[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17410-17423]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED 
              AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1296

              (Purpose: Relating to telephone area codes)

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Gregg, Hollings, Torricelli, 
Feingold, Smith of New Hampshire, and Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside, and the clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Gregg, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Smith 
     of New Hampshire, and Mr. Lieberman proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1296.

  Ms. COLLINS. 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 111, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 620 (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) When telephone area codes were first introduced in 
     1947, 86 area codes covered all of North America. There are 
     now more than 215 area codes, and an additional 70 area codes 
     may be required in the next 2 years.
       (2) The current system for allocating numbers to 
     telecommunications carriers is woefully inefficient, leading 
     to the exhaustion of a telephone area code long before all 
     the telephone numbers covered by the area code are actually 
     in use.
       (3) The proliferation of new telephone area codes causes 
     economic dislocation for businesses and unnecessary cost, 
     confusion, and inconvenience for households.
       (4) Principles and approaches exist that would increase the 
     efficiency with which telecommunications carriers use 
     telephone numbering resources.
       (5) The May 27, l999, rulemaking proceeding of the Federal 
     Communications Commission relating to numbering resource 
     optimization seeks to address the growing problem of the 
     exhaustion of telephone area codes.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Federal Communications Commission shall release its 
     report and order on numbering resource optimization not later 
     than December 31, 1999;
       (2) such report and order should minimize any disruptions 
     and costs to consumers and businesses associated with the 
     implementation of such report and order; and
       (3) such report and order should apply not only to large 
     metropolitan areas but to all areas of the United States that 
     are facing the problem of exhaustion of telephone numbers.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment to address a growing problem in this country, and that 
is the needless proliferation of area codes.
  As many of my colleagues have witnessed in their own States, new area 
codes are being imposed upon consumers and businesses at a dizzying 
pace. While the modern technology of faxes, cell phones, pagers, and 
computer modems has played a role in creating this problem, area code 
exhaustion stems largely from the woefully inefficient system for 
allocating numbers to local telephone companies. This leads to the 
exhaustion of an area code long before all of the telephone numbers 
covered by that code actually have been used.
  My own home State of Maine dramatically illustrates this problem. We 
have a population in Maine of approximately 1.2 million people. Within 
our ``207'' area code, there are roughly 8 million usable numbers and 
some 5.7 million of these numbers are still unused. Incredibly enough, 
however, Maine has been notified that it will be forced to add a new 
area code by the year 2001.
  This paradigm of inefficiency in the midst of America's 
telecommunications revolution might almost be amusing were it not for 
the fact that it causes real hardships for many small businesses, 
particularly small businesses in the tourism industry. Businesspeople 
throughout my State, particularly in the coastal communities, have 
contacted me to express their concern. I have heard from a gallery 
owner in Rockport, an innkeeper in Bar Harbor, and a schooner captain 
in Rockland, who have expressed to me their concern about the costs 
involved in updating brochures, business cards, and other promotional 
literature, all of which will be necessitated by the creation of a new 
area code--the needless creation of a new area code. As one innkeeper 
told me, it takes as long as 2 years to revise certain guidebooks, 
which are the principal means by which he communicates with potential 
customers.
  Changing the area code could lead to a significant loss in business 
for many small tourism businesses as well as unneeded expense for these 
small companies. Moreover, along with the economic costs, a new area 
code creates tremendous disruption and confusion for consumers.
  The Federal Communications Commission has initiated a rulemaking 
procedure to address this growing problem. But since time is of the 
essence in ensuring that Maine and many other States not be forced to 
add another unnecessary area code, my amendment requires that the FCC 
release its final report and order no later than March 31 of next year.
  It also specifies that the order shall minimize costs and disruptions 
to consumers and businesses located in all areas of the country, not 
just in major cities. The FCC right now appears to be focusing mainly 
on the larger markets and ignoring the implications for rural areas.
  It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee as well as the distinguished 
ranking minority member. I thank them very much for their cooperation 
and assistance in drafting this amendment, as well as for their 
cosponsorship of it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Maine. It is very important. We agree with it. We appreciate her 
leadership on this.
  Mr. GREGG. I also commend the Senator from Maine. This is a serious 
problem, not only in Maine but across the border in New Hampshire where 
we have the same concern about area codes. So I congratulate her on 
this sense-of-the-Senate amendment and strongly support it. I believe 
we can accept it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1296) was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank both Senators for their cooperation and 
assistance in this matter.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce an amendment regarding the issue 
of area code conservation. The rapid proliferation of area codes is a 
problem facing the citizens of New Jersey, as well as the rest of the 
nation.
  The extraordinary growth of the telecommunications industry in recent 
years has created a unique new problem. In just the last four years, 
the number of area codes in the United States has increased almost 60 
percent. Continued growth will require that even the newest area codes 
be split and replaced again in the near future.
  This problem has been particularly acute in New Jersey. Prior to 
1991, the

[[Page 17411]]

state went almost thirty years without a new area code. But in the last 
eight years, four new area codes have been added in the state and more 
are on the way.
  While this is not the most pressing problem this country faces; it is 
a serious one. The costs and inconvenience of introducing new area 
codes are real. Small businesses must pay to reprint stationery, 
advertising, and signs, and to inform customers of new numbers. 
Communities throughout New Jersey, such as Willingboro, Medford, and 
Monroe, have faced the possibility of being split between two area 
codes, requiring many residents to dial an area code just to call a 
neighbor across the street. These costs get even higher when new area 
codes are introduced repeatedly in the same area after only a few 
years, forcing residents and businesses to make the same adjustments 
all over again.
  Many people blame the demand for new phone numbers as the sole cause 
of so many new area codes. But there is another cause. Each area code 
has 7.9 million potential phone numbers. Today, less than half of the 
potential phone numbers in existing area codes are being used, leaving 
a total of 1.3 billion unused phone numbers in the United States. The 
real problem is that new area codes are being created before old ones 
are exhausted.
  The inefficient use of available phone numbers is a product of the 
outdated system by which numbers are distributed within each area code. 
Phone numbers are allotted to telecommunications companies in blocks of 
10,000, regardless of whether those companies have the capacity to use 
every number. Undoubtedly, this system made sense when there was only 
one telephone company because it would, eventually, use every number 
available.
  But, as we all know, the new era of telecommunications competition 
has introduced dozens of smaller companies. Today, there are over 100 
such companies in New Jersey alone. Under the current allocation 
system, these companies still receive phone numbers in blocks of 
10,000. Even if a company does not use its full allocation, unused 
numbers remain dormant while new area codes are being created.
  This unnecessary nuisance can be alleviated relatively easily. All it 
requires is a little planning and foresight. Given the enormous demand 
for new phone numbers and the growth of smaller phone companies, we 
should overhaul the system for allocating phone numbers. The Federal 
Communication Commission is currently reviewing ways to do just that. 
But, while their efforts are encouraging, the process may not work fast 
enough to prevent the next round of needless new area codes in New 
Jersey.
  The Amendment I have introduced with Senator Collins expresses the 
sense of the Senate that the Federal Communications Commission should 
complete its ongoing rulemaking regarding number resource optimization 
by March 31, 2000. This action will help ensure that the FCC rapidly 
implements practical number conservation measures.
  New area codes are inevitable as the population and electronic 
communications continue to grow. But there are reasonable, practical 
ways to soften the impact of these changes. Ensuring that new area 
codes are implemented only when current ones have been exhausted will 
save time, energy, and money for countless residents and businesses, in 
New Jersey and around the country.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment to offer two amendments that will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1297

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Kyl, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 1297.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 19, line 23, after the colon, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That any Border Patrol agent classified 
     in a GS-1896 position who completes a 1-year period of 
     service at a GS-9 grade and whose current rating of record is 
     fully successful or higher shall be classified at a GS-11 
     grade and receive pay at the minimum rate of basic pay for a 
     GS-11 position.''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would 
mandate to the Immigration and Naturalization Service that Border 
Patrol agents who are in the field, who have experience, not be capped 
at a GS-9 pay level, as they currently are but go to a GS-11 level 
after they pass the test that the INS, of course, would have in their 
rating system.
  I appreciate very much Senator Gregg's and Senator Hollings' support 
for the efforts to increase the number of Border Patrol agents. But the 
problem is that recruitment has not been successful. One of the reasons 
the recruitment has not been successful is that we have capped the pay 
of Border Patrol agents at a lower level than Customs agents who are 
working side by side with our Border Patrol agents on the border. So it 
is no wonder people are going to Customs and DEA and other very good 
Government agencies and not coming to the Border Patrol.
  This amendment will require that we go to the GS-11 level so that we 
can recruit and retain our best people for the Border Patrol and we can 
get on about the business of making sure the borders of our country are 
secure.
  So, Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be accepted. Both sides 
of the aisle have looked at it. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is acceptable on both sides, and we 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1297) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina. This will do more than anything we can 
possibly do to increase the retention and the recruitment of Border 
Patrol agents.


