[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8689-S8775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2260, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2260) making appropriations for the Department
of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and
for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Bumpers modified amendment No. 3243, to amend the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to counsel for
witnesses in grand jury proceedings.
Graham/DeWine amendment No. 3244, to modify the definition
of the term ``public aircraft''.
Amendment No. 3243, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate prior to the vote in relation to the Bumpers
amendment numbered 3243.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. President, this amendment, for the edification of people who
didn't hear any of the debate last night, is to make a very minor
change in the grand jury system. Now, bear in mind, the grand jury
system is about as outdated, as big an anachronism as there is in this
country.
For openers, all this amendment does is to say that an innocent
person who is called before the grand jury--not as a target, not as a
defendant, but an absolutely innocent witness, an absolutely innocent
witness who is terrified because he or she is appearing before the
grand jury for the first time in his or her life, and they know that if
they misspeak, if their memory doesn't satisfy the prosecutor, they
face the possibility of being charged with perjury.
Right now when that innocent person goes to testify before the grand
jury, let's make it easy, let's assume, as I did last evening, that it
is a Senator's wife; that might be understandable around here. The
Senator's wife goes in after having paid some lawyer $5,000 or $10,000
just as a retainer to make sure she doesn't get charged with something
for which she is innocent. She goes in and sits in the chair and they
start asking her all kinds of personal questions that are totally
irrelevant to why she is there: Have you been faithful to your spouse?
Do you have a child charged with smoking pot? I understand your
daughter is gay.
Those things are not stretches of my imagination. But her lawyer is
seated outside the door, because under the Federal rules he cannot come
into the same room in which his client, the witness, is testifying.
Think of that. Think about how we bash China and their criminal justice
system and their violation of human rights. That Senator's wife might
be called back again tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the
next day. You have seen it happen.
All we are saying is, don't make her crawl down off of the witness
stand to
[[Page S8690]]
go outside and talk to her lawyer about how she should answer these
questions. If she does that three times, do you know what the grand
jury does? They start nudging each other. ``She must be hiding
something; she is sure going out to talk to her lawyer a lot.''
That is a woefully inadequate system for a great nation like this.
All I am saying, let the lawyer come into the room.
The Justice Department opposes this amendment. Now, doesn't that
shock you? Of course they oppose it. They are in the business of
putting notches on their belt. They want to be able to say this grand
jury has never refused to return an indictment that I asked for. A New
York judge said, ``Of course, they return those indictments. A grand
jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks them to.''
All I am saying, let's follow what 27 States have already done. They
have abolished the grand jury system.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. I ask that the time run equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. I am sorry, I didn't understand the distinguished floor
manager's request.
Mr. GREGG. I asked that the time that is now running be allocated
equally against both sides.
Mr. BUMPERS. I object to that. I reserved the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will happen whether or not there is a
unanimous consent. If neither side yields time, the clock will run and
will be charged equally against both sides.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am glad the opponents to this amendment
don't have anything to say this morning, and I am happy to use up the
rest of my time. Perhaps we can get a unanimous consent agreement that
they will yield back the balance of their time and we will vote.
All I want to say is we are talking about a criminal justice system
of the greatest nation on Earth, which is terrible. We are not talking
about the mob, we are not talking about the mafioso, we are talking
witnesses.
Here is a classic case of a fulfillment of what everybody in this
Senate has said at one time or another, and that is criminals have a
better deal than do ordinary citizens. A criminal gets an attorney
hired for him if he doesn't have one. A criminal is advised to remain
silent. The Senator's wife can't remain silent. She has been subpoenaed
to come down and testify.
All I am saying, don't make her go outside the room. The attorney in
the courtroom, he is not going to file motions. He is not going to make
objections. But I tell you what it will do. It will have a salutary
effect on the conduct of the attorney prosecuting the case.
He won't be asking redundant, personal questions that have nothing to
do with the case. This is not a game of ``gotcha,'' a game of seeing
how many scalps you can put on your belt, how many notches you can put
on your gun barrel. This is American justice we are talking about. We
haven't addressed the grand jury system in 10 years. It is 500 years
old, and it is 10 times worse now than it was 500 years ago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the Senator's side has expired.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe that under the unanimous consent
request we are functioning under, we were to vote at 9:40. I yield back
our time and suggest that we move to a vote.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have been.
All time has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--59
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 3243) as modified, was rejected.
Amendment No. 3244
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). There are now 2 minutes
equally divided on the Graham amendment.
Who yields time on the Graham amendment?
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an amendment which has been
requested by the National Sheriffs' Association.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend while we get order
in the Chamber.
There is a short debate before the vote.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment has been requested by the
National Sheriffs' Association, the Western States Sheriffs'
Association, sheriffs' associations from the largest States. It relates
to a very narrow issue of the use of surplus aircraft, primarily
helicopters, which have been made available to a local law enforcement
agency. Today, there are serious restraints on the ability of a local
jurisdiction which has an aircraft to make it available to an adjacent
jurisdiction for things like search and rescue, overflights for drug
control purposes, and a variety of other issues. This has been a major
issue, an irritant to local law enforcement.
It serves, in my opinion, no legitimate national purpose to impose
these restraints on the use of donated surplus property aircraft to
local law enforcement. I urge adoption of this amendment which will
comply with the requests of American law enforcement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute in opposition. Who seeks
recognition?
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
The Senator will suspend while we get order in the Chamber.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment poses significant safety
concerns as to what the legitimate role of the FAA should be. I might
point out, I don't know of any hearing that has been held on this
issue. There is legitimate concerns from the FAA as well as other
organizations such as the Helicopter Association International and
others.
I oppose this amendment on the grounds there has not been sufficient
scrutiny of the safety implications of this kind of action.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Amendment No.
3244 of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
[[Page S8691]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--44
Abraham
Bennett
Bond
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 3244) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama be willing,
on an unrelated matter, on the vote we just had, to yield me 2 minutes
to make a brief comment before he begins?
Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2
minutes.
Explanation of Vote--Amendment No. 3243
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on the Bumpers amendment, I voted against
the position of Senator Bumpers, not because I disagree with the
substance of it. For the last 25 years and for the years I was chairman
and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have adhered to the
notion that the Judicial Conference, a system that we set up in the
Congress years ago, is the appropriate vehicle to make recommendations
for changes in the Federal rules. The reason I voted against the
Bumpers amendment is not because I don't think prosecutors are out of
hand, not because I don't think there is abuse of the grand jury
system, which, by the way, for hundreds of years has relied upon the
proposition that good judgment, sound judgment would be exercised by
prosecutors and not be abused. Obviously, it is being abused.
My hope is, regardless of what the outcome of this is legislatively,
I am going to propose at a future time that the Senate ask the Judicial
Conference to consider changes in the Federal rules relative to the
conduct of grand juries and make recommendations to the Senate. That is
the way we have done it since the Judicial Conference has been set up.
That is the more appropriate way to deal with the Federal rules.
I conclude by complimenting Senator Bumpers for pointing out an abuse
of the system and the need for change. I think the appropriate way to
do it is through the Federal rules.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. BIDEN. The Senator from Alabama has control of the time, I say to
my friend from Vermont. I yield the floor and thank the Senator from
Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from
Utah, the prime sponsor of the Juvenile Justice Act and chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, is here. I will be glad to yield to him any time
he wants on the amendment, and then I will talk on the amendment.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Amendment No. 3245
(Purpose: To increase funding for Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grants)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the amendment is
going to be offered on our behalf by the distinguished Senator from
Alabama, Senator Sessions.
I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Alabama to
balance the approach between prevention and law enforcement. At the
outset, let me commend the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg,
for his outstanding commitment to reducing juvenile crime. His work, I
think, has made an outstanding contribution to our efforts.
All of us have been shocked over the past several months as our
Nation has witnessed a series of atrocious crimes committed by
juveniles. These incidents bring home to all of us the reality of
juvenile crime. The reality is that we can no longer sit silently by as
children kill children, as teenagers commit truly heinous offenses, as
our juvenile drug abuse rate continues to climb.
FBI data confirms the national problem of rampant juvenile violent
crime. In 1996, juveniles accounted for nearly one-fifth--19 percent--
of all criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18
committed 15 percent of all murders, 17 percent of all rapes, and 32.1
percent of all robberies. These disturbing figures show the need to fix
a broken juvenile justice system that is failing too many of our young
people and ultimately failing to protect the public.
Last year, Congress began the process of addressing this serious
national problem. The fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided
$250 million for a block grant that promotes a commonsense approach to
intervene at the earliest signs of trouble.
A juvenile's first brush with the law is the most important, because
it sends a strong signal of what he or she can get away with.
Governments cannot afford to wait until a youngster is 16 or 17 years
old, and has committed a half a dozen or more violent crimes, before
getting serious.
The block grant funded last year has also promoted making a
juvenile's criminal record accessible to police, courts, prosecutors,
and schools so that we can know and ascertain who are the serious
repeat offenders. Right now, these records simply are not available in
NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal records.
We all recognize the value of programs that intervene in the lives of
juveniles to prevent crime before it starts. The Federal Government
already spends about $4.1 billion a year on programs aimed at
delinquent and at-risk youth. We are doing some great things through
public-private partnerships, through youth groups like the Boys and
Girls Clubs, and we are going to continue to do this.
