've given up on them 
     and online gambling altogether. Of course, I can't prove that 
     they cheat. Who can?

  Mr. President, the point being, there is no regulator who, first of 
all, makes a determination as to who ought to have a web site for 
gaming activity, no regulator to determine whether or not the game of 
chance itself is a fair and honest one, and no regulator to make sure 
that, indeed, if the player prevails, he or she is able to collect.
  Let me cite one other which I think is illustrative, and this is a 
letter dated April 30 of this year. The writer goes on to observe:

       This is what you find at the bottom of the barrel--

  Referring to the individual letter writer's experience on the 
Internet with his or her gambling experience.

       Presumably from New Hampshire, these guys set up an online 
     bingo site that went belly up in a hurry. The most popular 
     theory is that they had fewer players than anticipated and 
     couldn't afford to pay off the winners, so they pulled off a 
     disappearing act that would turn David Copperfield green with 
     envy.

  That is the point that I am seeking to make.
  The point needs to be made that Internet gambling is a bad bet. It is 
an unregulated activity in which children have access to the gaming 
experience, and it is not an enterprise that is subject to regulation. 
That is why the States' attorneys general have asked us to impose this.
  Let me simply say that I believe that the prohibition needs to be 
across the board. My amendment makes one exception--and perhaps some of 
my colleagues have participated--and that is in the so-called fantasy 
sports leagues or educational games that operate over the Internet. 
Some have estimated that nearly 1 million Americans participate in 
fantasy or rotisserie sports teams on the Internet ranging from 
baseball to golf to auto racing.
  The second-degree amendment which I have offered to the first-degree 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona will simply indicate that that 
kind of activity which exists will not be prohibited under the 
provisions of this legislation.
  Finally, let me say that Internet gambling currently is in violation 
of the law. States' attorneys general and U.S. attorneys are trying to 
combat it, but, Mr. President, they need our help,

[[Page S8764]]

and the enforcement tool or mechanism that they need is in the 
legislation offered by the junior Senator from Arizona and the Senator 
from Nevada. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this, 
irrespective of their own personal views toward gaming itself.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-
degree amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3267) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                Amendment No. 3268 to Amendment No. 3266

     (Purpose: To clarify that Indian gaming is subject to Federal 
                             jurisdiction)

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr. Inouye 
     and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 3268 to 
     amendment No. 3266.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, I want to see what is in 
this amendment. Do you mind?
  Mr. CRAIG. Not at all. I am about ready to explain it, but you can 
have it read if you wish.
  Mr. FORD. I won't object, but I want to be sure about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3 of the amendment, strike lines 9 through 12 and 
     insert the following before line 13:
       ``(iii) a contract of indemnity or guarantee;
       ``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance;
       ``(v) lawful gaming conducted pursuant to the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.); or''.
       Beginning on page 13 of the amendment, strike line 4 and 
     all that follows through page 14, line 25, and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Proceedings.--
       (A) Institution by federal government.--
       (i) In general.--The United States may institute 
     proceedings under this paragraph. Upon application of the 
     United States, the district court may enter a temporary 
     restraining order or an injunction against any person to 
     prevent a violation of section 1085 of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by this section, if the court 
     determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, 
     that there is a substantial probability that such violation 
     has occurred or will occur.
       (ii) Indian lands.--With respect to a violation of section 
     1085 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this 
     section, that is alleged to have occurred, or may occur, in 
     whole or in part, on Indian lands (as defined in section 4 of 
     the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the 
     United States shall have the authority to enforce that 
     section.
       (B) Institution by state attorney general.--The attorney 
     general of a State (or other appropriate State official) in 
     which a violation of section 1085 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by this section, is alleged to have occurred, 
     or may occur, after providing written notice to the United 
     States, may institute proceedings under this paragraph. Upon 
     application of the attorney general (or other appropriate 
     State official) of the affected State, the district court may 
     enter a temporary restraining order or an injunction against 
     any person to prevent a violation of section 1085 of title 
     18, United States Code, as added by this section, if the 
     court determines, after notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing, that there is a substantial probability that such 
     violation has occurred or will occur.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand on the floor this evening in 
support of the concept of the Kyl bill, and I support the second-degree 
amendment that the Senator from Nevada has just successfully placed on 
it.
  I believe that unregulated Internet gaming is and can be dangerous. 
It must be monitored closely and restricted to adults.
  To date, the only form of gaming regulated at the Federal level is 
Indian gaming. I am not a big fan of most Indian gaming. We have 
struggled with it in my State for some time. However, through the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, known as IGRA, Congress established clear 
and precise laws governing all forms of Indian gaming.
  Authority to regulate Indian gaming was given by Congress to the 
National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. In addition, developments 
in Indian gaming are followed closely by the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs and its counterparts in the House. In fact, it is my 
understanding that the committee has held a series of hearings this 
year on examining the possible changes in IGRA.
  Mr. CRAIG. What I want to point out is that there is an established 
procedure in dealing with laws which impact Indian gaming.
  Mr. President, the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and changes IGRA 
without the input of the Indian Affairs Committee or the National 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. The Kyl bill does this in a number 
of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming 
operations, overrides and nullifies existing State tribunal pacts, 
makes illegal some forms of Indian gaming determined by the courts to 
be authorized under IGRA.
  Those who would support the bill claim that it does not impact IGRA. 
I cannot agree with that argument. If it, in fact, sought no change in 
IGRA, why do they then oppose the amendment that would guarantee no 
change? Because that is exactly what my amendment does. The truth of 
the matter is that the bill severely limits authority granted IGRA.
  The Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. Let me repeat: The 
Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. And that would be argued 
by the Federal courts. The amendment would only protect a gaming 
enterprise if it were already legal under IGRA. The amendment would 
only protect a gaming enterprise that was already sanctioned by a 
State-tribal compact, the very kind of thing that this Congress set up 
in the law that created IGRA.
  The amendment would not allow for any form of new Indian gaming. The 
reason these issues are important--and the Senator from Arizona was 
exactly right when he spoke in general terms about the possibilities of 
my amendment, speaking specifically to one Indian tribe. That Indian 
tribe happens to be in my State, and they have established what is 
known as the National Indian Lottery.
  They have withstood three separate Federal court tests and have 
argued that they are legal, and the courts have so ruled. Yet, the 
Internet Gaming Prohibition Act that Senator Kyl has just offered 
amends section 1084 of the so-called Federal Wire Act to include 
lotteries. Only by his act would they become illegal.
  By the current law, and by the current regulatory process, they are 
legal; and they have been found that. This tribe has been sued. They 
have taken their issue to court and have successfully won. Lotteries 
are defined as class III gaming and are governed by the terms of the 
tribal-State compacts, the rules and the regulations, the National 
Indian Gaming Commission. Idaho's case is no different. And that is 
certainly the case that I argue here tonight.
  In 1992, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe signed a compact with the State of 
Idaho which specifically provided for the conduct of these National 
Indian Lottery games. Article 621 of the compact authorizes the tribe 
to conduct lotteries, so-called State lotteries to the compact, defined 
in article 419, to include a variety of things.
  The compact was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in February 
1993, and, therefore, noticed in the Federal Registry. Since that time 
it has fallen under regulation. What the Senator from Arizona is doing 
tonight--and I agree with him--is making illegal that which is 
unregulated, and provides either an outright prohibition or establishes 
regulatory effort.
  Now, he has exempt a variety of things, exempt very powerful gaming 
organizations. So I do not think the Senator can argue tonight that 
there have not been some exemptions. He says he is after the offshore 
kind of Internet activity. I agree with him. The kind I am trying to 
protect is onshore, legal and regulated by IGRA and the National Indian 
Gaming Commission. I could not stand here tonight and argue for an 
unregulated activity. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to be 
honest. We expect them to be