                           Amendment No. 1300

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Senator Kyl, Senator Abraham, Senator Hatch, and 
Senator Leahy and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Kyl, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1300.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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 19, line 23, after the colon, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That the Commissioner shall within 90 
     days develop a plan for coordinating and linking all relevant 
     Immigration and Naturalization on Service databases with 
     those of the Justice Department and other federal law 
     enforcement agencies, to determine criminal history, 
     fingerprint identification and record of prior deportation 
     and, upon the approval of the Committees on the Judiciary and 
     the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittees, 
     shall implement the plan within FY 2000:''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is meant to 
close a gaping loophole we found in INS's sharing of information that 
allowed the serial killer, Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, whose real name is 
Angel Maturino Resendiz, to get through our borders, even though he 
already had a criminal record, because there was not enough 
communication

[[Page 17412]]

in the identification system between the INS and the other Justice 
Department agencies. So we didn't catch this serial killer.
  This is an amendment I have worked on with Senators Kyl, Abraham, 
Hatch, and Leahy that would require the Commissioner of the INS, within 
90 days, to develop a plan for coordinating and linking all relevant 
INS databases with those of the Justice Department and other Federal 
law enforcement agencies to determine the criminal history and the 
record of prior deportation and, upon the approval of the Judiciary 
Committee and Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, 
will implement a plan by fiscal year 2000.
  I am counting on the committees to come through on this because if we 
can get the plan in 90 days, we need to implement a plan that will 
identify criminal aliens in our country so when they try to enter 
again, they will be stopped.
  I ask that the amendment be accepted and that we move forward to try 
to close this loophole that allowed this serial killer to fall through 
the cracks or slip through our fingers, however one wants to say it, 
and cause havoc in our country for about a month.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, was that a unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1300) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, if it is in order, I will speak on the bill.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Texas wouldn't mind suspending, I 
believe the majority leader has some points he wishes to raise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am sorry. It would be fine if the Senator 
from Texas wanted to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. If there comes a time when the 
Senator from New Hampshire needs to break in, I will be happy to yield.
  I rise in support of the bill that is before us. It has been a tough 
bill. It is more than $888 million less than the appropriations bill 
that we enacted in last year, but it does provide sufficient resources. 
I believe Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings and their staffs have 
worked very hard to make sure we address the priorities for the 
Commerce, State, and Justice Departments and the very important issues 
with which they are dealing.
  I have passed two amendments to the bill tonight. There will be 
another amendment that has already been accepted that will allow the 
INS Commissioner to provide a language proficiency bonus for people who 
are proficient in Spanish to be hired in the Border Patrol. Of course, 
if people are already proficient in Spanish, it will save the money it 
will take to train them in the second language. That amendment has been 
cleared on both sides. I appreciate it because I am looking for every 
way I can to increase the capability to recruit new Border Patrol 
agents who will be able to hit the ground running and help stop the 
influx of drugs and illegal immigration into our country.
  I cannot imagine that we have continued to tell the INS that we want 
these Border Patrol agents to come on board, and we have not had the 
cooperation of the administration in either recruitment or retention. 
Certainly, I hope with this bill, which is much more narrow in its 
requirements, the Border Patrol will do what the Congress has mandated 
they do, and that is recruit and retain more Border Patrol agents so we 
can stop the influx of drugs into this country. As a matter of fact, 
$10 billion in marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines crossed 
our border last year. How in the world can we say that we have a handle 
on the sovereignty of our borders when we have $10 billion of illegal 
drugs flowing in in 1 year?
  I am very pleased that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, went to the Arizona border with Mexico during the 
Memorial Day recess. He was stunned at what he saw. I hope more 
Senators will go to the border so they will see the problem we are 
facing.
  During the markup of the bill that is before us today, Senator 
Stevens said: God forbid that the day comes when we have to have fences 
and walls between the United States and Mexico.
  I share his view. Mexico is our neighbor. They are strong cultural 
and historic ties between our two nations. I seek a border that is as 
open as possible, allowing people, goods, and services to move across 
the 2,000-mile-shared border quickly and efficiently. I am committed to 
putting in place the infrastructure, the bridges, the facilities, and 
the inspection personnel necessary for this to happen. I wish the 
President and this administration would work with us.
  The realities are otherwise, however. In Texas and along the border, 
we are witnessing a lawlessness that we have never seen since the days 
of the frontier. It is important to put the drug threat in its proper 
context and to understand its full dimensions.
  On March 24, 1999, Administrator Thomas Constantine of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration testified before our subcommittee. He said:

       Most Americans are unaware of the vast damage that has been 
     caused to their communities by international drug trafficking 
     syndicates, most recently by organized crime groups 
     headquartered in Mexico. At the current time, these 
     traffickers pose the greatest threat to communities around 
     the United States. Their impact is no longer limited to 
     cities and towns on the border. Traffickers from Mexico are 
     now routinely operating in the Midwest, the Southeast, the 
     Northwest, and increasingly in the Northeastern portion of 
     the United States.

  Make no mistake: Drugs coming across the border are ending up on the 
streets of Manchester, NH; Columbia, SC; Baltimore, MD; and Denver, CO, 
and they are coming across in record numbers. In fiscal year 1998, 
there were 6,359 drug seizures along the Southwest border. The total 
value of these drug seizures was $1.28 billion, nearly $150 million 
more than last year. Nearly $1 billion of the drugs seized last year 
were on the Texas border, in the Border Patrol sectors there.
  Drug-related violence along the Texas border continues to increase. 
Ranchers in Maverick County, 150 miles southwest of San Antonio, 
reported that armed traffickers in black, wearing camouflage clothing, 
passed through their properties after walking across the Rio Grande 
River. The situation is no better on the immigration side. More than 
1.5 million illegal immigrants were apprehended along the Southwest 
border just last year.
  Conservative estimates suggest that only one in four illegal aliens 
is apprehended. But the numbers hide the dark, evil side of this issue 
of alien smuggling, violent assault against migrating women, and other 
suffering.
  I commend to my colleagues an article that appeared recently in the 
New York Times. Rick Lyman reported on a disturbing development where 
infants and young children, some possibly kidnapped and others who are 
rented, are used to trick border agents. INS has no facilities to house 
families, especially babies. So illegal aliens are simply released and 
asked to report for a later court date. The borrowed children are then 
shuffled back and forth across the border to be placed in the hands of 
others to make yet another treacherous, illegal crossing.
  These examples highlight conditions along the border. They underscore 
that we have a moral obligation to provide the necessary resources to 
secure our border. That is why I find it incomprehensible that this 
administration has requested no new Border Patrol agents, Drug 
Enforcement Administration agents, or Customs agents in its budget 
recommendation to Congress this year. The 8,000 men and women serving 
in our Border Patrol are our Nation's first line of defense in the war 
on drugs and illegal immigration. Understanding this, Congress 
required, under the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996, that the Attorney 
General in each of the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, 
shall increase the Border Patrol by not less than 1,000 full-time 
active duty

[[Page 17413]]

Border Patrol agents within the INS. Unfortunately, our Nation's top 
law enforcement officer, Janet Reno, and the President opted not to 
abide by the law and put these agents in their budget.
  This is not the first time the administration has not complied with 
this law. In 1997, the administration only requested 500 new agents 
instead of a thousand. Thank heavens, Senator Gregg and Senator 
Hollings have kept their commitment to secure our Nation's borders and 
provide $83 million in this year's budget to hire 1,000 agents.
  Mr. President, this is so very important to fund these agencies. 
Again, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings have gone a long way to 
pushing INS toward getting the 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. I have 
heard from every Border Patrol chief along the Southwest border, and 
all have told me that, yes, they can use better equipment. Better 
equipment helps them and it gives them a range much longer than one of 
them can cover. But what they need most, first and foremost, is 
manpower. They cannot operate the equipment, they cannot get to the 
places they need to be if they don't have enough Border Patrol agents, 
and they are woefully short.
  So after talking to our drug czar, General McCaffrey, it is clear 
that we need more Border Patrol agents. He has said we need 20,000 
Border Patrol agents in order to stop the flow of drugs across our 
Southwest border.
  A University of Texas study done last year indicates that 16,000 
agents are needed to do this job, and we only have 8,000.
  With only 200 to 400 likely to be hired this year, we are not even 
making progress in the right correction.
  I call on this administration to stop the excuses on why they can't 
recruit more Border Patrol agents, to stop refusing to even put them in 
their budget, and to come forward and say our border is a priority.
  That is what I am asking this administration to do--to say that our 
border has to stop letting in illegal drugs that are preying on our 
children in Seattle, WA, in Chicago, IL, and in Augusta, ME. We have to 
stop this. The only way we are going to do it is to make it a priority.
  I appreciate the leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings. 
They are making this a priority. The administration must come through 
and help us stop the sieve on our borders that is allowing drugs to 
come in.
  I want to say in closing that Senator Kyl has worked very closely 
with me on these issue. Senator Kyl and I cosponsored the bill that 
would raise the pay of the Border Patrol agents so we could be in the 
recruitment game. He cosponsored my amendment on the floor today that 
would make this happen. He has been an important voice for effective 
law enforcement along the Southwest Border.
  Mr. President, we cannot wait any longer. We must have action from 
this administration to beef up the Border Patrol, to beef up the 
Customs agents, to beef up the Drug Enforcement Agency, so that we can 
stop the influx of drugs into our country. We must get serious about 
it. That is what this bill does. But we must have the cooperation of 
this administration to do it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the pending 
appropriations bill, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments, and no motion to commit or recommit be in order. I submit 
the list of amendments to the desk. It includes the Democratic list of 
amendments and the Republican list of amendments as of 6:10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
majority leader has this been circulated in the last 10 minutes or so?
  Mr. LOTT. Over the past hour or so.
  Mr. REID. We just got six more is the reason.
  Mr. LOTT. Are they on the list?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Is there a copy we can look at?
  Mr. LOTT. I have the list here. I believe the Senator from Minnesota 
is on here for four amendments--not one, not two, not three but four. 
We have the list.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am an active legislator. I ask the majority leader 
or Senator Gregg, I assume these are in addition to the amendment that 
has been laid aside.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator's amendment is already in the queue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. If the majority leader would wait for just a brief minute, 
we are seeing what we can do here.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the managers of this legislation have been 
working diligently throughout the day and have made a lot of progress 
in dealing with a number of amendments, accommodating those amendments. 
Senator Daschle and I have been working with Senators to find ways for 
Senators to perhaps have their legislation considered on other bills. 
We are trying to get a list of amendments outstanding so they will know 
exactly what they are dealing with.
  Mr. REID. If the leader will yield, I have just spoken to the manager 
of the bill, Senator Hollings. I want to make sure the list that has 
been submitted includes Senator Torricelli's FTC on marketing scams; a 
relevant Feinstein; a relevant one for Bob Kerrey; a relevant by Bob 
Graham dealing with NOAA; an additional one for Senator Durbin, another 
relevant one; one for Senator Leahy on the Sentencing Commission; 
another for Senator Torricelli; Senator Landrieu has three relevants.
  Mr. LOTT. I repeat my unanimous consent request and ask that the 
amendments identified by Senator Reid be included on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of amendments is as follows:


                          democrat amendments

       Harkin: Burn grants.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Kerry (MA): Relevant.
       Kennedy/Wyden: Hate crimes.
       Dorgan: Relevant.
       Durbin: INS.
       Durbin: Elder abuse.
       Graham: Public aviation.
       Graham: Elderly crimes study.
       Graham: Relevant.
       Reed (RI): Relevant.
       Johnson: Bureau of Export Administration.
       Bryan: Travel and tourism.
       Bingaman: E-Commerce extension.
       Bingaman: Relevant.
       Murray: Tribal funding.
       Wellstone: Prison litigation.
       Wellstone: Sex trafficking.
       Wellstone: Judicial training.
       Wellstone: Relevant.
       Dodd: Relevant.
       Boxer: Tuna Commission.
       Boxer: No gun sales to intoxicated persons.
       Boxer: Criminal alien deportation.
       Lautenberg: Anti-youth drinking.
       Lautenberg: Women's health clinic protection.
       Durbin: Elder abuse.
       Durbin: INS.
       Daschle: Relevant.
       Hollings: Relevant.
       Kerrey (NE): Relevant.
       Schumer: State prison grants.
       Torricelli: FTC marketing scams.
       Torricelli: Trucks.
       Torricelli: Police.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Landrieu: War crimes tribunal funding.
       Landrieu: Abused women immigration status.
       Landrieu: Relevant.
       Landrieu: Relevant.
       Landrieu: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Leahy: Sentencing Commission.
       Sarbanes: Diplomatic and consular funds.
       Byrd: Consolidation of office in W.VA.
       Levin/DeWine: Great Lakes Y2K compliance.


                         Republican amendments

       Gorton: Salmon recovery.
       Ashcroft: 2nd degree (object to any limit on 2nd degrees).
       Nickles: Death penalty.
       Nickles: Travel.
       Nickles: Independent Counsel.
       Snowe: Fisheries.
       Snowe: Ground fish.
       McCain: Patent/trade mark.
       Brownback: FCC.
       Brownback: Police funding.

[[Page 17414]]

       Enzi: GAAT & FCC.
       Enzi: BXA initiative/Cox report.
       Warner: Relevant.
       Domenici: Albuquerque Federal Building.
       Coverdell: DEA.
       Coverdell: Drug-free workplace.
       Stevens: Pacific salmon treaty.
       Stevens: Maritime Adm./Amer. Fisheries Act.
       Lott: Funding for Advisory Commission.
       Gregg Hollings: Managers amendment.


                   POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS FOR THE FLOOR

       Abraham--$1 million for helicopter.
       Abraham--Drug dealers powdered cocaine.
       Abraham--Faith based drug treatment, Federal funding.
       Biden--Jerusalem (MP2).
       Bingaman--E-Commerce at NIST.
       Bingaman--Guadalupe-Hidalgo land grant.
       Boxer, Kennedy--Abortion clinic violence security, $4.5 
     million.
       Burns--Bull trout (MP2).
       Breaux--Lafayette Lab, authority to become a NOAA lab 
     (MP2).
       Brownback--Elimination of caps on spectrum.
       Boxer--INS.
       Boxer--NOAA.
       Chafee--Narragansett Bay (MP2).
       Cochran--Sense of the Senate.
       Cochran--$2 million for NIJ.
       Coverdell, John Kerry--Drug free workplace, $4 million.
       Daschle--911 system (MP2).
       Daschle--Change soft earmark for hard for Indian courts (no 
     construction) (MP2).
       DeWine--CITA name.
       Durbin/Fitzgerald--INS constituent services.
       Rod Grams--UN arrears $107 million, want legal authority to 
     waive debt (MP2).
       Graham--Report on abuse against the elderly.
       Graham--BIO medical earmark to NOAA for sea turtles.
       Gregg--Extension of internet moratorium.
       Gregg--UN taxing the internet.
       Gregg, Hollings--DOJ land border inspection fees.
       Gregg, Hollings--Supreme Court.
       Gregg, Hollings--SBA--Tech.
       Gregg, Hollings--SBA--Tech.
       Gregg, Hollings--SBA--Tech.
       Harkin--Increase Byrne grant.
       Hollings--State Department cannot sell property.
       Hollings--OJP $500 K.
       Hutchison--Border Patrol training.
       Hutchison--Border Patrol pay raise.
       Hutchison--Border Patrol serial killers identification.
       Inouye--Coral reefs.
       Kennedy--GTE waiver of Telecom Act.
       Kennedy--Hate crimes--S. 622.
       Kerrey--Teammates of Nebraska, $1 million via OJP.
       Kerrey--Lincoln.
       Kyl/Ashcroft--$100 million fenced for Jerusalem Embassy.
       Ashcroft--Sense of Senate on Iran.
       Lautenberg--Abortion clinics, law enforcement.
       Levin--$390,000 upgrade water gauge stations.
       Lott, Daschle, Conrad--J-1 visas for doctors.
       McCain--50 percent funding cut for PTO building.
       McCain--Internet filtering.
       Mikulski, Sarbanes--NOAA research vessel, $1.5 million.
       Hatch--Hate crimes.
       Sessions--Civil rights and cops.
       Murray--Salmon funding for tribes, $18 million for each 
     state, $6 million for tribes.
       Reed--Making Liberian language permanent.
       Schumer--SEC report.
       Schumer--State prison grant to go to local counties.
       Schumer, Kohl--Project exile.
       Sessions--Cops quota system.
       Smith--Add vessel to AFA.
       Snowe--Increase council membership.
       Snowe--SEC.
       Specter--Private right of action.
       Specter--Reauthorize drug court program.
       Stevens--Strike salmon authorization.
       Stevens--Continue no year funds.
       Thurmond, Thompson, Hatch--IG to use .02% of VCTF for 
     audits.
       Torricelli--Heavy trucks, cops technology $660,000.
       Torricelli--FTC, marketing scams.
       Coverdell--DEA.
       Sessions--Audit review.
       Lott--2M for Internet Commission.
       Torriccelli--$190K for block grant.
       Bryan--Sense of Senate.
       Hatch/Leahy--Holding court in New York, West Virginia and 
     Utah.
       Lautenberg--Alcohol add campaign.
       Leahy--Sentencing Commission.
       Wellstone--International trafficking.
       Wellstone--Prison litigation reform.
       Hatch/Leahy/Hollings--Court in New York.

  Mr. LOTT. With this agreement in place, it is my hope that the bill 
can be completed yet this evening. I believe we have amendments that 
are in order, and Senator Lautenberg has one he may be able to go 
forward with.
  Work is still being done on the rule XVI issue. Additional votes will 
occur during this evening's session of the Senate. We usually can 
expect to go late into the evenings on Thursday. It looks as if that 
will be the case.
  If we can work with the managers and get this work done, this would 
be a very important achievement. And that, coupled with the fact that 
we know there is a memorial service tomorrow, we would not have to be 
in session tomorrow.
  I urge the managers to keep working and my colleagues to please work 
with them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am going to propound two unanimous 
consent requests. One deals with Senator Lautenberg's amendment and one 
with Senator Enzi's amendment. The plan is as follows:
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Lautenberg to 
offer an amendment regarding alcohol and there be 30 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to the vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the previous consent relating to 
the pending Gregg amendment remain status quo to recur immediately 
following the Lautenberg vote.
  I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Enzi 
to offer an amendment regarding the FCC accounting principles and there 
be 30 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on or in 
relation to the amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order prior 
to the vote.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the previous consent relating to 
the pending Gregg amendment remain status quo to reoccur immediately 
following the vote on the Enzi amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Enzi amendment and the 
Lautenberg amendment be voted on en bloc at the end of the Enzi debate 
time.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I apologize to the 
Republican manager of the bill. I was not listening when the consent 
request was first issued. Would the Senator tell us what it is.
  Mr. GREGG. It actually means that Senator Lautenberg has 30 minutes 
on his amendment equally divided, Senator Enzi has 30 minutes on his 
amendment equally divided, and we go to a vote on those two amendments.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what happens, I ask the 
chairman, after that?
  Mr. GREGG. At that point we are back to the regular order, which is 
that Senator Hollings is recognized for 10 minutes and I am recognized 
for 10 minutes. Then we have a vote on the majority leader's point of 
order. However, I expect that there will be further action on the bill 
at that point and we will get into an amendment process.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment that is on the list. If I may, I 
would like to get a time line on that.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to talk to the Senator about his amendment. I 
am hopeful that we can work it out and that we won't have to have a 
vote on it. Maybe we can talk about it while this debate is going on 
and work something out.
  Mr. HARKIN. All right. I will be back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the order, the Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1302

       (Purpose: To fund a media campaign, from increases in the 
     Department of Justice budget, to prevent underage drinking.)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I assume that the pending Gregg 
amendment has been laid aside.
  I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. LAUTENBERG), for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, and Mr.