I commend Senator Gregg for doubling our effort for this program to
$40 million in the bill before us.
I do not believe, however, that these programs alone can address the
sickness that led to some of these recent tragedies. What we need is to
ensure that the prevention programs that we have are backed up by a
juvenile justice system that takes crime seriously, and imposes real
sanctions for juvenile crime.
Congress has given extensive support to delinquency prevention
programs, especially since the Republicans took control of Congress.
Congress spent over $200 million on the Office of Juvenile and
Delinquency Prevention, OJDP, programs in fiscal year 1998. Compared
with fiscal year 1991 funding of $75 million, Congress has increased
prevention funding by over two and a half times. The Senate can be
proud of its support of prevention programs. We increased prevention
funding from $107 million in 1994, up to $144 million in fiscal year
1995. Since then we have steadily increased funding up to its FY 1998
level of over $201 million.
In fact, there is no shortage in prevention funding. According to a
November 1997, General Accounting Office, GAO, report entitled ``At-
Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated
Approach,'' the Federal Government currently spends over $4 billion
annually in prevention money for juveniles in 127 different Federal
programs. In contrast, the Federal Government spends little money on
law enforcement and detention for juvenile offenders.
[[Page S8692]]
The bill before us provides an appropriation for the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grants of $100 million for fiscal year
1999. This funding level is far too low to meet the needs of our State
and local law enforcement. For fiscal year 1998, the grant was set for
$250 million. The Senator from Alabama's amendment will help restore
funding to critical areas of the juvenile justice system, by
reallocating $50 million from what I believe to be an excessive
increase in appropriations for the incentive grants for prevention
programs under Title V of the JJDPA. This program, funded at $20
million in FY 1998, has been increased over fourfold, to $95 million in
the bill before us.
Senator Sessions' amendment will shift a part of that increase back
to the block grant, so that the Senate will be funding this important
program at the same level as it proposed in FY 1998. I must say that,
in my view, even this amount will still be inadequate, because the need
is so great. First, these incentive block grants fund the construction
of permanent juvenile corrections facilities. Such facilities are
needed to protect law abiding citizens from violent and repeat
offenders. Space in secure detention facilities for serious and violent
juvenile offenders is in critically short supply in many of our States.
Second, this amendment will provide to aid State and local
governments for the integration of serious juvenile criminal records
into the national criminal history database, making these delinquency
adjudication records available to law enforcement and courts as adult
criminal records are now. Right now, these records simply are not
available in NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal
records. As any judge, police officer, or prosecutor will tell you,
information is the lifeblood of the criminal justice system. With
respect to juvenile criminal records, the system is anemic. Let me
provide my colleagues with an example from just one State of what
integrating these records into the adult records system can accomplish.
Integrating juvenile offender's fingerprints into the records system in
Virginia resulted in a significant improvement in identifying crime
suspects. In fact, prints of juveniles make up only one percent of
Virginia's automated fingerprint identification system, but this one
percent accounts for 18 percent of latent crime scene fingerprint
identifications.
Third, this amendment helps States provide drug testing for
appropriate categories of juvenile offenders. This testing will help
authorities to know what crimes are drug driven, to better target
treatment, services, and punishment as appropriate.
For too long, the Federal Government has neglected to give adequate
support to juvenile law enforcement programs. This amendment will help
place much needed resources to the law enforcement side of the juvenile
justice system. Our current juvenile justice system intervenes too late
in the lives of juvenile offenders. All too often, juveniles break the
law several times before they are held accountable. Unfortunately, this
delay in justice fails to teach youthful offenders the seriousness of
their crimes. This chain of events often lead to the tragic juvenile
crime newspaper headlines we read in the newspapers nearly every day.
We can do better, and the restoration of funds to the juvenile
accountability incentive block grant is an important first step. For
these reasons, I strongly urge the support of my colleagues for this
amendment.
I believe the Senator from Alabama has a good amendment here that
would go a long way toward solving some of these problems we have in
juvenile crime. I do believe that we will bring up the juvenile justice
bill shortly after we return in September. At that time, we can debate
all of these issues in full specific form.
I thank the majority leader for, I think, being willing to do that. I
thank my colleague for being willing to bring this amendment up, which
I think pushes us down that road toward better juvenile justice than we
have had in the past. He has done a terrific job in this area. He has
been singular in his dedication and drive and forthrightness in this
area. I think we ought to all listen to him and do our best to back him
in the things that he is trying to do, as a former prosecutor, as a
former U.S. attorney, as somebody who really knows this area very well.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
I call up amendment No. 3245 and ask unanimous consent that Senator
Hatch be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and
Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 3245.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 30, line 7, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert
``$150,000,000''.
On page 36, line 20, strike ``$95,000,0000'' and insert
``$45,000,000''.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say how much I have
appreciated the opportunity to work with Chairman Hatch. He is an
outstanding leader, a terrific lawyer, an outstanding constitutional
scholar, and a champion for bringing order and discipline to ending
crime in America. There is no one here who has contributed more over
the years to that effort than Senator Hatch. And his advice and
friendship, as we have gone forward, has been very, very helpful to me.
Mr. President, let me just say this. I am going to go right to the
heart of this matter. I came here to work on juvenile crime after
serving as a Federal prosecutor for 15 years and attorney general of
Alabama for 2 years. I care about juvenile crime. I have studied it. I
have talked to juvenile crime experts--prosecutors, probation officers,
judges--who have worked with it on a regular basis.
I have concluded that we have a juvenile justice system that is
overwhelmed by the flood of more and more cases, more and more serious
cases. According to a New York Times article, in Chicago they spend 5
minutes per case. That shows you what is happening in America, around
the country.
You talk to police officers in every town and they are frustrated by
what is happening in juvenile justice. They tell me, ``Jeff, we can't
do anything to them, and they know it. They are laughing at us.'' I
have heard that all over. It is not the fault of the judges. But it is
really the fault of all of us who have allowed the adult criminal
justice system--and rightly so--to be strengthened significantly.
We have gone to three times as many adult people in jail, for
example, as we had just 18 years ago. And now we have had very little
increase in the number of youngsters who have been detained under any
kind of detention program than we had before. And we have had the most
serious increase in the most violent type criminal activity by that
younger group.
So what do we do about it? They say we need a balance between
prevention and law enforcement. And I agree with that. What we want to
do--and my amendment does--is seek to have balance.
Look at this chart. We have $4.3 billion dedicated to prevention
programs in this budget already. That is what this Government is
spending. This is from a study done by the General Accounting Office
that was just completed in May of this year. We found that there is no
money dedicated solely for juvenile law enforcement--unless perhaps we
count the money that was funded in the block grant that I am supporting
today from last year. Otherwise, there is none. I think we need to
think seriously about what we are doing.
Under this bill, this appropriations bill, the amount of money that
was to be expended for the block grant program to increase and support
juvenile justice in our local communities to help our States do that--
we have gone from $250 million in last year's budgetary authority, cut
to $100 million this year.
In addition to that, in the program that the President has supported,
we have gone from $20 million to $95 million. I want to share with you
what that program spends the money on. This is the prevention program
that
[[Page S8693]]
has gone from $20 million to $95 million in this year's budget.
It says it is to provide juvenile justice system programs for
children, youth, and families, these things: Recreational services.
Now, that is No. 1 listed on the plan--recreational services. I am for
recreation, but I am not sure in a juvenile crime bill, in an effort to
fight crime, we ought to be promoting recreation.
Tutoring and remedial education. I am going to show you here in a
minute a list of 129 programs that are filled with those kinds of
activities. What we do not have is any help for our juvenile judges and
probation officers and drug treatment personnel in the court systems.
Here is the third one: Assistance. This is what it says: ``Assistance
in the development of work awareness skills.'' That is on what we are
spending $50 million. I don't know what that means.
Child and adolescent health and mental health services. We have a
host of those already funded by this Government.
Alcohol and prevention programs. We have that pending legislation
right now to a tremendous degree, and we already have programs spending
moneys on that.
Leadership and development activities. Now, I don't know what that
means.
Finally, teaching that people are and should be held accountable for
their actions. I agree with that. But how do you teach people to be
accountable for their actions if you arrest a youngster in a household
burglary and he is taken to the police station and released that very
night and sent home and nothing happens to him? Is that the way you
teach it? I say that is what they are hearing. That is what people are
hearing and that is what you will find if you talk to your law
enforcement officer.
What are we already funding in this governmental program? We are
spending $4 billion in 129 programs for at-risk delinquent youth,
according to the General Accounting Office. Here, under Department of
Treasury, gang resistance education and training projects, $8 million;
juvenile justice delinquency prevention and mentoring, $4 million;
juvenile justice prevention allocation of the States, $70 million.
Under Department of Labor, employment and training research and
development projects; job training for the homeless demonstration
program; and so on and so on, program after program after program,
designed with good intentions to deal with kids who are at risk.
Now, let's go back to square one. Let me tell you what I think ought
to be done. Who are the most at-risk children? Those are the ones who
are going to court now. According to a Newsweek article, 70 percent of
the young people who murder someone have taken a gun to school
previously. That is a stunning number. What that says does not surprise
me in the sense that most of the young people in America who are
committing serious crimes--the armed robberies, the assault with intent
to murder, the murders, the rapes--have been in trouble with the judge
and the courts before. They have been there before. If the courts are
spending only 5 minutes to deal with them, no wonder they are coming
back time and time and time again.