[[Page S8765]]

controlled and only to be made available to adults. That is exactly 
what is happening here and why I argue it.
  All of the regulations that this Congress has put in place is adhered 
to by the National Indian Lottery. It is regulated, as I said, at the 
Federal level. It is regulated at the State level. It is regulated at 
the separate governmental or tribal level. And that is the way it 
should be. It is audited regularly by Arthur Andersen. It is protected 
so that only adults can participate in it. And that is constantly 
scanned.
  My amendment would simply say that these kinds of activities--legally 
sought--would be regulated under the current regulatory process, 
because it is Indian gaming; and we have established the IGRA and the 
National Indian Gaming Commission for that purpose. The amendment of 
the Senator from Arizona would deny that right and place, by its 
adoption, this as an illegal activity where the Federal courts have 
ruled that under current process it is legal.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to lend my support to the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, 
for several reasons.
  The Internet presents opportunities for education, business, and 
governance that were unthinkable until recently. Concepts such as 
``distance learning'', and ``e-commerce'' are tied to this new and 
little understood technology.
  As a Congress and as a nation, we must come to grips with this 
technology in a way that encourages development and at the same time 
provides protection from abuses for our most vulnerable citizens.
  So let me start out by saying that I have a healthy respect for the 
Internet and the possibilities it holds.
  Like Senator Kyl, however, I am troubled by unregulated gambling and 
other objectionable material or services being offered on the Internet, 
particularly when young children and other vulnerable people are 
involved.
  Nonetheless, as chairman of the committee on Indian affairs, I must 
point out that there are several objectionable provisions in the bill 
before us, not the least of which is that S. 474 amends the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act in significant ways, without the benefit of 
committee deliberations, or the input of the many affected tribes.
  I firmly believe that any legislation aimed at Internet gambling 
should be ``technology-neutral'' and not tied to or focused on a 
specific technology.
  Given the creativity and genius of computer and high-tech 
individuals, such as framework would quickly become obsolete--and 
require new legislation.
  For instance, there are 30 Indian tribes operating games like 
``Megabingo'' and ``satellite bingo''; dozens of tribes that operate 
parimutuel betting and other games that are authorized by and regulated 
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  The IGRA provides that bingo games that rely on or use electronic or 
technological aids, are legal and are explicitly permitted by the IGRA.
  In addition to the jurisdictional issues raised, S. 474 would 
criminalize certain games that are legally played as class II games 
under the IGRA.
  When the IGRA was enacted in 1988, the position of this Congress was 
to ``provide maximum flexibility'' to tribes in terms of technology or 
in terms of conducting multi-state operations through the use of such 
technology.
  The Congress' intent included the use of technological aids for bingo 
and similar games ``on or off of Indian lands.'' The bill before us 
should provide a categorical exception for these and similar games.
  The bill defines ``person'' as including ``other governments'' which 
may be construed to include tribal governments. Together with section 
4, which authorizes state attorneys general and other state officials 
to bring enforcement actions against Indian tribes for violations that 
occur on Indian lands, this provision will alter the law regarding 
jurisdiction in ways that I strongly oppose.
  This bill is a serious change in federal Indian law not seen since 
the enactment of ``P.L. 280'' in 1953, which conferred state 
jurisdiction over Indian lands without tribal consent.
  Section 4 is also in direct conflict with the IGRA, which provides 
the United States with enforcement authority over Indian gaming 
activities.
  The civil enforcement remedy granted to the states in S. 474 is 
unnecessary and unwarranted. Current law provides that class II gaming 
is regulated by the tribes and the federal government; and class III 
gaming is regulated pursuant to tribal-state compacts. Contrary to the 
assertions of many, the Indian gaming industry is subject to many 
layers of regulation.
  Federal law already establishes enforcement remedies under the IGRA. 
These very jurisdictional issues arose when Congress considered the 
IGRA.
  In 1987, the Supreme Court decided the Cabazon case which says that 
Indian tribes have the right to conduct gaming on Indian lands largely 
unhindered by state interference. With S. 474, we are re-opening an 
issue that has been settled for years.
  Tribes and states can and often do resolve these issues in 
negotiations. Tribal-State compacts, and P.L. 280, only allow state 
enforcement activities with the consent of the affected tribes.
  The IGRA established the mechanisms for tribes and states to 
negotiate and come to agreement on these matters and some tribes and 
states have freely entered negotiations to resolve these matters--in 
the form of state-tribal compacts.
  Third, this bill amends the IGRA by requiring that any persons who 
place or receive the wagers involved be ``physically located'' on 
Indian lands.
  As my friend from Idaho knows, there is ongoing litigation to 
determine the meaning of the term ``on Indian lands'' contained in the 
IGRA.
  One question that is inherent in this debate over S. 474 is 
determining where the ``transactions'' that will be prohibited will 
take place?
  Recognizing the complexities of Internet commerce and the tax issue, 
the nation's Governors recently agreed that an enlightened policy 
requires more information and deferred a decision regarding a 
``national Internet sales tax policy''.
  The notion that with this or any other bill, the United States can 
stop the flow of electronic gambling on American modems and computers 
is just not realistic.
  For instance, the Caribbean nations of Antigua and Barbados actively 
promote what they call their ``on-line casinos'' to players both on the 
islands and to anyone off the islands with a computer.
  So one consequence of this bill if enacted will be the elimination of 
American-based Internet gaming providers to the benefit of off-shore 
gaming operators like our friends in the Caribbean. Will this Congress 
ever stop pursuing policies that send American jobs overseas?
  Last, let me say a few things about the ``Craig amendment'' which I 
believe will eliminate the conflicts between S. 474 and the Indian 
gaming act and will appropriately provide that those games that are 
currently authorized and regulated under the IGRA would remain outside 
the purview of this legislation.
  I am in favor of tribes and others being treated similarly as far as 
Internet gaming goes, and feel very strongly that tribes should not be 
singled out either for special treatment or for special scrutiny as far 
as the Indian Gaming Regulatory act goes.
  As Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I know full well the 
controversy that surrounds gaming activities. I also know that the 
Indian gaming act represents a complex and delicate balance of 
competing interests--including state and tribal interests.
  The tribes are seeking nothing more than what is already sanctioned 
under federal law in the form of the IGRA. As is the case with the 
Coeur d'Alene tribe, there is now pending federal litigation that the 
Congress ought not upset in the form of this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Craig amendment to 
provide equity and fairness to this Internet gaming legislation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my colleague, 
Senator Kyl, addresses a serious problem in our society, and I support 
most of its provisions.
  I agree that we should protect children from having the opportunity 
to gamble on the Internet.
  I agree that we should regulate gambling in a responsible manner.

[[Page S8766]]

  I agree that we should take steps to protect the integrity of our 
amateur and professional sports.
  The amendment offered by Senator Kyl will address these problems, 
which have accompanied the rise of Internet gambling. The problem with 
the amendment is that it does not address these problems in a manner 
that treats Native Americans fairly.
  To address this situation, I am cosponsoring the amendment offered by 
Senator Craig. This measure will exempt from the Kyl amendment those 
Indian gaming activities regulated and sanctioned by the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, thereby retaining the current jurisdictional structure 
established under IGRA for Indian gaming, a structure that involves the 
federal courts and the National Indian Gaming Commission.
  Mr. President, it would not be fair to Indian tribes to enact the 
restrictions of the internet gambling prohibition amendment offered by 
Senator Kyl without retaining the regulatory structure of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act as Senator Craig suggests. If Congress wants to 
modify the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, it should do so only after 
serious review that includes the input of those parties affected 
directly by that change--in this case, the tribes and tribal gaming 
enterprises.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Craig amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kyl 
Amendment, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. I am an original 
cosponsor of S. 474, on which this amendment is based.
  This amendment takes important steps to address the dangerous, 
billion-dollar-a-year threat to our communities and our laws of 
Internet gambling.
  The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and 
Government Information, on which I serve as Ranking Member, held 
hearings on the subject of Internet gambling in March of last year. At 
that time, I joined Senator Kyl in introducing S. 474, on which this 
amendment is based. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by 
voice vote in October of last year.
  Since that time, this proposal has been carefully fine-tuned to 
address concerns raised by various groups.
  This proposal enjoys the support of a wide range of groups, including 
law enforcement, family and consumer advocates, and professional and 
amateur athletics.
  Most importantly, FBI Director Louis Freeh, at a Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing, when asked if the FBI supports the Internet Gambling 
Prohibition Act, Prohibition Act, replied, ``Yes, I think it's a very 
effective change. We certainly support it.''
  Similarly, the National Association of Attorneys General explained 
why such legislation is important in letters to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and to the full Senate. The State Attorneys General wrote:

       [M]ore than any other area of the law, gambling has 
     traditionally been regulated on a state-by-state basis, with 
     little uniformity and minimal federal oversight.
  The availability of gambling on the Internet, however, threatens to 
disrupt each state's careful balancing of its own public welfare and 
fiscal concerns, by making gambling available across state and national 
boundaries, with little or no regulatory control.