[[Page 17415]]

     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1302.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 2, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       For carrying out a media campaign to prevent alcohol 
     consumption by individuals in the United States who have not 
     attained the age of 21, $25,000,000 which shall become 
     available on October 1, 2000 and remain available through 
     September 30, 2001

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to 
provide the Justice Department $25 million in fiscal year 2001 to 
develop and begin to implement a media campaign to discourage children 
from engaging in underage alcohol consumption.
  We already have an ad campaign on national television that espouses 
the evils of drug use. But that campaign does not include alcohol. And 
when I tried to amend that ad campaign in the Treasury-Postal bill last 
month to include alcohol, some Senators said that they did not want to 
dilute the anti-drug message. But they did say that they would support 
a separate anti-underage drinking campaign.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin and 
Dorgan, who the last time I offered a similar amendment voted against 
it, but now has agreed that it is the right thing to do.
  Right now, by running anti-drugs ads without also running anti-
underage drinking ads, we are sending the wrong message to Ameria's 
children. It is the equivalent of telling kids: ``say 'no' to drugs. 
But this Bud's for you!''
  Mr. President, consuming alcohol is illegal in all 50 States if you 
are under the age of 21, and among America's youth, underage alcohol 
consumption is just as big a problem as drug use.
  The facts are daunting. If we look at this chart, we see that alcohol 
kills six times more children ages 12 to 20 than all the other ilegal 
drugs combined. It was a surprise to me, as I suspect it is a surprise 
to millions of other Americans as well.
  Let me point out some more facts. According to the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the average age at which children start 
drinking is 13.
  What's even worse, Mr. President, is that research shows that 
children who drink at age 13 have a 47-percent chance of becoming 
alcohol-dependent.
  But if they waited until they were 21 to drink, they would have only 
a 10-percent chance of becoming dependent.
  In all, Mr. President, there are nearly 4 million young people in 
this country who suffer from alcohol dependence, and they account for 
one-fifth of all alcohol-dependent Americans.
  Not only is alcohol consumption widespread among children under the 
age of 21, but it is a ``gateway drug.'' And too often, it leads to the 
use of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.
  The drug czar, Geneal McCaffrey, had some things to say about this. 
He said, ``The most dangerous drug in America today is still alcohol.''
  But for one reason or another, we don't get that message through.
  He goes on to say that alcohol is ``the biggest drug abuse problem 
for adolescents, and it's linked to the use of other, illegal drugs.''
  Mr. President, statistics support what General McCaffrey has been 
saying. According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at 
Columbia University, youth who drink alcohol are 7.5 times more likely 
to use any illegal drug and 50 times more likely to use cocaine, than 
young people who never drink alcohol.
  General McCaffrey is not alone in his belief that attacking underage 
drinking is a key component of the war on drugs. Surgeon General Davis 
Satcher recently wrote a letter to General McCaffrey expressing his 
support for ``a powerful media campaign that will effectively 
deglamourize underage drinking.''
  Surgeon General Satcher went on to say that he has established a 
Staff Working Group ``to create an effective campaign to curtail the 
incidence of underage and binge drinking.''
  Finally, the Surgeon General

       It is time to more effectively address the drug that 
     children and teens tell us is their great concern and the 
     drug we know is most likely to result in their injury or 
     death.

  If experts like General McCaffrey and Surgeon General Satcher agree 
that alcohol is a ``gateway drug,'' then it is clear that a well-
planned ad campaign that targets underage drinking would increase the 
effectiveness of our war against drugs.
  My amendment provides the Justice Department with $25 million in 
fiscal year 2001 to develop and begin to implement a media campaign to 
discourage children under the age of 21 from drinking. The amendment 
allows plenty of time to conduct the necessary research and develop and 
test sample radio and television ads in order to launch an effective 
media campaign. Ad messages would be consistent with the antidrug 
messages in the drug czar's media campaign. There would also be funds 
to begin buying media time.
  The Justice Department will coordinate the campaign with 
representatives of the Centers for Disease Control, the Surgeon 
General's office, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism. With the help of these health institutions, the Justice 
Department also would put together a detailed 5-year funding plan for 
the campaign and its media ``buys'' to help Congress in the 
appropriations process.
  Editorials have been written across this country supporting the need 
for an anti-underage drinking media campaign. Editorials have appeared 
in the Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and 
Los Angeles Times. The concept of an anti-underage drinking media 
campaign is further supported by more than 80 organizations, including 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Medical Association, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, 
and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
  I am proud to have been the author some years ago, in 1984, that made 
21 the drinking age in all 50 States. With the help of the National 
Transportation Safety Board, we have saved the lives of approximately 
15,000 young people in the 15 years since the law has been in place. It 
was a real boon to those families who worried about their children 
drinking and the problems that result.
  In 1995, Senator Byrd led the charge on zero tolerance for underage 
alcohol consumption by writing a law that says if you are under age 21, 
.02 blood alcohol level is legally drunk. So, as in the past, we need 
to continue to send a strong message to America's youth that neither 
underage alcohol consumption nor drug use is acceptable. And the only 
successful path to winning the war on drugs is the one paved by 
preventing underage drinking.
  We must not accept underage drinking as a so-called rite of passage. 
It often is. It is a passage directly to illegal drugs such as 
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. It is a passage to a life of alcohol 
dependency.
  The bottom line is this: This is a simple up-or-down vote on whether 
you want to do something to prevent teen alcohol addiction. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment so that we can get a handle on 
that drug which is acknowledged to be the most dangerous among all 
drugs. And the fact that alcohol kills six times more children ages 12 
to 20 than all other illegal drugs combined proves that.
  I hope we get a positive vote on this. I understand this vote will be 
stacked with a vote of the Senator from Wyoming, is that correct?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct. We will have a vote on the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey and then the Senator from Wyoming.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons. With 
forward funding of an initiative, the $25 million for advanced 
appropriations next year, it makes it extremely difficult for the 
committee to function.
  When the President presented his budget, he had included a large 
amount of funding which this committee did not accept because we did 
not want to put ourselves in that sort of a bind.
  Independent of the equities of the argument relative to the 
initiative which was voted on once before in a form not

[[Page 17416]]

exactly like this but similar to this on the Treasury-Postal bill, I 
believe very strongly this would set a very poor precedent if we began 
appropriating in the future on bills for this year.
  It would avoid the entire budgetary process, which requires offsets. 
That is our fiscal discipline. Without offsets, we will have no fiscal 
discipline. Arguably, we could appropriate all of next year's budget on 
almost any subject that Members wish and create significant problems.
  I don't support the amendment. I believe the amendment is 
inappropriate.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for permitting me to offer this amendment.
  But this is not a precedent-setting amendment. We have done 
substantial forward funding in those programs that need it. And it will 
take a year to organize this program.
  This is the time to get this program started by making certain that 
the message is clear, that it is out there. It says: Listen, kids, 
don't start drinking. It could lead you down a terrible path. It could 
create more dependence on alcohol, more introduction to other drugs. 
That is a poor way to give a child a sendoff.
  The Senator from New Hampshire talks about appropriating next year's 
money at this time as being somewhat unusual. Fortunately, or 
unfortunately, it is not unusual. I have a list of accounts that have 
been forward funded. I ask unanimous consent to have these accounts 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the information was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                  DISCRETIONARY ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
        [Budget authority by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1998     1999     2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military pay and retirement..................        0        0    1,838
Denali Commission............................        0        0        8
Patent and Trademark Office..................        0       71      167
Legal activities & U.S. Marshals.............        0       31        0
SBA business loan program account............        4        4        0
Federal Trade Commission.....................        0       14        0
Securities & Exchange Commission.............       27        0        0
Employment and Training Administration.......        0      290        0
NIH, buildings and facilities................        0        0       40
Low income home energy assistance program....    1,000    1,100    1,100
Child care development block grant...........      937    1,000    1,183
Elementary & Secondary Ed (reading                   0      210        0
 excellence).................................
Education for the disadvantaged..............    1,298    1,448    6,204
Corporation for Public Broadcasting..........      250      250      317
Payment to Postal Service....................        0        0       71
Defense vessel transfer program..............        0        0       31
NASA.........................................      365        0        0
Veterans, construction, major................       32        0        0
Hazardous substance superfund................        0      650      650
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................    3,913    5,068   11,609
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO, Scorekeeping Unit.

  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator is willing to yield back, I am willing to 
yield back.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 Wyoming.


                           amendment no. 1301

   (Purpose: To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
requiring persons to use any accounting method that does not conform to 
               Generally Accepted Accounting Principles)

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

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr. 
     Burns, and Mr. Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1301.