As Senator Hatch said, our goal must be to make that first brush with
the law the last. How can we do that? That is what we are saying. What
should this Senate do? I am telling you, based on my experience and the
hearings we have had for the last 2 years, what we need to do is
strengthen the juvenile justice system. That is what we need to do.
Now, that does not mean you put people in jail every time they get
caught. It means when you arrest them, the first thing you should do is
drug test them. Is this criminality being driven by drugs? If it is,
then we ought to have them in a treatment program. They ought to be
drug tested and monitored to make sure they get off drugs. That is the
first thing you do. If this is the third, fourth, or fifth offense and
they have committed a serious crime, they ought to be detained. We
cannot continue to allow repeat offenders to run at large, even though
they are 16 or 17 years of age.
There was a murder in Montgomery, AL. Three youngsters killed a night
watchman. I called the police department to ask about the prior record
of those offenders. This is what they told me: 7, 7, and 15 prior
arrests. That is what they had, each one of them. One 7, one 7, and
another 15 prior arrests. They were still on the street. The revolving
door was still operating and they murdered somebody. We would have done
them a favor had they been detained, sent to an alternative school,
sent to a boot camp. Perhaps we could have intervened in that lifestyle
and stopped that murder from occurring. As it is, they were certified
as an adult, will now be convicted as an adult, and sent off to an
adult jail for a very long sentence. Who benefited from that?
The reason is that juvenile court system in Alabama, and all over
America, is overwhelmed. Our bill provides an incentive grant to the
States for the purposes of strengthening that. It will give those
juvenile judges the authority they need to crack down on juvenile crime
and to change that life direction that is heading in the wrong
direction, to the right direction.
Let me tell you what this money can be used for. It will be used for
programs to enhance prosecution and confinement of juvenile criminals
as part of the graduated sanctions proposal. Everyone, on both sides of
the aisle, agrees that we need graduated sanctions. When you are caught
for one offense and you do another one, you go up a punishment level.
The sanction is a punishment increase. That sends an important message
that crime does not pay.
It would fund programs that require juvenile delinquents to pay
restitution to victims of juvenile crime. It would fund programs that
require juvenile offenders to complete school or vocational training.
That is what our proposal would do. It would require juvenile criminals
to pay child support. If they have a child, they ought to be supporting
that child. There would be programs to curb truancy. We need to get
these kids back in school promptly. As soon as we can identify truants,
they need to be apprehended and sent back to school before they get so
far behind that they are hopelessly behind their contemporaries.
Programs need to be designed to collect, record, and disseminate
information on their criminal history. It would provide drug testing,
programs for antidrug youth programs and the like. It would have a
serious habitual offender program. It would have programs targeted
toward youth gangs, and the construction and remodeling of short-term
facilities for juvenile offenders. You have to have someplace to put
them or you are just releasing them the very day they are caught. That
is what is happening. They are being released the day they are caught.
We need more juvenile facilities so there can be some detention. This
would allow the States to apply for a grant, for matching money, to
have detention facilities, alternative schools and boot camps and
whatever they think is necessary to strengthen their court system.
As a policymaker, recognize we have a limited amount of money. How do
we apply that money most effectively? Who do we use it on? We use it
on, I suggest, those people who are already coming into contact with
the criminal justice system. Routinely, they are being arrested in
America today for the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth time,
and nothing serious has happened. The reason is we have not given
enough attention and support to those juvenile judges, those
prosecutors, those probation officers, who are out every day trying to
change lives. If we can strengthen that group, that is what we should
do.
Now, I am not opposed to general programs, after-school programs. I
am not opposed to alternative schools. In fact, I would support those.
Our proposal and our need today, the most critical need, is to identify
those young offenders who are heading to a life of serious criminality,
who have the potential to kill somebody, maybe your son or daughter,
maybe my son or daughter. We see in the headlines every day young
people committing those kinds of crimes.
The answer to it is to find out who is capable of that at the
earliest possible stage and do something about it. Most of those are
going to be coming through the juvenile court system. In that juvenile
court system, most good
[[Page S8694]]
ones--and I have visited them around the country; they have mental
health treatment, drug treatment, counseling, incarceration,
alternative schools, evaluations to determine whether or not they have
learning disabilities and those kinds of problems--try to get those
children on the right road.
That is where we need to spend our money if we want to reduce serious
juvenile crime. Spending it on every child in America in after-school
programs may be a good decision for America to pursue but we have not
had hearings on it and analyzed it. But it is an education function,
primarily. This bill--our effort, our block grant--is designed to
assist the juvenile justice system in performing their function of
identifying and confronting those young offenders when they first brush
up against the law, and to make sure that first brush is their last
brush.
If we do that, we will be investing our money wisely. I submit that
the program that is in this bill that I just shared with you is vague,
unspecific, and does not deal primarily with the kids that we need to
deter from crime; and taking the money from that program and shifting
it to this block grant and increasing it will focus our resources on
the kids that need it the most.
I yield my time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I admire and applaud the interest of my
friend from Alabama in the criminal justice system. He is a former
prosecutor and is dedicated to law enforcement. I stand not to disagree
with his concern; I disagree with his solution. There is on old
expression where I come from--I think the Senator is ``in the right
church, but he is in the wrong pew.''
I will explain what I mean by that. My friend has not misrepresented
any facts, but it is a matter of presentation here. I want to make sure
that I deal with 3 major issues. I want to lay out to my colleagues
what I am going to do. First of all, I want to applaud the chairman and
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee here. I think they
did one heck of a job on this legislation. I start off by rising to
defend--not that they need any defense--what the appropriations bill
does in this area. So I am going to first make sure we all understand,
and our colleagues' staffs who are listening understand, what the
amendment of my friend from Alabama actually does, in specific terms.
Then I want to speak to the issue he has raised, which is that there
are already a sufficient number of programs dealing with prevention. He
cites the GAO study. I want to go into some detail, quite frankly, for
the first time. These figures keep being offered and this assertion
keeps being stated. I think, although it accurately says what the GAO
report says, it does not accurately reflect what is actually being done
relative to prevention. Lastly, I am going to conclude by laying out
what I believe to be the larger prescription to putting into context
what I think we should be doing to deal with the problem the Senator
from Alabama and I--and I suspect every Senator--agrees that we have to
attend to now.
I respectfully suggest that, at the outset, about 5 years ago when
the crime bill passed--the comprehensive crime bill--it was called the
Biden crime bill. That is when it didn't look like it was going to
work, so the President liked it that way. Well, it started to work, and
then it was the Clinton crime bill. So it started out as the Biden
crime bill. The point is that it's working, so it is the Clinton crime
bill. And it is now the bipartisan crime bill, which everybody
supported.
That was the first time in the 25 years I have been here that, on a
large scale, we learned to walk and chew gum at the same time when we
dealt with crime. We had a very heavy dose of enforcement, a very heavy
dose of prevention, and a very heavy dose of medicine relating to
incarceration after the conviction. And I think that is the way we have
to approach the issue of juvenile justice. It is the last unattended-to
criminal justice issue of consequence that we have not come up with a
comprehensive plan on.
The Senator from Alabama and I have been cooperating, debating,
disagreeing, and working with one another in the Judiciary Committee
for the last year and a half, with differing points of view on how to
deal with a comprehensive juvenile justice approach. He indicates this
is not that comprehensive approach. He is doing what is within his
rights and what he is limited to be able to do on this appropriations
bill, and that is deal specifically with what is in the bill.
So the committee reported a bill that now includes $95 million for
title V grants under the juvenile justice office. The way the committee
broke it down, wisely, was $20 million for prevention efforts, aimed at
tribal youth--that is in the Indian nations; $25 million for the
enforcement of under-age drinking laws and efforts, championed
particularly by Senator Byrd of West Virginia; $50 million for the
remainder, which supports a variety of community-based locally
developed crime prevention programs, targeted to school violence, drug
abuse, and truancy, which I think is the first thing the Senator from
Alabama and the Senator from Delaware agree on. If you look at all the
data, the single most significant, predictable precursor of youth
violence is truancy. If you give me a list of all the truants and a
list of all the other attributes relating to activities and conduct of
students in American schools, I will bet you I will be able to pick any
school district, any school, and identify for you 85 to 95 percent of
the troubled youth, violent youth, just by being able to identify
truancy. So we all know that, like the Senator from South Carolina who
has spent a great deal of time dealing in this area, as has the Senator
from New Hampshire. We all know that. They made a very wise allocation.
What would my friend from Alabama do with his amendment? He would cut
the $95 million for prevention by $50 million. Then he would take that
$50 million for so-called youth block grants. I am not opposed to youth
block grants. In the Biden juvenile justice bill, which is the
alternative on our side of the aisle to S. 10 by my friend from Alabama
and others, what we do--we believe we have to have enforcement as well.
The Senator from Alabama takes $50 million out, which is basically the
$50 million dealing with after-school, community-based programs and
puts it into enforcement efforts. Last year, $45 million was
appropriated for this, and the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions,
is cutting the program back to last year's level--that is, $45
million--for all of the nonenforcement provisions relating to
prevention.