  This amendment brings our laws on gambling up to date with advances 
in technology. It ensures that the new medium of the Internet will not 
prove to be the latest frontier of illegal gambling.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Internet Gambling 
Prohibition Act, and I am proud to support this amendment, to provide 
law enforcement with the tools it needs to keep the Internet free of 
the scourge of illegal gambling.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arizona. And I want to, specifically, because it does address a 
serious growing problem of the utilization of the Internet to provide 
unregulated gaming activities, but also because there is a broader 
issue at stake here that I think we need to consider. We will not be 
voting on it this evening, but it is very much a part of this and it 
needs to be addressed.
  First of all, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona is a 
good one because we clearly are dealing here with a new dimension in 
gaming, a new means by which gaming is provided to millions of 
Americans that is not accessible in the same way as it was before.
  In 1961 Congress, wisely, I believe, passed the Wire Act. The Wire 
Act was designed to prohibit the utilization of telephone facilities to 
receive bets or send gambling information.
  I do not have the regulative history in front of me, but I am almost 
certain Congress did that because it did not want the invasive nature 
of telephone lines and telephone access, which run into virtually every 
house in America, to be a means by which Americans could utilize that 
form of communication to enter into gambling. It did so because I am 
sure, if you went back and read the record, it understood the social 
cost, the consequences of gaming, and it wanted gaming to be a 
restricted activity.
  Of course, the advent of the Internet as a communications medium was 
not anticipated by Congress or even envisioned by Congress at that 
time, so therefore this Wire Act does not cover that. The Senator's 
amendment extends pretty much the provisions of the Wire Act to the 
Internet. I think for that reason, it is legitimate in terms of 
updating it to comply the law to changes in technology.
  The fact that it is supported by the FBI, with strong testimony from 
the FBI Director, the National Association of Attorneys General--as I 
understand, all the attorneys general have supported this from each 
State. Professional, amateur sports groups, including the National 
Football League, the NCAA, the NHL, NBA, Major League Soccer, Major 
League Baseball, for obvious reasons, are strongly in endorsement of 
this.
  But then one of the most adverse collections of public interest 
groups and consumer advocates that have come together on an issue that 
I have seen for a long, long time--maybe ever--ranging from Ralph 
Nader's Public Citizen to the Christian Coalition, the National 
Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Focus on the Family, Family 
Research Council, have all endorsed the Kyl language which prohibits 
the Internet gambling. Now, they have not just specifically done so 
because it only addresses Internet gambling. They have done so because 
Internet gambling is simply a piece of a much larger program that is 
having, in my opinion, a dramatically adverse and negative effect on 
our culture. They see the Kyl amendment as one way of addressing a 
broader question.

  Ultimately, I think, we as Congress, we as representatives of the 
people, will have to come to grips as to what the impact of gambling is 
as it proliferates throughout our States and as access to gambling 
becomes more and more available to our citizens--and not just our adult 
citizens, but to our young people.
  There is a growing concern about pathological aspects of gambling. 
For decades, our Nation has studied and Congress has struggled with how 
we deal with drug and alcohol addictions, but the rapid expansion of 
gambling is injecting a new narcotic into our Nation's bloodstream. The 
problem of pathological gambling is on the rise. The National Council 
on Problem Gambling places the number of Americans with serious gaming 
problems at around 5 percent. Most studies confirm that estimate. 
However, as gambling becomes more pervasive and as gambling becomes 
more accessible, this number is increasing dramatically. Some say it 
has doubled; some say it might have tripled.
  As with other addictive behaviors, gambling not only affects the 
individual who does the gaming but it affects their families, it 
affects their careers, virtually every aspect of their lives. 
Separation, divorce, spousal and child abuse, neglect, substance abuse, 
and suicide have all been linked as side effects of problem gambling.
  Studies of high school students which have recently been undertaken 
have indicated that gambling is spreading into our high schools and 
spreading into minors' use in dramatic ways. Of course, nothing is more 
accessible to gaming than the Internet. If you want to bypass the 
normal restrictions and regulations that are placed on gaming--and 
those have been loosened dramatically--the quickest and easiest and

[[Page S8767]]

most effective way to do so is through the Internet.
  I think Senator Kyl's amendment is particularly relevant at this 
particular time to address a part of the gaming problem and the 
gambling problem that exists in America. It does so in a way that can 
be utilized to at least make it more difficult, significantly more 
difficult, for minors to utilize the Internet as a means of gaming. 
Knowing what the pathological results and the consequences are, as we 
see a proliferation of individuals entering into gambling, we know that 
the raw number of individuals who are affected by problem gaming is 
going to increase dramatically.
  I will just say one more word about the second-degree amendment 
before the Senate. I think the second-degree amendment creates a huge 
loophole. In a sense, it creates a monopoly. It creates a monopoly for 
one entity to use the Internet to provide gambling access and therefore 
totally undermines the intent of the Kyl amendment.
  I understand that there is a statute outlining procedures by which 
these decisions are made. Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona which addresses the broader 
issue. If we allow a significant exception for one entity, that one 
entity, obviously, will take advantage of that loophole and we will 
accomplish virtually nothing that the Senator is attempting to 
accomplish.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the second-degree amendment and 
support the underlying amendment by the Senator from Arizona which 
addresses, as I said, only a part, but a very significant part, of the 
problem, and particularly because it addresses the infusion and the 
explosion of gambling that is entering the lives of our children and is 
becoming accessible to them in ever easier ways, and particularly 
through the Internet.
  I urge my colleagues as we move toward a vote here to support the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Craig's 
second-degree amendment to the amendment proposed by Senator Kyl.
  Mr. President, I am privileged to represent the State of Hawaii 
together with Senator Akaka. The State of Hawaii is one of two States--
Utah being the other--where all forms of gaming, gambling, are 
prohibited. To play bingo in Hawaii would be a crime. I support 
Hawaii's position.
  There have been countless attempts made to introduce gaming into our 
islands, but in each case I am happy to report that the political 
leaders of Hawaii have opposed it and we have prevailed. So it may 
sound strange to some of my colleagues to see me standing here 
supporting the second-degree amendment of Senator Craig.
  Eleven years ago, there was a very important decision rendered by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, the so-called Cabazon case. The 
decision in the Cabazon case was a most important one, because it once 
again declared clearly that Indian nations were sovereign. Our 
Constitution declares that Indian nations are sovereign. The laws of 
our land and the laws that we have passed in this Chamber have 
consistently indicated that Indian country is sovereign, whether we 
like it or not.
  The Cabazon decision was a simple one. It said if a State does not 
prohibit gaming, then it cannot prohibit gaming in Indian reservations. 
California did not prohibit gaming. Therefore, the Cabazon Tribe had 
the authority to do that.
  Immediately, many of us in this Chamber saw the potential for utter 
chaos in the United States if all of the Indian reservations rose as 
one to claim their right under Cabazon to conduct gaming in the various 
States. There would be no regulation, no supervision. Therefore, we 
took it upon ourselves to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and we 
did so not by consultation but by advice and by the recommendation of 
how the law should read, from the States, the Governors, and the AGs of 
the States, who told us how they wanted this law to be passed.
  The law that is now regulating Indian gaming is the creature of the 
States. We took away a bit of Indian sovereignty to bring this about 
because, as we all know, the sovereignty of Indian country results in a 
trust relationship between our Government and an Indian government; it 
is not a relationship between Indian government and State government.
  This Kyl amendment has an ambiguity because, on one hand, it says the 
Feds will implement the law in Indian country, but there is another 
provision that says the State government will enforce the provisions of 
this amendment in Indian country.
  What we have tried to do here is to simply carry out the intent of 
the amendment as set forth by Senator Kyl.
  I was very encouraged by the statement made in Senator Kyl's recent 
``Dear Colleague'' letter in which he stated his amendment ``will 
neither explicitly or implicitly amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act.''
  Mr. President, Senator Craig's amendment is a very simple one. It 
would simply accomplish what Senator Kyl has indicated as being his 
intention. The amendment will accomplish two objectives: First, make 
clear that gaming, which is lawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act, would not be rendered unlawful by the Kyl amendment. Secondly, the 
amendment would conform the enforcement of Federal laws on Indian lands 
to the Federal regulatory scheme that has been in place for over 100 
years; namely, that the United States is, and will continue to be, 
responsible for the enforcement of Federal criminal laws on Indian 
lands.
  The Craig amendment is necessary because the Kyl amendment will 
otherwise shift the responsibility for the enforcement of this new 
Federal criminal statute to the States. Mr. President, I don't think 
that was the intention on the part of Senator Kyl.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree 
amendment submitted by Senator Craig, because that will assure that 
there is no unintentional effect of our action on the provisions of the 
Kyl amendment on the lawful conduct of gaming on Indian lands.
  Mr. President, if I had my way, I would recommend that gaming be 
outlawed. With the Craig amendment, I will be supporting the Kyl 
amendment to make certain that Internet gaming is not made wild and 
widespread throughout this whole Nation and world. I urge my colleagues 
to look upon the Craig amendment with seriousness. We do believe in 
what our Constitution says and what the Supreme Court decision has so 
declared.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been informed that the second degree 
I sent to the desk needs a correction. I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 3268 be corrected as ordered in drafting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not object. I am a little bit concerned that the hour of 9:30 is 
approaching and we haven't had time to fully discuss the amendment the 
Senator from Idaho has offered, the second-degree amendment. This is a 
very significant amendment. If it passes, I will vote against the 
amendment Senator Kyl and I have cosponsored.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, I recognize there is a 
considerable need for more debate on this. I don't plan to vote on this 
issue at 9:30. After we finish the votes in order, we will come back to 
the Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig, and go forward from there.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think that would be all right.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could you 
have a unanimous consent that we return to this immediately after the 
vote on the last amendment? Would that be suitable?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that, upon completion of the 
final vote in the series of votes beginning at 9:30, we return to the 
Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to ask 
the Senator from Idaho a question. Is that a technical correction or a 
substantial change? In other words, we need to know what it is that we 
are talking about if the Senator has submitted a correction.