  Mr. ENZI. 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:

     SEC. XX. PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENT FOR USE OF ACCOUNTING 
                   METHOD NOT CONFORMING TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED 
                   ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

       (a) Prohibition.--No part of any appropriations contained 
     in this Act shall be used by the Federal Communciations 
     Commission to require any person subject to its jurisdiction 
     under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 
     151 et seq) to utilize for any purpose any form or method of 
     accounting that does not conform to Generally Accepted 
     Accounting Principles established by the Financial Accounting 
     Standards Board.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to remove an 
unnecessary burdensome recordkeeping requirement on local telephone 
companies.
  In 1935, the Federal Communications Commission developed an 
accounting system known as a uniform system of accounts to ensure the 
Commission had access to financial data used by AT&T to set local phone 
rates. This system of accounting requires that companies maintain 
detailed records and appreciate every asset they purchase, from paper 
clips to trucks. According to depreciation schedules that each company 
negotiates with the FCC, no other entity in the Nation has to do that.
  I have seen some of these schedules. They require companies to 
depreciate assets over longer periods of time than either the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Securities and Exchange Commission. They require 
them to depreciate things that no other business has to depreciate. 
Many of these assets are high-technology items such as digital switches 
or fiber-optic cable that are often obsolete in a very short period of 
time. However, the FCC requires them to be depreciated over a much 
longer period of time.
  This is not limited to depreciation. As an accountant, I happen to 
know a bit about generally accepted accounting principles. Yet even 
small businesses under the IRS have a dollar threshold over which they 
amortize assets--usually $25,000. For purchases under $25,000, the 
company would simply expense the item, meaning that they could charge 
the cost of the asset against the current year's revenues.
  Under the FCC system, local telephone companies are required to 
amortize every asset they buy, from office supplies to digital 
switching equipment. There is no dollar value threshold for local 
companies. They have to keep detailed records and record assets in 
accounts specified by the FCC; negotiated individually with the FCC. 
These companies already maintain their records according to generally 
accepted accounting principles. Their standard is required by the IRS 
and FCC. Why should a third agency require companies to keep their 
books in a manner inconsistent with generally accepted accounting 
principles?
  Now that AT&T has been broken up and competition is being allowed to 
take place, it is time to remove regulatory burdens that do nothing 
more than impose a requirement on one set of companies that their 
competitors do not have to comply with, information that is available 
to the competitors, information in detail available to the competitors, 
derived at great expense to the local telephone company?
  The amendment I am proposing would prohibit the FCC from requiring 
any accounting system other than generally accepted accounting 
principles for 1 year. This would give companies time to transition to 
the generally accepted accounting principles--one set of books--and 
make provisions to take obsolete equipment out of service and change 
their internal accounting policies to conform with generally accepted 
accounting principles. This would also save the Government money, since 
the FCC would not have to maintain as big an Accounting Policy Division 
to negotiate and enforce these antiquated, detailed depreciation and 
expense rules.
  According to the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson, this would save 
the small local telephone exchange companies--we are talking about the 
small companies in every State in this Nation--between $200,000 and $1 
million a year. This is money that could be spent on bringing advanced 
services and technology to rural areas or reducing rates. I understand 
how expensive it is to maintain one set of business records, and 
anybody in business out there understands that. That is one set of 
business records according to the generally accepted accounting 
principles. Just imagine what it costs for two sets of books, and the 
second set of books has to be negotiated in detail, has to have far 
more accounts than the other. My amendment would eliminate this 
expensive requirement on local telephone companies and level the 
playing field

[[Page 17417]]

between competitors, particularly with the huge long distance 
competitors.
  My amendment is being supported by the United States Telephone 
Association and its members. The United States Telephone Association 
represents small rural telephone companies. They believe, as I do, that 
competition in the local phone market starts when all participants are 
bound by the same rules.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the United States Telephone Association that goes into a bit more 
detail than I have time, in my allotted 15 minutes, to go into. 
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who serves on the Federal 
Communications Commission, made a statement on docket 99-253 that 
mentions:

       In today's increasingly competitive telecommunications 
     marketplace, the Commission should be focusing its efforts on 
     transitioning to a more competitive environment. The amount 
     of detailed information and regulatory scrutiny required 
     under our accounting and ARMIS rules is inordinate and should 
     be reduced.

  I ask that entire letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     United States


                                        Telephone Association,

                                                    July 19, 1999.
     Hon. Michael Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Russell State Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: I am writing to commend you and thank 
     you for your efforts to streamline the FCC's accounting 
     requirements for local telephone companies. These 
     requirements are vestiges of past regulatory schemes. They 
     are burdensome, costly, and discriminatory, and they serve no 
     useful purpose in today's telecommunications market. The 
     1,200 local telephone companies that comprise the United 
     States Telephone Association appreciate your leadership on 
     this issue.
       As you know, these accounting rules, also known as the 
     Uniform System of Accounts, were adopted more than a decade 
     ago, when the local telephone market was for the most part 
     closed, and local carriers were subject to cost-based, rate 
     of return regulations. Since that time, the large incumbent 
     local exchange companies have changed to price cap 
     regulations, and the local telephone market has opened to 
     competition. In short, the marketplace has changed, but these 
     accounting rules have not.
       Arthur Anderson estimates that these regulations cost the 
     local phone industry up to $270 million every year. 
     Ultimately, consumers suffer from these wasted resources. The 
     capital the local phone companies spend meeting these 
     requirements could be redeployed in ways that benefit 
     consumers with lower prices, better services, more advanced 
     technologies and more robust competition. Further, in today's 
     telecommunications market, rapid advances in technology drive 
     the introduction of new products and services at a breakneck 
     pace. Costly and unnecessary regulations slow that pace and 
     skew the competitive balance toward companies that are not 
     subject to them.
       Taxpayers suffer, as well. More than 70 people at the 
     Federal Communications Commission are needed to maintain and 
     audit these reports. These slots or their funding could be 
     saved, or put to better use either elsewhere at the 
     Commission, or elsewhere in government.
       Senator Enzi, thank you again for your leadership on this 
     issue. If we may be of assistance in any way, please let us 
     know.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Roy Noel,
     President and CEO,
                                  ____



            statement of commissioner harold furchtgott-roth

     Re: Comprehensive Review of the Accounting Requirements and 
     ARMIS Reporting Requirements for Incumbent Local Exchange 
     Carriers (CC Docket No. 99-253)

       I support today's Order initiating ``Phase 1'' of a 
     comprehensive review of the Commissioner's accounting and 
     reporting requirements. While I believe that today's Order is 
     a step in the right direction, it is, to my regret, a very 
     small step down a very long road. I write separately because 
     I continue to be concerned about the Commission's micro-
     management of all telecommunications carriers, including 
     LECs.
       In today's increasingly competitive telecommunications 
     marketplace, the Commissioner should be focusing its efforts 
     on transitioning to this more competitive environment. The 
     amount of detailed information and regulatory scrutiny 
     required under our current accounting and ARMIS rules is 
     inordinate and should be reduced. I am becoming increasingly 
     convinced that the current regulatory mechanisms--and 
     certainly the level of detail--are no longer necessary in 
     today's increasingly competitive marketplace. I believe the 
     Commission must consider even further deregulation as these 
     cumbersome regulations become unnecessary.
       I wait anxiously for the commencement of Phase 2 of this 
     review, which I hope follows today's small step with huge 
     strides toward true regulatory reform.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what we have is an issue where we have a lot 
of local, small, rural telephone companies who are coming under 
inordinate additional accounting requirements, additional accounting 
besides what is required by the other Federal agencies. This 
information has to be released to the competitors as well. Competitors, 
the big phone companies, do not have to give the same information to 
the little companies. So it is time we made this kind of change.
  I ask for support on the amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
distinguished Senator and realize he is far more steeped in this 
particular discipline of accounting, of certified public accounting, 
than I am.
  Yet having worked in the field and heard for the first time here in 
the last half hour of this particular amendment, it goes right to the 
heart of what has been going on. Specifically, we want to change an 
accounting system that has been on the books, agreed to, conformed 
with, never objected to, during the entire 4-year deliberation of the 
rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. I never heard anything about 
this need for a different system of accounting. Now, having adopted it, 
I am asking immediately: Wait a minute, what is going on here? We never 
heard of this or anything else like it. Then the giveaway is when my 
distinguished colleague says the United States Telephone Association, 
and so forth, little, little, little--little my eye. This is the Bell 
crowd.
  I find out by telephone call they have had a recent audit and the 
auditors found billions of dollars of unaccounted-for equipment. They 
just had it on the books. They put it into the rate structure. And then 
they redeem those amounts into the rate-paying system. This, of course, 
affects the rates, it affects the amounts that go back to universal 
service, and everything else of that kind. So all of a sudden we 
really, rather than helping the little ones, are going to harm the 
little folks on a so-called accounting system change.
  If anybody is intimately familiar with the rural telephone companies 
and the co-ops and everything else, this particular Senator is. The 
finest rural system there is is in the State of South Carolina. In 
fact, they have put in the Internet connections and everything else at 
all the public schools and what have you. Really, it is one of the 
finest rural groups. They never saw me about this or anything of this 
kind. This amendment definitely ought to be tabled.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming. I doubt I 
need 3 minutes.
  When this accounting system was adopted in the telecommunications 
industry way back in 1935, and it evolved through the years, we did not 
foresee the advances of technology and the need to change equipment 
would happen in that area as fast as it is happening now. New 
technology is coming on line. If there is a holdup in the buildout of 
this technology, of maybe some of our locally owned companies--and some 
of our cooperatives as cooperatives, I doubt, will be affected by this 
--it is so we can get rid of some of this old equipment we carry on the 
books because it is not all depreciated out. It has not kept pace with 
the technology.
  There was, a couple of years ago--it was more than that, 5 or 6 years 
ago, with then-Senator Brown from Colorado--offered an amendment to 
standardize accounting clear through the Government. We did not get 
that done. But nonetheless here is an old accounting system that is 
very important to