Now, I note parenthetically that the Democratic youth violence bill
has $100 million for after-school prevention, $400 million for youth
violence block grants, which is enforcement, and $250 million relating
to existing programs, about one-half enforcement and one-half
prevention, and $150 million for juvenile prosecutors in courts. So I
want to put this into context. I don't speak for either of the managers
of the bill, but my guess is that this is not a case where they
attempted to write an entire juvenile justice bill. They were dealing
with provisions within that. So I don't disagree with the proposition
of my friend from Alabama that we have to do more on the enforcement
side as well.
The bill I have written, in concert with my Democratic colleagues--
and many Republicans as well support it--relates to both prevention and
enforcement. When I say enforcement, I mean prosecution and the courts,
and we have already taken care of provisions and have more provisions
relating to juvenile justice detention and the facilities relating to
that.
So let's get this straight as this debate is underway here. I am not
suggesting, in taking on what I am about to do regarding the specifics
of the present specific amendment of my friend from Alabama, that we
don't need more for enforcement. Again, I go back to my opening
statement. I said it is nice when we have learned--and it works--to
walk and chew gum at the same time. That is what we did on the master
crime bill, the major crime bill. I don't know of anybody saying that
crime bill is a bad bill now. What we did there is we committed, over a
5-year period, billions of dollars--$30 billion. It did not break down
a third, a third, and a third, but it was not far off that. I am
overstating it in the interest of time. Roughly 30 percent was for
prisons, 30 percent was for cops, and 30
[[Page S8695]]
percent for related programs that keep people from going into prison.
That makes sense.
Now, we should do that on a wholesale basis for juvenile justice with
a different focus. Let me specifically respond and again make the
point--and I realize I am being somewhat pedantic here. But this is not
about whether you are for enforcement or for prevention. We should do
both, and we do both. It is about whether or not the skewed alteration
of the allocation of prevention and enforcement proposed by the Senator
from Alabama is the right way to go. Obviously, I think it is the wrong
way to go. Let me explain why. First, in explaining why, let me respond
to the specific underlying, and on its face compelling rationale my
friend from Alabama offers with his blue charts.
Let me explain what I mean by that.
The Senator makes the statement that has been made many, many times--
not just by him but by others--that we don't need to go anymore into
the prevention side. In large part, the basic premise rests upon the
notion that we don't need to provide them with safe havens, et cetera,
because we already have out there 131 programs for at-risk youth with
an annual appropriations of $4 billion.
The Senator from Illinois actually knows about this subject. But if I
am the Senator from Illinois and I come on the floor and listen to the
debate, and I say, ``Look, the Senator from Illinois is one of these
guys who is always talking about cutting wastes from programs that we
don't need''--overlapping programs--I stand up, and I say, ``By the
way, we don't need to spend more money, we just need to spend the money
better.''
The GAO report says there are 131 Federal programs and $4 billion. So
I ask the Senator from Illinois why he would agree with Senator Biden--
or, in this case, with the committee--in putting $50 million of the $95
million they have in the prevention program. That is kind of
compelling. Then I say the GAO said that, not me--the GAO. But the GAO
does say that.
I am going to take a few moments to bore you with some of the data
underlying the GAO report. Maybe we can get an agreement here as to
what the facts are underscoring the basis upon which the GAO report was
filed. My colleagues on the other side--some, and a few on this side--
have been saying we don't need to do more to steer our children away
from gangs and drugs; we don't need to provide more safe havens from
the streets; we are already doing enough. I am supportive of the
argument. GAO identifies 131 programs for at-risk youth with annual
appropriations of $4 billion. And the claim is that after-school
prevention programs that have been proposed by me and others included
in the youth violence bill but included in this case in the
appropriations bill are just more of the same.
Let's take a closer look at the 131 programs being criticized over
and over again and see what we are really talking about.
I apologize to my colleagues. The ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee has been kind enough to allow me to continue to be the
ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, and I feel like I let him
down a little bit, because he has been doing about 500 other things out
there in that committee, and I should have been calling what I am about
to say to the attention of our colleagues 6 months ago, to be honest
with you. And I didn't. I didn't. Let's take a look at it.
The GAO report says that based on fiscal year 1995--to start with,
many of the 131 programs have already been eliminated since then. In
fact, 15 of the programs listed didn't even receive any funds in 1995.
The report doesn't indicate whether any funds were expended on 22
others. What you had to start with is that a total of 37 of the 131
programs either didn't receive funds or weren't listed. The number of
131 is already inflated, No. 1. You are talking about maybe around
100--less than 100 programs.
According to the GAO report, the Federal Government was spending
about $4 billion per year on programs for delinquent and at-risk youth,
a target that all of us on the floor are concerned about, from the
Senator from Alabama to the Senator from New York to the Senators from
New Hampshire and South Carolina. But when you take a close look at the
actual programs, only a portion of these funds and programs are
targeted specifically at preventing violence and drug abuse for young
people.
Let me give you two examples: $1.2 billion of the $4 billion--let's
get this straight.
You can tell I have been here 25 years because I am not a chart guy.
I was kidding one of my Democratic colleagues saying that he does this
so well when he debates. But guys like Bumpers, I, and Hollings are not
so big on charts. We haven't learned the chart deal yet. I guess I
should learn it to get into the mainstream, because if I had a chart,
it would be clear. What I do is just talk longer and probably confuse
things. But I am going to give it a shot without charts.
Let's start off with 131 programs being offered saying we have $34
billion spent on at-risk youth. The truth is, it is 97 programs, and
that is 1995. The truth is, in 1995 you really only had, at most, about
97 programs that got funded at all. OK?
Then you have a second piece. Of those 97 programs that allegedly are
targeted at at-risk youth--roughly 97--what you have is, $1.2 billion
out of the $4 billion that is spent on those programs goes to the Job
Training and Partnership Act. That was a program championed by a lead
contender for the Presidential nomination of the Republican side, Dan
Quayle, and the leading Democrat on the Senate side, Ted Kennedy. That
is their program. When they introduced the program--and most of us were
here--I don't remember any Member standing up saying this is for at-
risk youth, designed to prevent crime. Hopefully, it has the spinoff
benefit of providing jobs for kids and they don't go into crime. But
this is not to deal with 36 million latchkey children who walk home
after school without a mother or father there because both have to work
and have from 2 in the afternoon or 3 in the afternoon until dinnertime
with no supervision. That is not what the Job Training and Partnership
Act was. But GAO counts $1.2 billion of that against the $4 billion
they say we are spending on at-risk youth, violent youth.
I am sure I don't have to remind anybody that the so-called JTPA is a
program, as I said, championed by Dan Quayle and Ted Kennedy, that
while job training is important, it is not what most of us think of as
targeting at-risk, violent juveniles.
Now we are down from $4 billion to $3.8 billion on 97 programs. There
is another quarter of a billion dollars--not quite. To be precise, $245
million goes for vocational education programs. Most of the kids my
friend from Alabama and I are concerned about are not signing up for
vocational education, an important program. I strongly support it, as I
do the job training program. But, again, no 13-year old with a key
hanging around his neck after the school bell rings, walking through a
bad neighborhood and by 12 junkies to get home, says, ``My way out of
this is job training; my way out of this is vocational education.'' It
is an important program, but it is not what we are talking about.
Now we are down to about $2.75 billion and 97 programs. Actually, if
you take vocational education, job training, and the related programs,
it is about $1.5 billion the Federal Government spends. We are really
down to about $2.35 billion and 97.
Let's talk about some of the other programs. They go to very worthy
activities. I am not in any way criticizing them. I voted for them, and
I would vote for them again. I think they make sense. But they are not
targeted programs for violent youth or at-risk youth.
Let me go on.
If we are going to talk about focus--that is what I am talking about
here--7 of the programs listed are assistance for homeless youth, 9 of
the programs--now we are down to about 90--9 others are very important,
but they are for a variety of activities directed at Indian youth, for
mental health and physical health programs. Now we are down to about 80
programs.
Three other programs are dedicated specifically to mental health
services for the general population. Now we are heading down into the
mid seventies. Four programs deal with child abuse. Still we are in the
seventies--below 70. And one of the programs is for migrant health
services. So now you are down to around 70 programs from the 131.
[[Page S8696]]
I will give you one example. The GAO list includes the HHS Child
Welfare Grant Program which provides one-third of a billion dollars,
$292 million, for foster care and services for abused and neglected
children--very important services but not what we are talking about.
So now we are getting down to the $2 billion area with about 70
programs. Other programs have little or nothing to do with crime and
drug prevention. While any line drawing that I am making here--and I am
doing that--is somewhat arbitrary, at least I hope this puts it in
context for my colleagues.
Let me give a couple other examples of programs that I don't think
any of us--if we had a list of all the programs that I want, all the
programs any of us want here to deal with youth prevention, if we
listed them all on a board and I said, ``Pick the top 50 that deal with
violent youth and preventing crime,'' I doubt whether you would add the
Foster Parent Grant Program, the Food Stamp Employment Program, the
Youth Impaired Driving Project, four programs for promoting art with
youth--all important programs, all important, none of which I disagree
with, but they do not have a darned thing to do with the center of the
debate the Senator from Alabama and I have.
I want programs. I want the States to be able to say, ``We will keep
the school open until 5 o'clock. We are going to have baseball teams
for ninth graders and football teams and basketball teams for the
girls.'' None of the school districts you all live in do that, unless
you send your kid to a private school. These kids have nothing to do.