[[Page S8768]]

  Mr. CRAIG. It is a technical correction. The intent of the amendment 
is as originally presented to you.
  Mr. KYL. We need to have a copy of that, obviously. I will not 
object.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to provide that. I made the mistake of 
amending the Bryan amendment and, as a result, now I have amended your 
amendment, as amended. That is the appropriate way to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to associate 
myself, as we say, with the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii. I am 
probably only the second person who is going to rise today who opposes 
gambling. My State has decided to go that route. I have taken an 
unpopular position in my State. Fortunately, I am not Governor, I am a 
Senator, and everybody knows we don't pay attention to Senators back in 
the State--at least in my case.
  I do support the Craig amendment on the grounds stated by the Senator 
from Hawaii. It seems to me that what the Craig amendment does is 
exactly what the Senator from Hawaii has stated, which is that it makes 
it clear that the intention stated by my friend from Arizona is in fact 
met, that it does not in fact directly, or indirectly, by inference or 
otherwise, amend IGRA.

  It seems to me that, on a larger principle, we are always all too 
ready, in the 25 years I have been here, to say we believe in the 
sovereignty of the Indian nations. And we are very ready, whenever they 
do anything we don't like, to conclude that we in fact do not recognize 
and should not recognize their sovereignty. Further, we add insult to 
injury and the only time we treat them as sovereign nations is when we 
are handing out money, when we have programs. One of the exceptions in 
the crime bill is that Indian nations can apply for police officers 
directly, just like the State of Delaware, or the town of Wilmington, 
or the county of Columbus could do so.
  So I find it somewhat interesting when, in fact, we find it in our 
interest--meaning we are not going to spend money--to recognize the 
sovereignty of Indian nations--we are ready to do that. But when Indian 
nations want to do something that somehow is viewed as impinging upon 
another interest in a State in which the Indian nation happens to be 
located, we are all ready to say, no, no, no, let's hold up.
  I will not take any more time, in light of the hour. We are about to 
vote. I agree fully with the Senator from Hawaii. I share his view 
about gambling generally, and I share his view about the Craig 
amendment specifically.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to make something very clear since the 
Senator from Delaware is still on the floor.
  The Senator from Idaho has proposed an amendment that is a poison 
pill. I want to make it very clear that if by some chance it should 
pass, I will urge all of my colleagues to vote against my bill, because 
what it will do is create a monopoly. Indian tribes will be the only 
people in the country that will be permitted to engage in Internet 
gambling. Offshore casinos, virtual casinos, and Indian tribes would be 
able to do it; no other citizen would be allowed to do it. This is not 
a violation of IGRA. We do not provide for State enforcement unless an 
Indian tribe has already agreed by compact to do that.
  So I want to make it clear. I will read to you two sentences from a 
letter from the National Association of Attorneys General. I want the 
Senator from Delaware to listen to these words and to appreciate that 
this activity is illegal; it will be illegal for all Americans, and I 
think the last thing we want to do is create a situation in which one 
group of Americans can do this and nobody else can. This is a letter to 
Acting Chairman Deer and Commissioners Foley and Hogen of the National 
Indian Gaming Commission with respect to this issue:

       We are writing to you to express our strong opposition to 
     and legal analysis regarding the use of the Internet for the 
     purpose of engaging in gaming activity allegedly under the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). The undersigned 
     have concluded that such gaming is not authorized by IGRA.

  That is signed by all of the attorneys general, including the 
attorneys general of Hawaii and Idaho and, as I said, all of the other 
attorneys general.
  I have practiced law for 20 years. I am very familiar with the law in 
this area. I am not misreading the law. With all due respect to our 
colleagues from Idaho and Hawaii--and I love them both, and they are 
great and fine Senators--on this matter, in my opinion, they are simply 
not correct. The effect of their amendment is so bad, as I said, it is 
a poison pill. It is so bad that I would have to urge all of my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment that Senator Bryan and I have 
proposed.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?


                           Amendment No. 3257

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is that the hour of 9:30 
having arrived, under the previous order the pending question is the 
amendment numbered 3257 offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
completion of the McCain amendment that votes on further amendments 
that are in this stacked group be limited to 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, I don't intend to object. I 
ask the manager of the bill if he could give us some indication of what 
his intention is this evening relative to the schedule. How many votes 
will we have? After this series of votes, it is my understanding that 
we are going to return to the Kyl amendment for further debate. Does 
that mean further votes this evening?
  Mr. GREGG. It is my expectation that what will occur is we will have 
maybe a minimum of five votes during this sequence, and potentially 
six. At the completion of that, we will go back to the Kyl amendment, 
as amended, by Craig. We will debate that until it is in a position to 
be voted on. Then we will vote on it. Then we will go on to the next 
amendment on this bill, and we will vote on that.
  Mr. COATS. Is it the Senator's intention that we will stay on this 
bill this evening until this bill is completed?
  Mr. GREGG. It is my hope--I know it is the hope of the ranking 
member--that we can work out a unanimous consent to be more 
accommodating to our colleagues. But that unanimous consent has not 
been agreed to. Our hope would be to get a unanimous consent where all 
the pending amendments to the bill, of which we have agreements on the 
list, to be debated tonight and then voted tomorrow. However, as of now 
there are objections to that unanimous consent. As long as there are 
objections, it is my intention to proceed on with votes.
  Mr. COATS. So we will be here until at least 11 p.m. voting, and 
maybe not even be voting yet on the Kyl-Craig amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. My expectation is that we will be voting until 11 p.m. on 
this sequence, and further debate on Kyl-Craig, which I presume will 
take another hour, and we will be voting on that, unless we can get 
agreement on unanimous consent requests, which the Senator from South 
Carolina and I have asked both our colleagues to support us on, which 
would be to allow debate on all pending amendments, of which we have a 
list, tonight with votes to occur stacked tomorrow morning.
  Mr. COATS. Absent that, my last point, as a consequence we will 
continue this evening?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct. That is my intention.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I withdraw any objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has all time been yielded?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded on the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Arizona. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[[Page S8769]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3257) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now on amendment No. 
3261, offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 3256

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the Thompson amendment, No. 3256, 
be agreed to.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3256) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the Senators are trying to get some 
idea of how this will go from here on. I have been working with Senator 
Daschle.
  Mr. President, we have four more votes in this stacked sequence, 
which will take us a good portion of the next hour. We are trying to 
work an agreement whereby we would then, at the conclusion of this 
series of votes, go back to the Kyl amendment and have the debate on 
that concluded tonight, with a vote occurring at 9 in the morning. Then 
we would get an agreement that all other amendments and final passage 
occur by noon tomorrow.
  I think that is reasonable. Senator Daschle is working with me to see 
if we can get everybody to agree to that. We are trying to find a way 
to give you some reasonable night tonight and get this to a conclusion. 
I do not want to prejudge amendments that are being offered, but I 
really think we have reached a point where we need to get a conclusion. 
If we do not put an end to it, it will go on and on and on, on this 
bill. The alternative is to go back to Kyl and vote on that and to have 
other votes. I still have the luxury of going to the Executive 
Calendar, if all else fails, and have some votes on that.
  We need cooperation so Senators can make progress so the rest of us 
can get a decent night's sleep and so we can complete this bill 
tomorrow. I am not going to ask that right now, to give both of us time 
to work with those who have amendments, but I think that is a very 
reasonable arrangement, so I hope all of our colleagues will help us by 
talking to other colleagues who might have amendments, and I hope we 
can get this worked out by the next vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                    Amendment No. 3261, as Modified

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, they are being 
asked to vote in just a couple of minutes on what I think is an 
extremely important amendment. We move the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 
Initiative, that is now a demonstration project in Philadelphia, 
nationwide over a period of 5 years. With the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, working with counties, States and local law 
enforcement agencies, to provide information on the illegal activity of 
firearms in communities, to create adult, juvenile and youth illegal 
firearm activities, identify them and control them, to make firearm 
violations Federal violations prosecutable and move it in that 
direction.