[[Page 17418]]

the high-tech area when it comes to buildout in the rural area, so 
broad-band technologies can be deployed and get rid of some of the old 
equipment still on the books.
  This amendment needs passing. I yield the floor and thank my friend 
from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from Montana, the chairman of 
our Subcommittee on Communications, ought to be asking for a hearing on 
this one. Another phrase caught my attention, when they say ``historic 
cost.'' They could go all the way back to 1934, which they have already 
been rewarded for over the many years, 60 or 70 years. Otherwise that 
is exactly what they have earned as a monopoly. Yes, we are moving. 
Don't say they did not foresee it.
  I have just been through a vigorous campaign and visited rural folks. 
I admire the new equipment they have. They are changing over. They know 
what it is. They know what competition is. The small ones, more or 
less, have been bringing about the competition.
  It is the Bell companies that told this Senator and the committee 
time and again at hearings: We want to compete; we want to compete; we 
want to compete.
  Please, my gracious, all they have done is combine. Southwest Bell 
has taken over Pacific Telesis. Now they want to take over Ameritech. 
Bell Atlantic has taken over NYNEX. Another one, we heard just the 
other day, is taking over U.S. West. They are all moving to combine and 
form more monopolies, and before long we will have Ma Bell all over 
again.
  Then they have the audacity and unmitigated gall to come to the floor 
of the Senate and say let's just change the little accounting system so 
we can take care of all of these costs, when they have been caught 
short of unaccounted equipment that has been carried on the books over 
many years and they have long since been compensated for in their 
rates.
  I can say the universal service to the small business in Wyoming and 
Montana when the Bell company puts this one over on the United 
Telephone Association--if they put this over, they are going to have to 
pay through the nose, I can tell you that right now. It is all going 
in. It is the big gobbling up the little ones.
  There ought not to be any misunderstanding to all of a sudden 
changing their accounting systems because they have found unaccounted 
equipment on the books that have been kept over many years, for which 
they have long since been compensated, and for which they continue to 
charge over and over. That is what is at issue here; without a hearing 
and putting it on the commerce bill which has jurisdiction over the FCC 
and saying it is just a small thing, they just want to look out for 
people and want the same kind of report.
  They want to get rid of the report that says you can carry all these 
expenses ad infinitum, back to 1934, and continue to charge the 
ratepayers for it. If that occurs, then universal service, the rates, 
and everything else with respect to the agreed-upon long distance and 
local rates is going totally out of kilter. The little boys are really 
going to suffer.
  I am prepared, when all time has expired, to make a motion to table 
this amendment. It definitely ought to be tabled in behalf of all 
communications and, more particularly, on account of procedures in the 
Senate. We have a committee. The distinguished Senator is chairman of 
the subcommittee. The subject has never been mentioned, and, Heaven 
knows, I hear every day I am in the Senate: Please, call the 
Commission. We don't. Please write a letter to the Commission. All the 
downtown lawyers again and again want to try their cases politically 
when they cannot prevail administratively.
  I know if it were a real problem, I would have long since heard about 
it. My rural people would have told me about it long ago. But bam, at 7 
o'clock at night, they want to change the entire accounting system. It 
is the wrong procedure, if nothing else.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what we are trying to do is harmonize and 
unify the accounting system, not eliminate and drastically change it. 
We are talking about generally accepted accounting principles. This is 
what the accountants across the United States use day in and day out. 
We are trying to unify it within the telecommunications industry.
  One reason you have not heard about this a lot is that we are talking 
about the small local exchange carriers. We are not talking about the 
big corporations that have all the lawyers in Washington. We are 
talking about the little guy out there who is trying to run a business 
and does not have as much time or expertise to run to Washington or 
know specifically to whom to take his case. We are talking about small 
businesses. And we are not talking about small money here. We are 
talking about them imposing extra regulations which cost them $200,000 
to $1 million a year. That is money that could be put into new phone 
systems or reducing rates. These are the small rural carriers.
  As far as whether enough data is available, of course, it is 
available. Corporations, big and small, across this Nation run and 
report under generally accepted accounting principles. This is not a 
new system. It is newer than the system we are talking about operating 
under which was instituted in 1935.
  In 1935, when it was controlled by a monopoly, there needed to be 
more detailed accounting. Anything that needs to be accounted can still 
be accounted. It just has to follow generally accepted accounting 
principles instead of a multiple process of going to the FCC, 
negotiating into some new accounts which already number in the 
neighborhood of 500, and coming in with the output that is needed to 
make the decision, rather than a myriad of information.
  How would you like to depreciate paper clips? It has gotten 
ridiculous. Those things have to be taken into consideration. There is 
no threshold of expenses.
  There have been a lot of changes in the communications industry. One 
of them is divestiture of AT&T. There is a whole list of things that 
have happened. A big one is the passage in 1996 of the 
Telecommunications Act, of which the Senator was speaking, and the 
issuance of the resulting FCC orders implementing various sections of 
the act, including proceedings to implement local competition and 
interconnection, as well as universal service, access charge, and price 
cap reform.
  There is not anything under generally accepted accounting principles 
that will not get the data that is needed to handle any of those 
issues. All of the service providers, with the exception of incumbent 
local exchange companies, have flexibility. The others already have the 
flexibility. AT&T has the flexibility to provide services priced on a 
competitive basis at rates dictated by the marketplace.
  These service providers are not subject to the accounting and 
recordkeeping rules contained in part 32--the big companies are not 
subject to that--and associated monitoring and enforcement activities 
but are simply required to follow GAAP in producing their external 
reports. Prices no longer bear a direct relationship to cost.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I find this to be rather confounding. I just want to 
make sure I understand this clearly. These companies are required to 
maintain two sets of books?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Accounted different ways; is that correct?
  Mr. ENZI. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. They are 
required to carry multiple books.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. And this adds as much as $20 million to $30 million to 
the cost of doing business?
  Mr. ENZI. For the local companies, it would be $25 million to $30 
million. We are talking about at least $300 million across the United 
States per year.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Some of these companies try to be competitive, not only 
nationally but internationally.

[[Page 17419]]


  Mr. ENZI. They are, and we want them to be competitive without having 
to do all the mergers that were spoken of earlier.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it true these additional charges are eventually paid 
by consumers?
  Mr. ENZI. Absolutely, they have to be paid by consumers.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. What we are imposing is almost like a tax that the 
people of America are paying, $25 million or $30 million extra, that is 
really unnecessary in these companies now.
  Mr. ENZI. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. It is like 
a tax, and it is money that the rural telephone folks are having to 
pay.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. And that is a substantial impairment on their capacity 
to do business?
  Mr. ENZI. It is a substantial impairment on their ability to be 
competitive with the big national phone companies.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. This one unique, idiosyncratic accounting method is a 
1930s accounting system.
  Mr. ENZI. That is correct.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. That is still mandated in spite of the fact that for 
other purposes, to be competitive and to be successful in offering 
their stock and other things, they maintain a set of books that is 
generally accepted for accounting purposes.
  Mr. ENZI. That is correct. We want the small companies able to do the 
same kind of accounting as the big companies.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator's amendment is to basically say we want to 
relieve them of this duplicitous, inefficient demand which results in 
their consumers having to pay a lot more and reducing the 
competitiveness of these companies.
  Mr. ENZI. The Senator is absolutely correct. We want to increase 
their competitiveness. We want the people in the rural areas to have 
the same accounting system, so they have lower costs, so they can pass 
that on to the consumer.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his amendment. I think it is 
good policy. It is the direction in which we should be going to be 
competitive. We need to move into the next century, not try to reinvent 
the last century.
  I thank the Senator for his excellent work and for allowing me to 
interrupt his remarks to clarify this to make sure I understand clearly 
what the Senator from Wyoming said. He has made an outstanding 
contribution to the understanding of other Senators and to the people 
of the United States about an archaic system imposed by Government 
which costs us all resources and which makes competition difficult for 
our own companies.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments.
  We have an opportunity to fix the system so it works the same for big 
companies and small companies so they all operate under generally 
accepted accounting principles, so the small rural guy is not doing all 
of the extra accounting that the big guys are not required to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 7 minutes 
55 seconds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will use just a minute or two, Mr. President.
  The word ``competitive'' intrigued this particular Senator. As they 
congratulate each other over there with respect to this particular 
attempted fix, let me remind the Senate that we are talking about 
monopolies. Monopolies do not have general accounting principles 
because they are not in the field of competition. They are monopolies. 
They are guaranteed a return. And extra accounting principles have been 
long since established for these companies and for small ones in that 
the independent, local exchange carriers--there are many small ones--
they are monopolies, too. So these accounting methods and principles 
have been in force for a long time.
  And here without a hearing, and just, bam, and to start talking about 
small--and there is a $30 million tax, and so forth, that is just 
spurious reasoning and fanciful notions, if I have ever heard them.
  The opposite is true. We are trying, with respect to a monopoly, to 
make sure that it does not go to the ratepayer because the monopoly is 
guaranteed a return. So if any true costs are there, they are going to 
have to be reflected in their guaranteed rate of return.
  So this amendment is totally out of order in the sense of procedures 
here in the Senate where we have a committee and we can have hearings 
on it and we can find out if there is any infringement with respect to 
the concern of the Senator from Wyoming. Because he knows all about 
accounting.
  But I can tell you now, general accounting principles do not apply to 
monopolies--and should not apply to monopolies--because there is no 
competition. They are guaranteed that return, and that is why they have 
the special accounting system.
  I thank the Chair. At the end of this, if my distinguished chairman 
would permit, I think we ought to move to table this one.
  Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. ENZI. Would you be willing to go with an amendment that would 
require AT&T and other companies to meet the same requirements as 
little companies?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, yes. I think whatever accounting system they have, 
I do not find a difference in it. I would go with having a hearing and 
give you a definite return. We are not trying to delay or anything like 
that, but I would have a hearing before the subcommittee of the Senator 
from Montana, and the full committee, and we would be glad to report 
something out. But we never have had hearings, and you just say 
``little and small.''
  The United States Telephone Association, that is big. I know from 
hard experience that is big. That is a ``Big Bell" company. In relation 
to the chairman of this so-called company that has the accounting 
system, and so forth, do you know what they reported in USA Today the 
other day? The chairman of Bell South made last year $55.9 million--
either $56 or $57 million. Can you imagine the head of a monopoly 
guaranteed a return, with no competition, making $55 million? Come on. 
And you are talking about little things? Don't give me that. They are 
not little. In just agreeing to little and big, we have a different 
idea basically of what is big and what is little in this particular 
debate.
  Mr. ENZI. You would agree they all ought to be on the same accounting 
system?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I don't know of a reason for a separate accounting 
system. If there is less of an accounting system for the smaller one, I 
tend in that direction.
  I agree with the sentiment that you have to look out for the small so 
they are not gobbled up by the big. So I would almost agree to less of 
an accounting system for the small rather than the same required for 
the big. I am trying to go in your direction.
  Mr. ENZI. I would love to work with you on that, but right now the 
big ones have the easier accounting system.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We can have hearings and find that out.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second on the amendment.
  They yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table?
  No, there is not a sufficient second on the motion to table.
  There is a sufficient second on the motion to table.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page 17420]]