Kids need an excuse to tell that junkie they have to walk by on the
corner to get to their home; they need an excuse to stay out of
trouble.
Let's go back home to your own school districts, many of which are
strapped, and ask yourself, ``Why is it there is Little League in the
summer but no baseball teams after school for boys and girls in sixth,
seventh, eighth, and ninth grades?'' Well, the school districts don't
want to spend the money.
I am the guy who came to this floor 8 years ago and said, ``The
majority of the violent crime committed by young people is not when you
all think it is.'' Everybody thought it was done in the heat of the
night. It is done in broad daylight, in the sunlight between the hours
of 2:30 and 6.
I remember when I brought that report from the Judiciary Committee--
actually, the credit goes to the joint staff then of the Judiciary
Committee--when I brought it to the floor. ``Oh, there goes those
liberal guys again, talking about this coddling stuff.'' Now there is
not a cop in America, there is not a criminal justice person in America
who doesn't say that is the problem.
My mom has an expression, as she would say, God love her--my mother
is an Irish Catholic woman with 6,000 expressions. I went to Catholic
grade school with the nuns. I think my mother, when she wasn't having
children, was a nun. She remembers all the expressions. And one of her
favorite expressions is, ``An idle mind is the devil's workshop.''
An idle mind is the devil's workshop. You get a ninth grade kid
living in a tough neighborhood without supervision of any adult in a
school, in a family, for 4 hours every day after school, and good kids,
good kids do bad things; it is called maturation. What the heck do we
expect these kids to do? They lack good judgment. Even when they know
and care about right and wrong, they have bad judgment because they are
14 years old; they are not 24 or 54.
I ask all of you--you may be, and probably all are, a better person
than I am, but I wonder how I would have been if every day after school
for 4 hours a day I was on my own, on my own. I was a pretty good
athlete, and I was a pretty good student, and I never got myself in
trouble with the law. But I want to tell you something. I will bet you,
if I was on my own, with all of the values my family instilled in me, I
am not so sure I would have had the courage to say no to the guy who
was 17 who says, ``Hey, jump in the car and take a ride with me. It's
only Charlie's car. We borrowed it.'' I would like to think I would
have said, ``No problem. That's wrong. You guys are doing the wrong
thing. I am not going to participate.''
Let me tell you something, Jack. You are a better person than I am if
you are certain how you would have done it. And that is how this
incrementally starts. It doesn't start with a 13-year-old kid waking up
saying, ``You know, I am going out and get a MAC-9, walk into the 7-
Eleven, blow away the guy behind the counter, and get $17 in cash so I
can go buy myself some dope.'' That is not how it works.
And so what are we doing here? Well, once you winnow out the programs
for problems like child abuse and mental illness, once you exclude the
programs directed at narrow populations, I believe that only 41 of the
131 programs in the GAO list, spending out at about $1.1 billion in
appropriations a year, are targeted specifically at juvenile crime and
drug prevention. And of that total of $1.1 billion, $639 million, over
half, went to just two programs, one of which I am responsible for
coauthoring, so I obviously support it, and the other which I support
as well--over half went to just two programs; $467 million went to the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act and community programs.
Now, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act is the act we passed here,
got funded. Then 1 day I guess the Speaker woke up and said, ``We think
that's a bad idea,'' and they cut it. The public went bananas, and they
put it back in; it is OK. Of the $1.1 billion for at-risk youth, $467
million goes to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, and my Republican
colleagues boosted that appropriation last year to $556 million, a move
I fully support and compliment the Republican leadership for doing,
particularly since the House wanted to eliminate it.
So now you are talking, of the $1.1 billion, $639 million of it, over
half of it, is going for programs that, again, are not about after
school. Then $172 million of the remaining roughly $400 million went to
the Upward Bound Program--important. It provides mentoring, tutoring,
and life skill training. If my friend does not understand what work
awareness is, work awareness is a lot of these kids grow up in a family
with no sense, no notion, no responsibility, no image, no example of
what work means. Unless something has happened, birds learn to fly by
watching their parents, ducks learn to paddle in my pond watching their
parents, snakes learn to slither, turtles learn to swim. Where the heck
do you think we learn? Where do you think our kids learn? It is a good
program, but it is directed at disadvantaged high school students, this
$172 million in the Upward Bound Program, to encourage children--
targeted at economically disadvantaged children--to continue their
education. That is very important. It indirectly has an impact on
crime. But, again, it certainly is not a targeted crime prevention
program.
Then, of course, the GAO attributes about $146 million to 11 programs
in the juvenile justice office, only a few of which are proposed to be
consolidated in the Republican crime bill.
That is roughly $400 million for about 27 crime and drug prevention
programs, some of which are tiny demonstration or pilot projects that
cover no more than a handful of sites across the country and are
designed to study what works and what does not. For example, in the
list of that $400 million, $200,000 is for a demonstration grant
program for residential drug treatment for women with young children--
important, but, again, not what we are talking about.
So the impression given here that there are more than 130 Federal
prevention programs designed to target at-risk youth is simply not an
accurate reflection. In all of the cities and towns across America, and
serving every child we can help, there are fewer than 40 programs for
about $400 million. And what my friend from Alabama is saying, relying
on the GAO report, is: You know, that is about as much as we can do.
Government is already doing all it can and should do to stop kids from
turning to gangs, crime, and drugs. But we have just seen many of the
programs that are listed as targeted that, in fact, do not do that at
all.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BIDEN. I do want to finish this at some point, but I will be
happy to yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator not agree with me that one thing we have
[[Page S8697]]
heard, talking with law enforcement people--not somebody who just looks
at this from a theoretical point of view, but law enforcement people--
is that the issue of prevention comes up over and over again? The
Senator from Delaware, of course, addressed this in his original
legislation. It was, as the Senator from Delaware will recall, a matter
of some debate, both in the committee and on the floor. As I recall, in
some of the conference committees we went to 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in
the morning several times, discussing the issue of prevention.
I believe the Senator from Delaware will recall, as I do, the number
of police officers and police officials who came to us and said stay
with prevention programs.
In many ways, it just makes such great sense. As a former prosecutor,
I remember that it was always the prevention programs that worked the
best. So I ask the Senator from Delaware, does he not agree with what
the President of the National Sheriffs Association says, in an open
letter?
After he speaks of the problems of juvenile crime, the President of
the National Sheriffs Association says:
So what is the answer? We must adopt a three-pronged
approach to juvenile violence--prevention, intervention and
enforcement. These recent statistics indicate the need for a
comprehensive prevention strategy that includes education and
community involvement, and addresses the root causes of
delinquency. We can no longer afford to focus only on
treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. Sheriffs
offices, through prevention programs . . . [the letter lists
a number of them] can make a difference in the lives of
children who still have a choice ahead of them as to whether
or not to try drugs, join a gang, steal a car, or otherwise
start on the slippery slope of a life of crime.
Wouldn't the Senator from Delaware agree with the head of the
National Sheriffs Association and me and so many others who say keep
these prevention programs going, do not take money away from the
prevention programs, but accept the fact that they are now beginning to
work and work very well? This is not the time to cut them off. This is
not the time to change these prevention programs into some kind of a
block grant program that would not be aimed at prevention. Would not my
friend from Delaware agree with that?
Mr. BIDEN. The answer is, I absolutely do. I thank my friend for
calling that to my attention.
Let me not just mention the sheriffs. I am going to quote, now, from
a few of the leading police officers of America.
By the way, let's put this in context again. When the overall crime
bill was drafted by me years ago, the way it got drafted was, I did not
sit down with any sociologists or academics or welfare workers or, you
know, liberal think tanks. I literally called in the presidents of the
seven leading police organizations in America, from NAPO to NOBLE, FOP,
et cetera. They sat around my conference table for the better part of 4
months.
I said: You tell me what you need. What do you think you need to
fight crime?
In the overall crime bill, they said they needed about a third of it
going to prevention.
When I sat down to draft the juvenile justice bill for our side of
the aisle, with my colleagues, as a follow-on, I called the same people
back in. Some of the presidents were changed. They were not all the
same officers, the same people. To a person, they reinforced what the
Senator from Vermont just said.
Let me give an example. Mr. President, 170 police chiefs, sheriffs,
prosecutors, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, the
International Union of Police Associations, and the leaders of the
Crime Victims Organization, came out with a call for action. They title
it ``A Call For Action From America's Front Line Against Crime,'' made
up of those organizations I just named. On February 5, 1998, here is
what they said:
As police, prosecutors, crime survivors, we struggle every
day against crime and its devastating impact. We are
determined to see that dangerous criminals are arrested and
put behind bars. But anyone who thinks that jailing the
criminal is enough to undo the agony that crime leaves in its
wake hasn't seen crime up close. That is why no one knows
better than we that the most important weapons against crime
are investments that keep kids from becoming criminals,
investments which enable all children to get the right start
they need to become contributing citizens, and would show
them that as adults they would be able to meet their
families' basic needs through hard work.
(Mr. SMITH of Oregon assumed the chair.)
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. I enjoyed listening to the Senator. I think he
suggested something that, maybe indirectly, he didn't mean to.