  Mr. President, if this Senate wants to move against youth violence 
with the misuse of firearms, this is a major initiative and a major 
step in that direction. I hope my colleagues will work with us as we 
expand this from 17 demonstration projects to 50 to 75 to 150 across 
the Nation in high-crime areas going directly at juveniles and the 
misuse of firearms and prosecuting felons who use firearms in the 
commission of a crime, which is already a Federal violation of law, but 
now goes unprosecuted.
  I hope my colleagues can join with me in supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I started in opposition to this amendment, 
but I now rise in support of this amendment. I think the Senator from 
Idaho is right. I think we should adopt this amendment with an 
overwhelming margin, and I believe he was right yesterday during the 
course of the debate when he said:

       A general firearm safety rule that must be applied to all 
     conditions is that a firearm should be stored so that it is 
     not accessible to untrained and unauthorized people.

  The Senator went on to say:

       Proper storage of firearms is the responsibility of every 
     gun owner.

  The next amendment after we adopt the Craig amendment will give us a 
chance to adopt a children's access prevention law which says to every 
gun owner in America, you have the right to bear arms; you have the 
responsibility to store them safely. I urge all my colleagues to vote 
with Senator Craig and then support the Durbin-Chafee amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in light of the Senator's statement, I ask 
unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on this amendment be vitiated 
and that the amendment be agreed to my unanimous consent.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Craig 
amendment No. 3261, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3261), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3260

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the amendment by 
the Senator from Illinois No. 3260. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield a minute to my 
colleague and cosponsor, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. I urge my 
colleagues to understand that 15 States have enacted these laws to 
protect children. We all read about these horrible situations in 
Jonesboro, in Springfield, in Pearl, MS. Let us not just lament this 
situation, let us do something about it.
  Gun owners understand their responsibility. That is why the NRA 
supported this law in its enactment in five different States. We can do 
this tonight to save children's lives.
  I yield my remaining time to my colleague from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate. Senators will take their 
conversations off the floor of the Senate.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is clearly recognized that if you own a 
pit bull and it is recognized as dangerous, you better control that pit 
bull. And if that pit bull slips away and injures, severely mauls a 
child, you are liable. So it is with guns. If you leave a gun lying

[[Page S8770]]

around that a juvenile gets to and that juvenile causes severe damage 
with that gun either to himself or to another individual, then you are 
to be liable, likewise.
  If you are liable for a pit bull, you certainly ought to be liable 
for a dangerous weapon like a rifle or a handgun that is left lying 
around. If you keep it under lock and key, that is a different matter, 
you are not liable. I urge everyone to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators, don't be fooled 
by this amendment. For the first time, we take the victim, the person 
who has had his or her firearm stolen, and we make them the criminal. 
For the first time, we say you can become a Federal criminal without 
ever being involved in the crime. That is what this amendment does.
  Don't fall for the analogy of the pit bull. If the pit bull is 
chained in the backyard, and there is a fence around the yard, and the 
yard is locked and somebody gets in that yard and inside the circle of 
the pit bull and is injured, it is not the owner's fault. That is the 
law.
  I hope you can join with me in opposing this. Don't make the victim 
the criminal. Don't say that the person should become a Federal 
criminal who is not even associated with the crime.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 3260, offered by the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin. The yeas and nays have been ordered on this 
question. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3260) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay the amendment on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3263

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the Bumpers 
amendment numbered 3263, with 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if you vote no on this amendment, you 
should be prepared to go home and say to your constituents that you 
really don't believe in privacy. When we have a law in this country 
that allows people to tape-record a conversation with you and only they 
know it is being taped and you don't and that is quite legal, we no 
longer have any privacy in this country. How do you explain that to 
your constituents?
  This bill would make it a criminal offense, as Janet Reno said she 
favored in Florida, as 15 States have already adopted. We 
overwhelmingly passed a law to make it a criminal offense to intercept 
a cellular phone call. What I am trying to do is to extend that to the 
old archaic rule--think of this, think of this. You can be talking to a 
person who is your best friend; he or she can be tape-recording that 
conversation and publish it on the front page of the New York Times or 
the Washington Post, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
  I have exempted law enforcement; I have exempted intelligence 
agencies; I have exempted everybody who has to make telephone calls in 
their business; I have exempted people who are threatened or stalked.
  Please, let's correct this once and for all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, usually I have some empathy for what my 
colleague is saying, but this amendment requires both parties to 
consent before phone calls are being taped. This hasn't been debated 
before the Judiciary Committee and involves all kinds of ramifications.
  It is setting a Federal standard where one is not needed, because 
many States now allow taping by one party. It is brought up only after 
the Linda Tripp situation.
  I frankly think it is the wrong thing to do. We are willing to look 
at this, but we are willing to look into this on the Judiciary 
Committee, and we certainly will do it. But I think it is the wrong 
thing to do right now. I don't believe we should federalize this at 
this point.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I offered this amendment in 1984 when 
Charles Wick, head of the United States Information Agency, said that 
he had taped 84 phone calls, including Reagan, Cabinet Members, 
President Carter. I offered it then, and I got 41 votes. I offered it 
again in 1993. Linda Tripp has nothing to do with this.
  This is plain decency. It is constitutional. It is an invasion of 
your privacy for somebody to record a conversation of you and you not 
know it.
  It is offensive in the extreme.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.
  The way to do this is not to federalize it. Let's at least not impose 
something on the States without full committee hearings before the 
Judiciary Committee and find out what should be done.
  I am not necessarily saying I am rejecting what the Senator said, but 
I have to reject it under these circumstances. I hope we will reject 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I remind the Members, this is a 10-minute 
vote, and the faster we can get it done, the faster we can get out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as 
follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb

[[Page S8771]]


     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3263) was rejected.