  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be on the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered on the Lautenberg amendment. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum for a second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
absence or the presence of a quorum.
  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 and that we have the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1302

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1302 by the Senator from New Jersey. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     McCain
     Shelby
  The amendment (No. 1302) was rejected.


                       vote on amendment no. 1301

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     McCain
     Shelby
  The motion was rejected.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in light of the last vote, I ask unanimous 
consent the yeas and nays be vitiated on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I could not hear the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will repeat his request.
  Mr. ENZI. In light of the last vote, I ask unanimous consent the yeas 
and nays be vitiated on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1301) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Regular order.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, 
Senator Grassley, Senator Brownback, Senator Bingaman, Senator Biden, 
Senator Johnson, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Murray, Senator Akaka, 
Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Bryan.
  I ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will take unanimous consent to set aside 
the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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 
Senator Wellstone be recognized to offer an amendment, and the time on 
that amendment be 30 minutes with the Senator from Minnesota 
controlling 20 minutes of that time and the Senator in opposition 
controlling 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1303

(Purpose: To clarify the treatment of juveniles and the mentally ill by 
               the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995)

  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 1303.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 17421]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 45, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. XX. INAPPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENTS.

       Section 3626 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Inapplicability of Amendments.--A civil action that 
     seeks to remedy conditions that pose a threat to the health 
     of individuals who are juveniles or mentally ill shall be 
     governed by the terms of this section, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation 
     Reform Act of 1995 and the amendments made by that Act (18 
     U.S.C. 3601 note).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to visit some detention 
facilities across our country and meet with correctional officers and 
also the incarcerated children and their parents. I am struck again and 
again by one fact: The mentally ill and the juveniles--the children, 
the kids--are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect in jails and 
prisons in our country. That is why I am offering this amendment that 
will give back to the Federal courts full authority to remedy abusive 
conditions but only under which the mentally ill and juveniles are 
being held.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the Department of Justice released a report on the 
prevalence of mental illness among adult inmates in our jails and 
prisons. The Justice Department report merely confirms what many of us 
already know. The criminalization of mental illness is a national 
crisis.
  Of particular concern to me have been the extraordinary problems 
children with mental illness and emotional disorders encounter in 
juvenile jails. That is why I introduced the Mental Health Juvenile 
Justice Act earlier this year. Of the 100,000 children who are arrested 
and incarcerated each year, as many as 50 percent suffer from a mental 
or emotional disturbance.
  Jails and detention centers often find they are unprepared to deal 
with these kids. For instance, medication which should be given is not 
given; medication that should be properly monitored is not properly 
monitored; and guards may not even know how to respond to some of these 
kids.
  Why do so many youth with mental illness end up in the juvenile 
justice system? The truth of the matter is, we ought to, on the front 
end, do a much better job of assessing the problems of these kids and, 
for those who should not be incarcerated--some should--but for those 
who should not be incarcerated, look to alternatives.
  We have not invested as a country--you can talk to anybody down in 
the trenches doing this work--adequately in the service programs and 
community prevention programs that will reduce the need for 
incarceration. Therefore, many of these kids wind up in these 
facilities. They are incredibly vulnerable. They do not get the care 
they absolutely have to get, and the consequences are tragic.
  Last year, as an example, I went with the National Mental Health 
Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, a privately 
owned facility for over 600 youth in northeast Louisiana. I saw 
shocking civil rights violations which were cited by the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Basically what I am saying is, there were kids 
who were diagnosed with mental problems getting absolutely no treatment 
whatsoever.
  The Justice Department has also exposed gross abuses in Georgia, 
Kentucky, and the juvenile facilities in Louisiana. Other States also 
experience similar problems. Investigators found cases of physical 
abuse and neglect of mental health needs, including unwarranted and 
prolonged isolation of suicidal children, hog-tie and chemical 
restraints used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, forced 
medication, and even denial of medication.
  Children with extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self-
mutilation--cutting themselves with glass--never even saw a 
psychiatrist.
  In some cases, abusive treatment of these children results directly 
from their being emotionally disturbed. Staff in the juvenile 
facilities fail to recognize the problem and, in fact, punish these 
children for the symptoms of their disorders. Children have been 
punished for requesting treatment or put in isolation when they refuse 
to accept treatment. One child in a boot camp was punished for making 
involuntary noises that were symptoms of Tourette's syndrome. Mental 
disorders are being handled almost solely through discipline, 
isolation, and restraints, according to investigations by the U.S. 
Department of Justice and human rights groups.
  Nobody likes litigation, but sometimes lawsuits are necessary to 
protect the constitutional rights of our people, especially vulnerable, 
voiceless persons such as incarcerated children who suffer from mental 
illness. That is what this amendment is about.
  Because juveniles and mentally ill persons are particularly 
vulnerable to abuse and neglect in State institutions, I am offering 
tonight an amendment which will give back to Federal courts the 
authority to remedy abusive conditions under which juveniles with 
mental illness are being held. Regrettably, the Congress has taken 
steps in recent years to limit the circumstances under which lawsuits 
challenging the constitutionality of prison conditions can be brought.
  Three years ago, this Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform 
Act. Its sponsors claimed that the bill would merely end frivolous 
lawsuits by prisoners, and we all agree with that goal. I certainly do. 
But the terms of the PLRA were much more sweeping. It deprived Federal 
courts of important legal tools to remedy brutal, unconstitutional 
conditions in juvenile detention facilities throughout our country.
  For example, the PLRA limited the power of Federal courts to impose 
and retain injunctive relief to improve conditions in juvenile 
facilities. This means that parties can no longer settle these lawsuits 
by means of a consent decree--a court-enforceable injunction entered 
into with agreement by the parties without admission of liability by a 
defendant. That is very important. Also, any relief order must be 
terminated by the courts 2 years after it is issued unless the court 
holds another trial.
  One of the most important judicial powers that the PLRA curtailed was 
the appointment of special masters. Quite often judges will appoint 
special masters who will come in, do the mediation, do the negotiation, 
but we have so limited the compensation that we are not able to do 
that. The act limited the powers of special masters so they can no 
longer perform this task of mediating disputes and assisting the 
parties in reaching some compliance with court orders.
  While the PLRA has made it much more difficult for courts to improve 
inhumane conditions in prisons generally, it has had a devastating 
impact on the conditions in which mentally ill and juvenile defenders 
are held. They are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect at 
State institutions, and precisely because of that fact, we must not be 
indifferent to their plight or ignore their need for protection.
  Let me give some examples. Just consider some of these horrific 
conditions involving mentally ill juveniles that PLRA has made more 
difficult to remedy:
  In Philadelphia, children with mental illness in a juvenile detention 
facility operating at 160 percent of capacity were regularly beaten by 
staff with chains and other objects. Santiago v. Philadelphia.
  In Delaware, juveniles with mental illness were housed in living 
units the court found posed a serious fire hazard. Their food and 
clothing were inadequate. Children were routinely beaten, maced, and 
shackled. The medical and education programs they received were below 
minimally accepted standards. These are facts. This is what is going 
on. John A v. Castle.
  In a Pennsylvania-run juvenile facility, children were routinely 
beaten by faculty staff, staff trafficking in illegal drugs was 
rampant, and sexual relations between staff and confined youth were 
commonplace. DB v. Commonwealth.
  A severely depressed 17-year-old in an adult prison in Texas was 
raped and