First, I want to say I am aware of and respect and appreciate what
the Senator has done over the years on crime prevention and law
enforcement. But the Senator is not suggesting, I don't think, that any
one of these programs is targeted for reduction in any fashion by this
amendment, is he? This amendment would simply take a new program and
not increase it as much as my colleague and others may prefer to, but
none of these programs is threatened. It is not a block grant of any
existing programs?
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator for his question. He is absolutely
accurate. I am not suggesting in any way that any of the 131 programs
listed by GAO would fall to his amendment in any way.
What I am suggesting is, the very compelling argument he makes, when
examined, is not as compelling as it appears. And that is, I believe he
offered those charts as evidence that we were already doing a great
deal on the prevention side.
He is not against prevention. I am not suggesting that either. But he
is basically suggesting, as many others have, that we are already doing
this massive effort, totaling about $4 billion and 131 programs, to
deal with prevention. He believes that what my friends from South
Carolina and New Hampshire did by adding $50 million for more
prevention is misplaced and it should be placed on the enforcement side
of the equation.
The reason I went through in great detail why it is really only about
40 programs and really only about $400 million is to make the point
that we are not doing nearly enough on prevention, and to take this
paltry sum of $50 million out of prevention, as proposed by my friends
on the Appropriations Committee, and put it into enforcement would be a
misallocation of a limited number of resources. That is the overall
point.
Secondly, I should point out, which I didn't, to put together this
little syllogism, that my friend from South Carolina and the chairman
of the committee, in fact, allocate $3.5 billion to enforcement just in
the Justice Department. Our friends who are the managers of this bill
are not--if one listened only to this debate, one would think this
debate were about $400 million in youth prevention Federal Government-
wide, all the programs I just said. It is not.
My friends are putting $50 million into prevention and $3.5 billion
in this bill, in their appropriations bill, into enforcement. It breaks
down: On Byrne grants, \1/2\ billion dollars; local law enforcement
grants, $460 million; prison grants, $711 million; reimbursement of
prison costs for aliens, $350 million; juvenile block grants--that is
all enforcement money--$100 million; and $1.4 billion for cops who
don't make a distinction between enforcing the law against juveniles
and adults.
Again, what the Senator from Alabama and I are really debating about,
when you put it all aside, is not whether we should spend money on
prevention and not whether we should spend money on enforcement, but
the allocation: Are the limited dollars we have being appropriately
allocated?
My argument is, my friends from the Appropriations Committee have
appropriately allocated the limited number of dollars and that the
amendment my friend from Alabama is proposing would misallocate that
money by taking $50 million out of prevention and putting it into
enforcement, which already has, as it should, the lion's share of the
money.
Let me get back to this prevention issue. The vast majority of the
police in America not only do not disagree with the notion that we
should be spending money on prevention, not only do not want us to cut
existing prevention programs, but want us to spend
[[Page S8698]]
more money on prevention. They are not in here asking that prevention
money be taken and spent on enforcement.
Let me give you one anecdotal piece of evidence before I go to the
major organizations. In Seaford, DE, a relatively small community, I
asked a question that was--and in Dover, DE, 20,000 people, my State
capital, I went to the police officers. I am going to be very blunt
about this. I have a great relationship with the law enforcement
community. They have always supported me. They have supported me
overwhelmingly as long as I have been in the Senate. I pay attention to
their concerns. I suppose that is why they support me so strongly.
I went down and met with a very conservative former chief of police
in Delaware. He raises steers on the side, and he is a cowboy. I think
he thinks my view on a lot of things may be too liberal. We had a
debate on how we should treat gays in America, and I think we should
treat them no differently than others. I am not so sure he and others
would think my view is so good and makes sense, et cetera. This is not
a guy who is a liberal law enforcement officer.
I said to him, ``If I can do anything for you--get you more cops, get
you more equipment--what would you have me do?'' Do you know what he
said to me? No malarkey. He said to me, ``Build me another Boys & Girls
Club.'' This is a hardnosed cop in the southern part of my State. My
friend from South Carolina knows the southern part of my State well,
and I think he would tell you, it is not a lot different from Virginia
or North Carolina or South Carolina. They view themselves as southern,
they view themselves as conservative, and they are.
Do you know what he asked me for? He asked me for no more cops, no
more money for squad cars, equipment, radios. He said, ``Build me a
Boys & Girls Club.'' That is what he said, I say to my friend from
South Carolina.
Seaford, DE, had a serious problem with drugs. I said, ``What do you
want me to do? What do you need?'' They said, ``We need a Boys & Girls
Club. Build us one.''
Well, we did. I didn't. We didn't. The local community, with some
Federal help, did.
Let me give you a few statistics. This is a letter from the executive
director of the Boys & Girls Club in Delaware. He said:
I would like to share with you some recent statistics --
This dated April 30, 1998. It is not about this debate.
I would like to share with you some recent statistics
compiled by the Seaford Police Department on juvenile
complaints from the period February through March of the last
three years.
The statistics revealed:
In 1996, seventy-eight (78) juvenile complaints were
logged.
In 1997, eighty-eight (88). . ..
In 1998, only thirty-five (35) juvenile complaints were
logged.
The statistics show a 151 percent drop in complaints in
1998 as compared to . . . 1997.
It is no coincidence that the drop in complaints directly corresponds
to the opening of the western Sussex Club for Boys and Girls on
February 1, 1998.
I say to my colleagues, this ``ain't'' rocket science. This is not
rocket science. There was a study done in the mid-eighties involving
three cities, I believe it was New York, Pittsburgh, and Denver. Which
took some Boys & Girls Clubs. First of all, there were housing projects
in the same demographic areas, same number of people. They put a Boys &
Girls Club in the basement of these mostly high-rise public housing
projects.
Guess what? Over a period of 2 years, all the indices of crime--
rearrests, initial arrest rate, drug use, et cetera--dropped about 30
percent.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter,
Mr. President.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware,
Wilmington, DE, April 30, 1998.
Senator Joseph Biden,
Federal Building,
Wilmington, DE.
Dear Senator Biden: I would like to share with you some
recent statistics compiled by the Seaford Police Department
on juvenile complaints for the period February through March
of the last three years.
The statistics revealed:
In 1996, seventy-eight (78) juvenile complaints were
logged.
In 1997, eighty-eight (88) juvenile complaints were logged.
In 1998, only thirty-five (35) juvenile complaints were
logged.
The statistics show a 151% drop in complaints in 1998 as
compared to the same period in 1997.
I believe it is no coincidence that the drop in complaints
directly corresponds to the opening of the Western Sussex
Club on February 1, 1998.
I am sharing these statistics with you because your support
was critical in the development of the Western Sussex Club.
Your support of $300,000 through the Bureau of Juvenile
Assistance was instrumental in the construction of the new
Western Sussex Boys & Girls Club facility in Seaford.
The following are a few additional statistics concerning
the Western Sussex Club operations:
The Club's membership has grown from 600 to more than 2,000
in three months.
More than 400 boys & girls are using the facility on a
daily basis.
The Senior program which is also housed in the facility has
dramatically increased both its membership and program
service units.
Senator Biden, we sincerely appreciate your strong support
of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware and our Clubs
throughout the country. We both know that the Clubs work.
Again, I want to thank you for your support and thank you
for joining with us in our efforts to do more for even more
kids.
Sincerely,
George Krupanski,
Executive Director.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, prevention works. Giving kids an option
works. It works in my State of Delaware, and it works nationwide. The
people who recognize it most are the law enforcement community.
Let me give you a quote from William Bratton, former New York and now
Boston Police Commissioner. Boston has had a phenomenal--phenomenal--
success in controlling murder rates, handguns with youth, and violent
crime. Here is what he said:
Those of us who have been on the front lines know that, in
the long run, winning the war on crime also will require
cutting the enemy's key supply line: its ability to turn kids
into criminals. Each day gangs and drug dealers assiduously
recruit our children for their army. To fight back, we have
to utilize other powerful crimefighting weapons--the proven
``right-start'' programs and strategies that give kids the
armor of values, skills, and positive experiences to ward off
crime and violence.
This is one of the toughest cops in the Nation. He is saying the way
we keep this from happening is to go out there and engage in prevention
activities.
The Buffalo Police Commissioner--I will not go through it --eight
juvenile justice directors, the National Association of Counties, say:
Be it resolved that not less than 25 percent of block grant
funds be set aside for prevention programs.
Prevention programs.
Police Executive Research Forum; the Catholic Charities of the United
States of America; Mark Klaas of the Klaas Foundation for Kids; Patrick
Murphy, former police commissioner of New York, Detroit, Washington DC,
and Syracuse; the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police,
who is a tough crime-fighting guy --he says:
It's time to invest in the programs proven to cut the
enemy's most important supply line--its ability to turn kids
into criminals.
Prevention.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors; Los Angeles County District Attorney--
the list goes on. I will not take my colleagues' time, but I ask
unanimous consent that their statements be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
What Police, Prosecutors, Crime Victims and Other Experts are Saying
About How To Fight Youth Violence
170 Police Chiefs, Sheriffs & Prosecutors, the Presidents of
the Fraternal Order of Police and International Union of
Police Associations, and Leaders of Crime Victim
Organizations
As police, prosecutors, and crime survivors, we struggle
every day against crime and its devastating impact. We are
determined to see that dangerous criminals are arrested and
put behind bars. But anyone who thinks that jailing a
criminal is enough to undo the agony that crime leaves in its
wake hasn't seen crime up close. That is why no one knows
better that we--that the most important weapons against crime
are the investments which keep kids from becoming criminals--
investments which enable all children to get the right start
they need to become contributing citizens, and which
[[Page S8699]]
show them that as adults they will be able to meet their
families' basic needs through honest hard work.--Source: A
Call For Action From America's Front Line Against Crime
(February 5, 1998).