                  Motion to Table Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the motion to reconsider debatable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is not debatable.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Has a motion to table been made, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the motion to reconsider.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent 
request now. If we can get this worked out, then we will have one 
remaining vote tonight.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. LOTT. If we can get this unanimous consent agreement worked out, 
then there will be one remaining vote tonight and then the first 
recorded vote will be about 9:20, I believe, in the morning. Then we 
will go on to other issues with time limits, and we will probably have 
another series of stacked votes on over in the morning after 
consultation with the managers, if that would be all right.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the next vote, the Senate 
resume the pending Craig amendment to the Kyl amendment and a vote 
occur on or in relation to the Craig amendment at 9:15 on Thursday, 
with 10 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to the vote.
  I further ask that following the vote in relation to the Craig 
amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Kyl amendment, 
as amended. I further ask, following the Kyl amendment, the following 
amendments be the only amendments to be offered to the pending 
legislation other than the managers' amendment, with no second-degree 
amendments in order, and limited to the times, where specified, all to 
be equally divided.
  The list is as follows: A Nickles amendment regarding defense 
attorneys, 10 minutes; a Bingaman amendment regarding trademark and 
Indian tribes, 20 minutes; a Bumpers amendment regarding immigrant 
investor program, 20 minutes; a Kerrey of Nebraska amendment regarding 
copper, 40 minutes; a Kerry of Massachusetts amendment regarding 
Vietnam, 20 minutes; a Wellstone amendment regarding abuse of immigrant 
spouses, 30 minutes; a Hatch amendment regarding gun prosecutions, 20 
minutes; a Grams amendment regarding criminal court, 10 minutes; a 
Grams amendment regarding U.S. nationals, 10 minutes; a Grams amendment 
regarding budget certification, U.N., 10 minutes; a Smith of Oregon 
amendment regarding guest workers, 10 minutes.
  I further ask that following the debate on the above-listed 
amendments, the Senate proceed to vote in a stacked sequence, with 2 
minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to each vote, and 
following those stacked votes, Senator Gregg be recognized to offer the 
managers' amendment, and following its disposition, all other 
provisions of the previous consent agreement with respect to the 
passage vote then occur.
  Before the Chair puts this to a question, I thank Senator Daschle for 
his cooperation in getting reasonable time agreements here. I think 
maybe some of these amendments would actually require less time than 
has been identified. But we are trying to make sure that all Senators 
have the time that they need.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from California had made a 
request that she be on that list, as had the Senator from New Jersey. 
The Senator from California had asked for a half-hour on her amendment. 
She is continuing to negotiate with the managers. The Senator from New 
Jersey had asked for an amendment, 10 minutes as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, if we could get 20 
minutes on the guest worker, with the possibility of a second-degree 
amendment and 30 minutes evenly divided on the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I hear additional amendments which 
would require second-degree amendments beginning to evolve here. The 
alternative is, we go ahead and keep voting tonight. We have had plenty 
of debate here. I would like to find a way that we can get this 
completed at a reasonable hour tomorrow.
  Does the Senator from California have something worked out that I 
could include in this request?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. If I could have a half-hour.
  Mr. LOTT. The problem with all of these is that if we have them 
offered, then second degrees would be requested by others. So if we 
can't get this agreed to, then I think we will just have to go on with 
this vote and keep going tonight.
  Now, we can work during this vote and see if we can work it out. But 
it is 30 minutes for first degree, 30 minutes for a second degree, and 
there is no end to it. We have tried to work up a reasonable agreement 
here.
  I would like for Senators to work during this vote. We cannot tell 
you this is the last vote now. So you are not going to be able to vote 
and leave unless we can get something worked out very quickly.
  Any other reservations we need to be made aware of here?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as they say, reserving the right to object, 
I don't think there is a problem; we may be able to work it out. But 
you mentioned two amendments Senator Grams of Minnesota has regarding 
the United Nations. If we can't work out the second one relating to 
U.N. arms, I would want a second-degree amendment, or else I would 
object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let's proceed to vote.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request has been withdrawn.

[[Page S8772]]

                           Amendment No. 3264

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Wisconsin. There is 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment simply states what we all 
know to be true, and that is that cable rates across the country have 
risen steadily since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And there is 
virtually no competition in the industry. The amendment instructs the 
FCC to report to us whether this situation is consistent with the FCC's 
responsibilities, which it still has until March of 1999, to make sure 
that cable TV rates are reasonable. If not, the amendment asks the FCC 
to give us an action plan; in other words, what is it going to do to 
carry out its duties?
  This is an amendment designed to hold the FCC accountable. We gave it 
a mission to promote competition and ensure that the rates are 
reasonable. The American people deserve to know why the agency has not 
succeeded. The amendment is supported by the Consumers Union and will 
be a signal whether this body is content to see cable rates rise as 
high as three to four times the rate of inflation, as has happened 
during the past year.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this simple amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The time of the Senator has 
expired. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds and give the other 
30 seconds to the Senator from Montana.
  This is not the time or place to take such action which would 
represent the beginning of cable reregulation. Mr. President, I hope my 
good friend from Wisconsin will withdraw the amendment and testify 
before the Commerce Committee next Tuesday, where we are examining the 
issue of cable rates. This is not the place to have this kind of 
amendment, which has such profound effects. It requires separate 
legislation. I understand his problem, but this is not the solution.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the Feingold amendment 
is an inappropriate attempt to continue excessive government regulation 
of the cable industry. I believe that additional reports on the 
industry by the Federal Communications Commission would be an 
unnecessary waster of taxpayer money. Furthermore, any efforts to deal 
with cable rates should be dealt with in the upcoming hearing we have 
scheduled before the Commerce Committee this Tuesday.
  The Cable Bureau is largely a product of the 1992 Cable Act. I 
opposed that Act because I believed it was overly regulatory and heavy 
handed. I believe that my concerns were proven to be correct. However, 
in 1996, Congress responded to some of the excesses of the 1992 Act and 
to the growing competitiveness of the marketplace by adopting several 
Cable Act reform provisions as part of the Telecommunications Act.
  The aim of the Telecommunications Act as it related to cable services 
was to provide increased choices at lower cost by opening up 
historically monopolistic, regulated markets to new entrants. In 
return, cable operators would be allowed to enter new communications 
markets such as telephone and information services. As we move beyond 
traditional models of monopolies and excessive regulation to a climate 
of open competition, exciting new educational and commercial 
opportunities are beginning to appear.
  I am also very concerned about the recent spate of increases in cable 
rates. However, the answer to increasing rates is not found in ever-
increasing government regulation but in providing for increased 
consumer choice. Rather than engaging in micromanaging the rate-
structure of the cable systems, government should create a level 
playing field where new entrants can compete effectively with incumbent 
providers.
  It was for this reason that I must oppose further misguided efforts 
to engage the government in regulating cable rates.
  Mr. President, this issue has been studied to death. When this 
Congress decided to deregulate the cable industry, it was to expand 
services and enhance services of the cable industry. That has happened. 
If you look at the services and the expanded television coverage that 
we have now on cable as compared to as near as 5 years ago, you would 
see a big difference in the services that you receive today.
  There is a hearing on next Tuesday. We invite the Senator from 
Wisconsin to testify. This is no place to deal with this situation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the 
motion to table. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  The result was announced, yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       


               boys and girls club capital flagship club

  Mr. HATCH. I would like to engage the distinguished manager of the 
bill, Senator Gregg, in a colloquy.
  Mr. GREGG. I would be pleased to respond to the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee on a matter that I know is of great importance to 
him.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the floor manager and subcommittee chairman.
  I was pleased that the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary 
appropriations bill as reported to the Senate included an increase of 
$20,000,000 over current levels for the Boys and Girls Clubs, bringing 
total funding for this outstanding organization to $40,000,000 in 
fiscal year 1999.
  As the chairman knows, I support additional funding in his bill to 
allow the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Washington and the national 
organization to establish a state-of-the-art national capital flagship 
Boys and Girls Club facility in Washington, DC, near the Capitol.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the Senator's deep interest in this 
meritorious project and for his longstanding support of the Boys and 
Girls Clubs.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
  Although there is no clarifying language contained in the Senate 
committee report regarding how the additional $20,000,000 over last 
year's level would be utilized by the Boys and Girls Clubs, I would 
hope that the committee's intent was that a significant portion of 
those additional Boys and Girls Clubs appropriations would be used to 
cover the cost of establishing the national capital flagship club 
facility in the Nation's Capital at a site to be selected by the Boys 
and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington in consultation with the national 
organization.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator and chairman of the Judiciary Committee is 
absolutely correct. The additional

[[Page S8773]]

$20,000,000 provided in our bill for the Boys and Girls Clubs was in 
part to cover the cost of the proposed national capital flagship club 
facility in Washington and for other purposes. It is my understanding 
that at least $6,000,000 will be require for the site, design and 
construction of the proposed flagship facility and that amount would be 
covered by these additional funds.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for 
that clarification and I deeply appreciate his strong support for the 
national capital flagship club facility in Washington. The flagship 
club will be run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington in 
concert with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and will provide a 
prototype, technology-based club facility to help troubled youth both 
here and around the nation.
  Mr. GREGG. I look forward to working with the Senator to make sure 
that this flagship project is fully funded and that the Office of 
Justice programs carries out this project effectively, beginning in 
fiscal year 1999.


                  FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE 2000 CENSUS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the bi-
partisan leaders of the appropriations subcommittee, Chairman Gregg and 
Senator Hollings, for providing adequate funding to allow the Census 
Bureau's census 2000 plan to proceed. The funding will permit the 
census professionals to continue their plan to guarantee that everyone 
in every city and rural area will be counted.
  I ask that when this Appropriations bill goes to conference with the 
House that the Senate conferees stand united against any effort to 
reduce the decennial census funding level or micro-manage the 
professional census gathering process.
  I am very concerned about the critical 2000 census, because I believe 
Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings will face a difficult conference 
with the House. Contrary to the Senate plan, the House funds the Census 
Bureau for only six months, crippling the bureau and denying the census 
professionals the tools they believe will help them conduct the most 
accurate 2000 census possible.
  The House leadership has also challenged the Census Bureau sampling 
plan in federal court, asserting it violates the United States 
Constitution. The federal court should proceed with their review, but 
the Census Bureau professionals need to proceed with their plan, which 
represents the best efforts of census professionals and academics to 
measure the population.
  Before we look forward to conference, I would like to briefly look 
back and put the current sampling dispute in its historical context. 
Regrettably, the public debate over the 2000 census has been dominated 
by the use of sampling, a simple, statistical method proposed by the 
Census Bureau to count the historically ``difficult to count'' 
populations of the nation's urban and rural poor. The Bureau's sampling 
plan was developed in direct response to the unprecedented census error 
rates in 1990, the first census in US history to be both more costly 
and less accurate than the census that preceded it.
  Why is an accurate census important for the nation? The decennial 
census is the basis for distributing funds throughout the country for 
more than one hundred federal programs.