[[Page 17422]]

sodomized. His request to be placed in protective custody was denied. 
For the next several months, he was repeatedly beaten by older 
prisoners, forced to perform oral sex, robbed, and beaten again. Each 
time, his requests for protection were denied by the warden. He 
attempted suicide by hanging himself in his cell after a guard had 
ignored the warning letter he wrote. He was in a coma for 4 months, 
after which he died.
  The purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was to reduce or 
eliminate frivolous lawsuits by inmates. I am all for that, but as 
these examples make clear--and I have many other examples--the inmates 
I seek to protect with this amendment are not filing frivolous 
lawsuits. Or I should say, what is happening to them is not the stuff 
of a frivolous lawsuit. They are young; they are uneducated; they are 
suffering from mental illness that prevent them from functioning at the 
necessary level to file a lawsuit on their own. This is a population of 
uniquely vulnerable inmates who need representation in the legal system 
and are not receiving that representation, who need the protection that 
the Federal courts have historically provided.
  Unfortunately, this Congress seems to be moving, at least on the 
House side--and I pray we do not do the same thing--in the opposite 
direction. Just last month, the House adopted an amendment offered by 
Congressman DeLay to the juvenile justice bill that would actually 
terminate all consent decrees entered into prior to the passage of the 
Prison Litigation Reform Act.
  The DeLay amendment would say that even when prison conditions were 
horrible enough to warrant the continuation of the consent decree, that 
decree is going to be terminated by an act of Congress. No matter how 
many children will suffer, the Federal judge's hands will be tied.
  I think it is unconstitutional. Let me give a couple of examples and 
conclude, because if this amendment is agreed to tonight, this will 
negate the DeLay amendment in the House of Representatives.
  In Ironton, OH, a 15-year-old girl ran away from home over night, 
then returned to her parents but was put in the county jail by the 
juvenile court judge to ``teach her a lesson.'' On the fourth night of 
her confinement, she was sexually assaulted by a deputy jailer. More 
than 500 children had been incarcerated in the jail over the past 3 
years, many for truancy and other status offenses. Under the consent 
decree, no children may be held in the jail. But with what is happening 
in the House of Representatives, that consent degree would not even 
apply.
  In Portland, ME, a lawsuit was filed after a young boy held in the 
county jail was sexually assaulted by an older adolescent. In 1987, 
county officials agreed to stop holding children in the jail because of 
another decree.
  In Clovis, NM, children were held in the county jail in unsanitary 
conditions, without adequate fire safety procedures, recreation or 
programming, or adequate separation from adult inmates. In 1983, local 
officials agreed to stop using the jail as a detention facility for 
children.
  The DeLay amendment would automatically terminate these decrees even 
if judges disagreed. This amendment would deal with this problem.
  In Tucson, AZ, children in the juvenile detention center were held in 
leather restraints, mail was censored, there were inadequate treatment 
programs, and the facility was overcrowded. Another consent decree 
provided for the protection of these children.
  In Oklahoma, there was pervasive brutality in the operation of the 
State juvenile correctional institutions. Children were often 
handcuffed and hog-tied, and institutional staff relied on physical 
force and intimidation to keep order. The ``punishment unit'' was dark 
and dungeonlike. Another consent decree took care of that.
  Again, this amendment I offer tonight is an effort to make sure what 
was done in the House will essentially be negated.
  Mr. President, I will conclude. My amendment would not repeal, I say 
to my colleagues, the Prison Litigation Reform Act or adversely affect 
the crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. It would say that in the case of 
the mentally ill and juveniles, we should try to protect them. My 
amendment would merely carve a narrow exception to the PLRA 
restrictions in limited circumstances involving children and those who 
struggle with mental illness.
  Elie Wiesel once said: ``More than anything--more than hatred and 
torture--more than pain--do I fear indifference.'' We must be vigilant 
and we must not allow ourselves to be indifferent to children's misery, 
particularly those children who may be sick, difficult, and test our 
patience and our understanding. In that spirit, I ask my colleagues to 
support this modest and humane exception.
  This amendment has the support of the Bazelon Center for Mental 
Health Law, the Children's Defense Fund, the Justice Policy Institute, 
the National Education Association, the National Network for Youth, The 
National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, The Shiloh Baptist 
Church, the Youth Law Center, and other organizations as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have 10 minutes on this amendment 
available and note that what we hope to do is stack the vote on this 
amendment with a couple other votes later in the evening. I reserve the 
10 minutes because Senator Hatch has asked to speak to this amendment, 
and I will allocate him that time.
  I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator withhold for a moment?
  Mr. GREGG. I withhold for the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. For some of us who have been here--I know, through no 
fault of the distinguished chairman, we have had 5 hours of quorum 
calls today, approximately. This evening I know some of us would like 
to be with our families. I know it is a family-friendly Senate. But for 
those of us who have families and wish to be with our families--I know 
the Senator from New Hampshire feels the same way--can we get some idea 
when we might vote, so we can do that? If we had not had so many quorum 
calls, we would be done by now.
  Mr. GREGG. You are absolutely right. We are working on an extensive 
list of amendments. We have it down to very few. My hope is that within 
the next hour we can get an agreement on which amendments still have to 
go forward. Hopefully, there will be virtually none, and then we can go 
to final passage. That is the game plan.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was wondering if the distinguished manager would 
consider going ahead with the vote on this amendment only because I 
know a lot of times you get everybody on the floor for a vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to do that, but I believe Senator Hatch 
wishes to speak on it. It is represented he is headed in this 
direction. This is his jurisdiction and your jurisdiction.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand. I do not object to that.
  Mr. GREGG. As soon as Senator Hatch comes and speaks, maybe we can 
move to vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I reserve the final 4 
minutes of my time. I ask my colleague, I assume there are no second-
degree amendments in order to this amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the final 4 minutes of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. I reserve our 10 minutes and ask unanimous consent that no 
time be credited against this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I want to accommodate the 
distinguished chairman, but I have been sitting here having rearranged 
other things waiting for this vote. If I object, as a practical matter, 
the time on the

[[Page 17423]]

amendment will run out under the unanimous consent, and we will have to 
have a vote.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire says the 
distinguished Senator from Utah is on his way here.
  Mr. GREGG. It has been represented by staff that they are in the 
process of asking him to appear, and it was represented he would be 
coming.
  Mr. LEAHY. I also realize the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire could put in a quorum call, even though the time will run if 
the quorum call is not called off. We could take a long time doing 
that, but we would be right back to what happened earlier because that 
will protect him in that sense. I will object to the time not running. 
I say to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the 
distinguished Senator from Utah is on the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. This is good news for all of us.
  Mr. LEAHY. Why don't we let him do that and go that way so we could 
have a vote in the next few minutes, I say to my distinguished friend 
from Utah.
  Mr. GREGG. I think if we could go to a quorum call briefly, the 
Senator from Utah will be back and will be speaking in a brief period 
of time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to the managers of the bill, I have been working with 
my friend from South Carolina. We are doing----
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these 
colloquies not be debited to the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah is on the floor. We 
have been working with our Members and have cleared most everything 
with the Senator from South Carolina. We only have a few more 
amendments----
  Mr. GREGG. As do we.
  Mr. REID. Requiring a very short period of time. I think if we can 
get past this, we would be in a position to give the Senator a finite 
number of amendments that still need to be debated and voted on.
  Mr. GREGG. That is excellent news, obviously. We are also making good 
progress on our side. Hopefully, we can go to a vote and maybe make 
some more progress.
  I yield to the Senator from Utah whatever remains of my 10 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I won't take long. The amendment exempts 
juveniles and the mentally ill from the reforms accomplished by the 
Prison Litigation Reform Act, which was passed in 1996. This was my 
bill. This amendment would subject State prison systems to 
micromanagement by the Federal courts. Keep in mind, I am also the 
author of Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons, which is to take 
care of a lot of these difficulties. I cast the deciding vote back in 
the late 1970s passing that bill.
  Currently everyone whose Federal or constitutional rights have been 
violated retains the ability to bring suit and to have any violation of 
their rights remedied by a Federal court. All this Congress did in 1996 
was to say courts could not go beyond remedying people's Federal rights 
to micromanage prison systems.
  I am opposed to this amendment because of that. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota is trying to do something right, 
but basically it flies in the face of what the reform basically says. 
If true constitutional rights are being violated, they have a right to 
go to court under current legislation, both in the Civil Rights Act for 
Institutionalized Persons and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which 
we passed in 1996.
  I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment because I believe that 
basically the current law takes care of it. His amendment would allow 
micromanagement of the Federal courts.
  I am happy to yield the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote with me 
on this, and I believe there will be a motion to table. I hope they 
will vote to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, so Senator Leahy can vote--I am very 
proud to have his support--I will add as an organization that supports 
this the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  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.
  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 move to table the Wellstone 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 to 
table amendment No. 1303. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Gramm) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gramm
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Shelby
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________