William Bratton, Former New York and Boston Police
Commissioner
Those of us who have been on the front lines know that, in
the long run, winning the war on crime also will require
cutting the enemy's key supply line: it's ability to turn
kids into criminals. Each day gangs and drug dealers
assiduously recruit our children for their army. To fight
back, we must utilize other powerful crime fighting weapons--
the proven ``right-start'' programs and strategies that give
kids the armor of values, skills, and positive experiences to
ward off crime and violence.--Source: Boston Herald (November
4, 1996).
Buffalo Police Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske
If Congress is serious about fighting crime, it won't
pretend just building more jails is going to solve the
problem. Those on the front lines know we'll win the war on
crime when Congress boosts investments in early childhood
programs. Head Start, health care for kids, after-school and
mentoring and recreational programs. We'll win when we're
ready to invest our tax dollars in America's most
vulnerable kids, instead of waiting until they become
America's most wanted kids.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids, News Release (July 24, 1997).
Sheriff Fred W. Scoralick, President, National Sherrifs
Association
It is becoming ever more apparent that increasing law
enforcement, increasing prosecution of juveniles, and
building more jails and prisons is neither sufficient nor
adequately effective in stemming the tide of youth violence
and crime . . . We must adopt a three-pronged approach to
juvenile violence--prevention, intervention, and enforcement.
. . . We can no longer afford to focus only on treating the
symptoms while ignoring the disease. . . . The challenge
facing us as sheriffs, parents, and community residents in
America, is to take what is known about youth violence and
apply it now to reach at-risk youth before they take their
first step into the world of crime, and to deal firmly with
those who are already in trouble.--Source: Sheriff Magazine,
President's Message: Addressing Youth Violence (January-
February 1998).
Eight State Juvenile Justice Directors
At-risk juveniles and juvenile delinquents are at a crucial
turning point in their lives. Crime-prevention programs that
target this age group are not only essential but also cost-
effective when considering the alternative--a person who
spends part of all of his adulthood in the state prison
system. The success of federally-supported programs in each
of the states in our region prove, convincingly, the value of
investing in prevention efforts aimed at juveniles.--Source:
Letter from Juvenile Justice Directors of Delaware, New York,
New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island,
Puerto Rico, and Vermont (March 5, 1998).
National Association of Counties
Be it resolved, That not less than 25 percent of block
grant funds be set aside for primary prevention programs.--
Source: Resolution on Senate Bill (S. 10), the Violent and
Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997 (February 28, 1998).
Police Executive Research Forum
[I]nvestment in prevention can mean tremendous savings to
the criminal justice system. . . . PERF supports the need for
improvements in prosecuting and incarcerating dangerous
youths, but believes those measures must be balanced by
effective prevention programs that will minimize the need for
back-end solutions.--Source: Police Executive Research Forum
Juvenile Justice Guilding Principles.
Catholic Charities USA
We know prevention programs work. We ask that funds for
prevention be set aside to guarantee funding for prevention
programs. Our children, even our troubled and at-risk
children, are our future. Shouldn't we make the investment to
keep today's children from becoming tomorrow's criminals?--
Source: Letter from Catholic Charities USA (September 23,
1997).
American Red Cross
The American Red Cross believes that at least 30% of any
funds block granted to the states should be allocated
specifically to fun on-going, experienced, non-profit, and
community based youth development, prevention, and after-care
programs.--Source: Letter from Maria Smith, National
Volunteer Specialist, Government Relations (July 7, 1997).
Mark Klaas, Klaas Foundation for Kids
Congress should invest in the proven programs that can help
kids get the right start, not wait for more innocent
Americans to get hurt or killed and then pretend that prisons
are a substitute for prevention. No punishment can undo a
crime. It is a tragedy--and a travesty--that too few
politicians are even talking about making investments that
help children become caring citizens instead of brutal
criminals.--Source: Fight Crime; Invest in Kids, News Release
(July 24, 1997).
Patrick Murphy, Former Police Commissioner in New York,
Detroit, Washington, D.C. and Syracuse
When police chiefs hear someone say we can't afford
investments in programs that help kids get the right start,
we see more bright yellow crime scene tape, more prisons, and
thousands of good men and women and boys and girls lying in
pools of blood.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, New
Release (July 3, 1997).
Gilbert Gallegos, National President, Fraternal Order of
Police
Its time to invest in the programs proven to cut the
enemy's most important supply line--its ability to turn kids
into criminals.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, New
Release (February 5, 1998).
United States Conference of Mayors
We stand ready to support juvenile crime legislation which
is flexible both in terms of the requirements states must
meet to receive funds and the purposes for which the funds
may be used. Specifically, we believe that the legislation
should . . . increase the portion of the funds which may be
used for prevention and treatment, and assure that there is
sufficient funding available for these purposes.--Source:
Letter from Jerry Abramson, Chair, Task Force on Youth
Violence, February 11, 1998.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti
We need a multi-pronged approach. We must attack juvenile
crime before it starts by using effective crime prevention
programming. We also must recognize that there are violent
juvenile criminals, particularly gang members, whose crimes
are very serious, whose punishment should be severe and for
whom lengthy incarceration is appropriate.--Source: Testimony
Before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and
Families, April 7, 1997.
Winston-Salem Chief of Police George Sweat
Our fight against crime needs to start in the high chair,
not wait for the electric chair. When Congress and state
legislatures ignore child care and after-school programs,
they force police to fight crime with one hand tied behind
our backs.
Mecklenburg County District Attorney Peter Gilchrist
Prosecutors know America will never win the war on crime
until it invests more in getting kids the right start. We can
pay now or pay later.--Source: Charlotte Observer (October
28, 1996).
Raleigh Police Chief Mitchell Brown
Politicians need to decide if they'd rather just strut like
gang members out to prove they're the toughest on their turf,
or pay attention to all the overwhelming proof that they
could dramatically cut crime if they'd only invest in
programs for kids.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, News
Release (July 24, 1997).
Jean Lewis, President, National Organization of Parents of
Murdered Children
To make America safe, we need to be as willing to guarantee
our kids space in child care or an after-school program as we
are to guarantee a criminal room and board in a prison cell.
If we want to do more than flex our muscles and talk about
crime--if we want to really keep Americans safe--we must
start investing in the programs we know can steer kids down
the right path.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Quality
Child Care and After-School Programs (February, 1998).
Knoxville Police Chief Phil Keith
When we know the peak hours for juvenile crime are between
3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon, it's just common sense to
provide after school programs. When studies show that denying
at-risk kids participation in a high school enrichment
program quadrupled the chance that they would be arrested,
and that excluding them from early childhood programs made
them five times more likely to become chronic lawbreakers as
adults, it's just common sense to include those programs in
our juvenile crime strategy.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in
Kids, News Release (July 24, 1997).
Ellen Halbert, Crime Victim, Former Vice-Chair Texas Board of
Criminal Justice
When politicians focus only on closing jail doors after a
crime has been committed, they're leaving the door wide open
for more innocent people to become crime victims.
Shortsighted policies like these are a prescription for
disaster.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, News Release
(July 24, 1997).
Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan
Politics aside, what's important is to do what's best for
kids, and the best way to fight crime is to prevent it from
happening in the first place.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest in
Kids (Illinois), News Release (April 30, 1997).
Bloomingdale Police Chief Gary Schira, President of the
Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
Our most powerful weapons to make Illinois safe for our
families are investments in the proven programs that help
kids get the right start, so they become contributing
citizens instead of criminals.--Source: Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids (Illinois), News Release (April 30, 1997).
McClean County States Attorney Charles Reynard
I work every day to see that dangerous criminals are behind
bars. But we'll just be on a treadmill, with new kids being
recruited to take the place of the ones we lock up until we
invest in the child development and parenting support and
health care programs that have been proven to keep kids from
becoming criminals in the first place. These
[[Page S8700]]
programs really work, and they dramatically reduce crime.--
Source: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids (Illinois), News Release
(April 30, 1997).
Gordon Rondeau, Founders, Action America: Murder Must End Now
Politicians who focus only on punishment are cheating
Americans out of the solutions that could have prevented [my
daughter's] death and so many others.--Source: Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids, News Release (July 3, 1997).
John Dilulio, Princeton University
Strategically, the key to preventing youth crime and
substance abuse among our country's expanding juvenile
population is to improve the real, live, day-to-day
connections between responsible adults and young people--
period. Whether it emanates from the juvenile justice system
or from the community, from government agencies or from civil
institutions, from faith-based programs or secular ones, from
non-profits or for-profits or public/private partnerships,
from structural theorists or cultural theorists, from veteran
probation officers or applied econometricians, no policy,
program or intervention that fails to build meaningful
connections between responsible adults and at-risk young
people has worked or can.