       Is the local police force eligible for federal grants for 
     cops on the beat or drug education programs? Check the 
     census, which sets eligibility for Byrne grants, DARE funds 
     or community policing grants.
       How about education funds for schools? The census 
     determines title one or title two education grants.
       How about funds for homelessness, mass transit or other 
     transportation funds? Again, the census determines state and 
     local government eligibility for Social Services block grant 
     money, highway and mass transit grants.
       What about health care for low-income families? Again, the 
     census helps set state Medicaid reimbursement levels.

  The census is instrumental for the effective administration of 
government at all levels, providing the basis for distributing billions 
of dollars throughout the country through hundreds of programs. The 
nation cannot afford the error rates and inaccuracy experienced in the 
1990 census.
  The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
concluded the 1990 census failed to count about 15 million Americans, 
while an additional 11 million Americans were double-counted. The 
California population was undercounted by more than 2.7%, representing 
20% of the nation's net undercount.
  If we squander this opportunity for reform and the 2000 census proves 
to be equally inaccurate as its 1990 predecessor, between 5 and 6 
million individuals, would be ``missed.'' If we do not reform our 
census plan, 1 to 1.2 million Californians, 3% of the state's 
population, will fail to be counted. If the census misses 1 million 
people in California, about 300,000 children will not be counted, 
depressing state education funding and seriously compromising education 
in the state.
  Mr. President, concerns for undercounting the United States 
population are as old as the nation itself. Thomas Jefferson, 
transmitting the first census to President Washington, commented, ``we 
know in fact that the omissions have been very great.'' However, the 
Census Bureau sampling plan, which enjoys the support of the National 
Academy of Sciences, academics and census professionals, is a reasoned 
response to the unprecedented error rates of the 1990 census. Congress 
cannot make the same mistake again.
  The Census Bureau plan needs to go forward. It's time to allow the 
census professionals to implement their best plan to improve on the 
1990 undercount and deliver the most accurate 2000 census possible.
  I thank the chairman, Senator Gregg, and ranking Democrat, Senator 
Hollings, for their efforts and extend my continuing support.


                        iraq war crimes tribunal

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues, Chairman 
Gregg and Senator Hollings, for including in this legislation $5 
million to cover initial costs of establishing a War Crimes Tribunal 
for prosecution of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi government officials 
for crimes committed during the Gulf War and afterward.
  I sought these funds in a letter to Chairman Gregg dated April 24, 
1998, because I believe it is critical that we have the prosecutorial 
infrastructure in place to deal with Iraqi war crimes. I also noted in 
my letter that every effort must be made to obtain contributions from 
our allies and other U.N. member countries for this vital effort.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues as this bill moves 
forward to ensure that these funds are retained in Conference.


                                  OECD

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues 
attention to the excellent work being done by an important 
international organization--the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD). Since 1961, when it was founded, the OECD has 
worked to open up and help develop the world economy, not only for its 
member states but also for those nations outside the OECD area.
  We live in an era when the term global economy is redundant. There is 
one economy, and it is global. And one of the things we need as a 
nation to keep us competitive is accurate, up-to-date information. We 
also need a forum in which to work with other nations equally committed 
to economic openness to achieve the highest sustainable growth and 
standard of living. That is what the OECD is all about: helping its 
member nations achieve a better standard of living and higher 
sustainable growth rate by providing a forum for the exchange of 
information and policy prescriptions.
  While the OECD has 29 member nations, its reach is global. For 
example, for a number of years, the OECD had in place the Center for 
Cooperation with the Economies in Transition (CCET). The CCET was 
initiated by the U.S. as a result of an amendment I introduced to the 
SEED Act. My colleagues will recall the SEED Act was designed to help 
the economies of Central and Eastern Europe build market economies. 
Well the work of the CCET was so successful, that three nations from 
that region--Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic--have become 
members of the OECD.
  Now, the OECD has revised its approach to helping non-member nations 
to reach beyond the CEE nations. For example, the OECD does a lot work 
with Russia. It is also closely following the Chinese economy. It has 
been part

[[Page S8774]]

of the team of international organizations and governments who have 
been working on what to do about the economic crisis in Asia.
  The OECD's work is not limited to handling macroeconomic issues. It 
works on a number of other key economic areas. The Convention to combat 
Bribery and Corruption is an example of an important OECD initiative. 
It is also taking the lead on helping governments can best respond to 
the rapidly changing world of electronic commerce. It is involved with 
issues relating to regulatory reform, corporate governance, and 
sustainable development to name a few.
  But perhaps what really distinguishes the OECD from other 
international organizations is its internal reform efforts. The OECD 
has undertaken on its own, a significant reform effort. Specifically, 
it has pledged to cut its overall spending by 10% during the three year 
period beginning in 1996. It is well on its way toward reaching this. 
So far that has meant a loss of 180 staff, more than 10% of its total.
  It is my understanding that the subcommittee has decided to use a 
formula to cut the budgets of international organizations that have 
administrative costs above 15%. But the data it is using is based on a 
1997 State Department study that only goes up to 1995. The OECD has 
told me that it has brought down administrative costs to about 12.4% of 
its budget.
  I agree with the committee's goal of trying to get international 
organizations to make necessary reforms and reductions. The era of big 
government ought to be over not only at home but with international 
organizations as well. The OECD is a good story. It has reformed on its 
own. My fear is that if despite all its efforts to enact cuts, the 
Congress calls for further arbitrary cuts of the OECD based on data 
that is not up-to-date, then it will undermine the reformers in the 
organization who share our goal of getting international organizations 
to be ``leaner and meaner.''
  I, therefore, urge the committee and the Administration to fully fund 
the OECD at the request level made by the Administration. Let's show 
that we are willing to reward and encourage organizations like the OECD 
that make real reforms.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                      unanimous consent agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Again, Mr. President, I thank Members for the cooperation 
we have been receiving. We have worked out time agreements on which I 
believe we can get a unanimous consent agreement. Let me read the whole 
thing once again. We have made changes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the pending Craig 
amendment to the Kyl amendment and that a vote occur on, or in relation 
to, the Craig amendment at 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, with 10 minutes for 
closing remarks, to be equally divided. I further ask unanimous consent 
that following the vote in relation to the Craig amendment, the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment, as amended, with 2 
minutes equally divided prior to the vote.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the Kyl amendment, the 
following amendments be the only remaining amendments to be offered to 
the pending legislation, other than the managers' amendments, with no 
second-degree amendments in order, unless specified, and limited to the 
times where specified, all to be equally divided.
  The list is as follows: Senator Nickless amendment regarding defense 
attorneys, 10 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 20 minutes; Senator Bumpers, 
20 minutes; Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, 40 minutes; Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts, 20 minutes; Senator Wellstone amendment for 30 minutes; 
Senator Hatch amendment, 20 minutes; the first Grams amendment for 10 
minutes regarding criminal courts; a second Grams amendment regarding 
U.S. nationals for 10 minutes, with a possible second-degree amendment 
by Senator Biden with 10 minutes; a Senator Grams amendment regarding 
budget certification for 10 minutes; Senator Smith of Oregon amendment 
regarding guest workers with 20 minutes, with a second-degree amendment 
for 20 minutes by Senator Kennedy. We are still hoping they can work 
this out. If this matter is not resolved, we will have an amendment by 
Senator Daschle on this subject for 10 minutes, and an amendment by 
Senator Lott for 10 minutes. Also, a Torricelli amendment regarding 
nonpoint source, 20 minutes; a Lieberman amendment regarding Asian 
financial crisis, 20 minutes; and a Lautenberg amendment regarding 
police cars, 20 minutes.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the 
above-listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote in a stacked 
sequence, with 2 minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to each 
vote, and following those stacked votes Senator Gregg be recognized to 
offer the managers' amendment, and following its disposition, all other 
provisions of the previous consent agreement with respect to the 
passage vote then occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. In light of this agreement, then, thanks again for the 
cooperation of all Senators. There will be no further votes tonight. 
The next vote will occur at approximately 9:15 a.m. in the morning, 
perhaps slipping a minute or two to 9:20 on Thursday, and then a series 
of votes to be announced at a specified time later in the morning on 
Thursday.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 3268

  Mr. GREGG. As I understand it, under the previous order we are now to 
return to the Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig, for debate with the 
votes to occur tomorrow morning. I ask unanimous consent that the 
debate on this amendment, for this evening's purposes, be limited to 20 
minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. KYL. Ten minutes per side is fine for me. Five minutes per side 
is fine with me.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 minutes, 5 minutes 
on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think many of us have spoken tonight to 
the issue of Internet gaming and our opposition to it; most assuredly, 
our opposition to unregulated offshore Internet gaming. The Senator 
from Arizona has brought forth an amendment that controls that, in 
fact, prohibits that. But it also prohibits something else that we in 
the Congress and law, by agreements, treaties with American Indians, 
have said is separate, should be, and should be regulated. And we have 
said Indian gaming should be regulated. And it is. But the Senator from 
Arizona has made the exception as it relates to any Indian gaming on 
the Internet. I am saying, that is an intrusion that should not be 
allowed.
  Regulate? Absolutely. Control? Absolutely. Build and maintain a 
tribal-State compact? Absolutely. We have wrestled with this issue over 
the years. When I was in the House, I worked with a Congresswoman from 
Nevada. We were outruled by the courts. The Senator from Hawaii has 
clearly spoken to the issue of the courts.
  What I am saying is that I sense there is a clear and important 
division. Through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress 
established a clear and precise law governing all forms of Indian 
gaming. And I think it is important that I repeat that--all forms of 
Indian gaming. Authority to regulate Indian gaming was given by 
Congress to the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission.
  I believe the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and IGRA. I do not 
believe we can ignore that as a Congress. The Kyl bill does this in a 
number of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming 
operations, and overrides and nullifies existing State-tribal compacts.
  My amendment simply sets the issue of Indian gaming aside as it 
pertains to that. But it recognizes, as I think we all should, that 
Indian gaming via the Internet ought to be regulated and it ought to be 
controlled. And that is exactly what is happening today.
  So I hope that for any of my colleagues who might be listening this

[[Page S8775]]

late into the evening, that we could revisit this for a short time 
tomorrow, because the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act by Senator Kyl 
goes in and amends section 1084 of the Federal Wire Act to include 
lotteries. It is excluded there today. Decisions have been rendered on 
behalf of Indians as it relates to this in Federal courts. We think 
this is the appropriate decision, and it exempts them currently. And 
they are regulated now.
  This is not an unregulated activity that I advocate by this 
amendment. It is a fully regulated activity under Federal law, under 
the Indian gaming laws as controlled by the National Indian Gaming 
Commission. That is the appropriate intent of this amendment.
  I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield from the time 1 minute.
  I wish that I had 1 hour. This could be the most important thing we 
debate in this session of Congress. Yes, there is Indian gambling. Yes, 
there is some limited gambling on the Internet. The wording in this 
amendment can change the national flow. This can provide for a national 
lottery by an Internet monopoly--an Internet monopoly. This could 
eliminate the grocery store sales in each person's State that allows a 
lottery at the present time, because it would be much easier to pick it 
up on the Internet.
  There is a good reason why gambling is limited to on premises for the 
most part. That is so you can enforce the age requirements. That is so 
you can check on the different kinds of gaming that there are, so you 
can check on the dollar limits that there are, so you can audit the 
process. The Internet is not something you can audit. This will not be 
a protection for any of the States.
  Some of our States have had a referendum on whether we want any kind 
of local gambling, whether we want any kind of State gambling. And it 
has lost 2 to 1. We do not want gambling in Wyoming. But there is no 
protection against gambling in Wyoming. There is no protection on age 
in Wyoming. So kids can take parents' credit cards, get into this 
national lottery and violate State law.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to make very clear what is at issue 
here. If you oppose kids gambling on the Internet, then you are with 
Senator Kyl and the Senator from Nevada. We think that is a disastrous 
policy for American families. Your 10-year-old child can dial up a site 
on the web and gamble without you knowing it and without any ability to 
control it. So the Kyl-Bryan amendment opposes Internet gambling in 
America for everyone.
  Now, if that policy makes sense to you, and I think it makes sense 
for American families, then you have to oppose the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Idaho who says, in effect, Internet gambling should be 
prohibited for everyone except Indian tribes.
  Now, what logic is that that a child in Utah, which is prohibited 
from all forms of gaming, would be able to surf the web, access the 
Indian gaming site in Idaho, and be able to participate over the 
Internet. That makes no sense at all. I think most families, if they 
were tuned into the debate tonight, would say Kyl and Bryan are 
correct, we don't want our kids on the Internet, and we believe it 
ought to be prohibited.
  Senator Craig's amendment would emasculate that by saying the Indian 
tribes have an exception. No compact in America, none entered into by 
any Governor, any State or Indian tribe, authorizes Internet gambling. 
None. And no court in America, State or Federal, has ever held that 
Indian tribes are entitled to gamble on the Internet at such web sites.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a few moments ago you talked about this 
destroying lottery systems. The national Indian lottery is up and 
operating today, and State lotteries are not falling by the wayside. In 
fact, they are stronger than ever in their level of participation. They 
are as tightly regulated as is this national lottery. That is the 
reality with which we talk about this, tightly regulated control.
  Do I advocate 10-year-olds using this? I do not, and they cannot. 
There is a screening process. They would be in violation of it. They 
would have to go through all of the procedures of an adult. Yes, I 
guess if they stole their parent's credit card in the first instance it 
might work; in the second, it would not. Any winnings would be repealed 
and they might be in violation of the law.
  So you can talk about scare tactics, if you will. The reality is we 
have a national Indian lottery today that is deemed legal on the 
Internet. The amendment by Senator Kyl attempts to make it illegal. 
That is the reality with which we are dealing. I suggest that any 
effort to talk about great fears and scare tactics just doesn't fit 
because it is tightly, tightly controlled.
  What the Senator from Arizona talks about, about offshore, I agree 
with an unlimited approach in an unregulated way. That is what is 
important. That is what my amendment does. We should allow Indian 
gaming to be regulated under Federal law as it currently is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond, then, to my friend from 
Idaho. First, let me begin by saying that the Presiding Officer, when 
he spoke a few minutes ago, I think hit the nail right on the head. The 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wyoming, pointed out that it didn't 
really matter who conducts the activity on the Internet. Whether it is 
an Indian tribe or an offshore virtual casino, the result is the same 
for the people of the State which has established the public policy of 
protecting its people from such activity. You can't do it. You can't 
protect your citizens.
  The State of Wyoming has made that decision, and yet if the Indians 
were allowed an exemption under this bill, they would be permitted to 
run Internet gambling operations, they could reach every citizen in 
every State and every young person in every State, as the Presiding 
Officer pointed out.
  No one is allowed to do that today. No one would be allowed to do 
that under the legislation, but under the Craig amendment, a special 
exception would be made for the Indians. The Senator from Idaho argues 
that it is legal for the tribes to do that. In this he is simply wrong.
  Again, let me quote from a letter from all 50 attorneys general, 
including the attorney general of Idaho, on this exact point. They are 
writing to the National Indian Gaming Commission.

       We are writing to you to express our strong opposition to 
     and legal analysis regarding the use of the Internet for the 
     purpose of engaging in gaming activity allegedly under the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998. The undersigned have 
     concluded that such gaming is not authorized by IGRA. [One of 
     the reasons, I might say, contained in the next sentence] As 
     you know, under IGRA, gaming activity is allowed only on 
     Indian lands.

  This goes beyond that. It goes to any State, into any home, to be 
used by any child who might log on to the Internet. All the people I 
quoted before who testified before the Judiciary Committee said this is 
a pernicious activity for young people who get into the Internet and 
begin gambling. It could become the most addictive way for children 
and, later, adults to become addicted to gambling.
  As a result, it is an activity that needs to be stopped before it is 
allowed to spread. What we should not do is create an exception just 
for the Indian tribes, because, in effect, that is an exception that 
precludes us from protecting our children. I urge, tomorrow, that we 
defeat the Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

                          ____________________