[I]f we really care about getting a handle on our present
and impending youth crime and substance abuse problems, then
the time has come to proceed inductively building meaningful
connections between at-risk youth and responsible adults via
existing community-based programs; focusing on the highly
particular and often banal barriers to helping at-risk youth
in particular places with particular people at particular
times; having the money to fix a broken pipe that flooded the
inner-city church basement where a ``latch-key'' ministry
operates; finding a way to transport a young job-seeker from
a public housing site to a private job site; getting police
and probation officers in a particular neighborhood to work
together on a daily basis; funding an incremental expansion
of a well-established national or local mentoring program;
and so on.--Source: Address to the National District
Attorneys Association, July 14, 1997.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize I have kept us here a long time,
but I can think of nothing from my perspective that is more important.
By the way, parenthetically, with this surplus we are all arguing
about--whether or not we save Social Security, give tax cuts, spend it
on things--I still think we should take a significant portion of that
surplus over the years that is projected and invest it in the crime
trust fund, moving from 100,000 cops to 125,000 cops, writing a
juvenile justice bill, doing the violence against women II legislation,
and making sure--making sure--that we give local communities more
flexibility in maintaining their Federal ability to keep the national
125,000--I hope it will be--cops program alive. That is what we should
be spending our money on, in my view. I will get to that at another
time.
Let me conclude with the last important overall point. Many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying, as I said,
that we do not really need to do more. In a report that I offered in
December of 1995, I detailed the demographic time bomb which lies
ahead. And that demographic time bomb is this: 39 million children now
younger than the age of 10, all of these 39 million children are the
children of the baby boomers.
Each of them stands on the edge of their teen years, exactly those
years that are most at risk of turning children to drugs and crime.
There are 39 million children about to enter the crime-committing,
drug-consuming years. And the implication of this baby ``boomerang'' as
the demographers call it, even if we do everything right, and at the
rate which kids commit crimes--assuming we do everything right and the
rate at which kids now commit crimes does not go up one one-hundredth
of 1 percent--even if those things occurred, that there is absolutely
no change in the rate of crime, we will have a 20-percent increase in
juvenile murders by the year 2005, which will mean an increase of the
overall murder toll by 5 percent, even if we do every single thing
right and there is not one one-hundredth of 1 percent increase in the
rate in which juveniles commit crime.
Why? Thirty-nine million children, the largest cadre of youth since
my parents were busy in World War II, about to enter their crime-
committing years.
I see my friend standing. I have another 10 minutes or so. I will
yield to him, but not yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. No. Go ahead and finish, I say to my friend.
Mr. BIDEN. Let me speed this up.
Mr. LEAHY. We do have a number of people who want to speak on the
same subject.
Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield the floor in a moment.
Clearly, most of the 39 million children in this baby boomerang will
never turn to crime and never turn to drugs. But equally clear, we will
have a rising number of at-risk children, at-risk children who are at
risk to turning to drugs, at risk of being the victims of violence, and
at risk of turning to crime.
Let me offer two more figures to indicate the size of the problem we
face in the next 10 years. Seventy-seven percent of women with high-
school-age children are working moms--77 percent. And all told, about
14 million school-age children have working moms. In all likelihood,
this means that these 14 million children will be leaving school after
school, unless they come from affluent families, with no supervision
after school until mom gets home.
That is not a criticism of moms working, it is a criticism of our
failure to recognize the demographic change as well as the social
change that has taken place in America.
For the rising number of at-risk children, I believe we have to
discuss what has become a dirty word among Washington politicians, even
though it is a word I hear over and over again from prosecutors and
police chiefs and people in the juvenile justice system and what their
solution to the violent problem is. It is prevention--prevention.
We must keep as many of these at-risk children as possible away from
drugs and crime in the first place. In the most practical terms, that
means keeping kids busy and supervised from 3 o'clock in the afternoon
until the dinner hour. Those 3 hours represent about 12 percent of the
day, about 20 percent of the hours that our kids are awake; and 40
percent of all juvenile crime that is committed in America is in those
3 hours.
That is why I strongly oppose--strongly oppose--the effort by my
friend from Alabama to undo the good work that our friends on the
Appropriations Committee have done. And I just want to warn my
colleagues, as I was kidding one of the staff here, I do not speak
often on the floor, but when I do, I guess I speak long.
But the truth of the matter is, there is nothing--nothing, nothing,
nothing, nothing--more important to the economy, to the security, to
the safety of this country than what we are going to do to prevent
those at-risk youth who find themselves among those 39 million young
people under the age of 10; that nothing--nothing--will affect our
standard of living, our quality of life, more than how we deal with
that issue.
I will be back on this floor at a later date and, over the next
couple years, arguing that portions of that surplus that we are
predicting will occur as a consequence of the policies of this
administration and Congress--balancing our budget and moving to
surplus--should be spent--should be spent--on crime prevention, crime
enforcement, and on the prison system.
I thank my friend from Vermont for being so patient. And I thank my
colleagues. I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I have had an interesting time listening to the Senator from Delaware
with his remarks about the purpose and intent of our amendment. I think
in that regard he is in error. And I think we should talk about that.
First of all, the Fraternal Order of Police, whom he quoted, and the
Boys & Girls Clubs, have supported the incentive block grants. I
certainly agree that prevention, intervention, and enforcement are the
keys to the effort to reduce juvenile crime.
And what is intervention? The experts are telling me--mental health
workers, drug abuse people, judges, probation officers whom I have
talked with at great length--tell me the most effective point of
intervention is when a child has been arrested for some sort of
offense, taken to the juvenile court, and answers to the judge and the
probation officer. His parents are involved. And if that child is found
to be involved with drugs or other psychological or emotional problems
that
[[Page S8701]]
may be involved, that is the single best time to intervene and to
prevent them from future criminal conduct that not only makes victims
out of innocent young children, who are most often the victims of other
juvenile offenders, but also prevents that child perhaps from heading
down a life of crime that would leave them serving long periods of time
in prison.
And the Senator says these programs that I have cited are not
prevention programs. I find that really stunning, to say a homeless
youth program, a program designed to deal with homeless youth, isn't a
crime prevention program. It surprises me to hear him say that.
Mental health programs, he suggested, are not prevention programs. Or
children who are victims of abuse as a child, programs that deal with
that certainly are prevention programs. By the way, our amendment does
not affect any of these programs. They all continue.
The Foster Grandparent Program, I suggest, is a way to prevent
children from being involved in crime. Art for Youth--that is what the
art people tell me, ``We need more programs to help these young people
express themselves,'' and that would help prevent them from a life of
crime. At-Risk Youth Program, certainly those are prevention programs.
I just say we have many prevention programs.
In fact, we have none dedicated to law enforcement. The fact that the
Department of Justice spends several billions of dollars on law
enforcement should not be in any way considered to have an impact on
youth crime, because the truth is the Federal Government does not deal
with juvenile criminals. They probably prosecute less than 100 a year
in all the Federal courts in America, certainly less than a couple
hundred. It is just not done. Juvenile crime is dealt with in the State
systems. That is where we have the crisis. That is where we need to do
something about it.
The Senator from Delaware is most eloquent in advocating after-school
programs. For who? Under what circumstances? How much will we spend on
them? Which agency should administer that? I suggest without any
hesitation that the Department of Justice doesn't need to be the agency
handling an after-school program. That ought to be done through the
educational establishment.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think local authorities should make that
judgment. They should decide. I don't think you should discriminate,
whether it is at risk or not at risk. It should be after-school
programs in which everyone is entitled to participate. Let the States
make those decisions, not us; but let's spend the money.
My point is, spend money on after-school programs. All of the other
programs the Senator listed do impact indirectly on youth violence. The
problem is, 14 million kids with nothing to do for 3 hours, where 40
percent of the crime is committed. None of those programs are directed
at that. We don't deal with that. We don't deal with the problem, in my
opinion.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's concern,
passion, and emotional commitment to that problem of 14 million kids,
after school, many of whom are unsupervised. I understand that.
But I believe if we are going to have an after-school program that
doesn't distinguish between at-risk kids and others, we are talking
about billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, an amount of
money of which our program doesn't even scratch the surface; we are
talking $50 million, is what we are talking about. How can we best use
that $50 million in some sort of vague, generalized program?
Let me read to you again what this statute would dispense under the
grant for prevention programs: for recreational services, tutoring
programs, assessment in work awareness skills. JJTPA, the job program
for youth, isn't that a prevention program, $1 billion spent on that?
Certainly tries to help young people who are out of work and who have
never worked before get a job. That is a prevention program. We are
spending $1.1 billion on that.
What we need to do is deal with the youngsters who are coming into
contact with the juvenile justice system. If something isn't done about
it, they are going to murder somebody or they are going to end up
committing an armed robbery and having to serve 20 years, because they
are certified as an adult because they committed a serious crime at age
17 and they have to go off for 20 years. Had we had a juvenile justice
system capable of intervening early--at 12, 13, 14 or 15, when they are
being arrested again and again--they wouldn't be down there.
I have been there. I have talked to juvenile probation officers and
judges who have dealt with this on a daily basis. I am telling you, the
Juvenile Judges Association in this country endorses this block grant
program wholeheartedly. They know that is what we need to do. We need
to be dealing with the kids who are most at risk, the ones already
coming into contact with juvenile justice.
This plan to spend $50 million more on this program is political.
That is what it is. It is a political game. We are going to create a
confrontation on the floor and we are going to say we care about
children, we want to prevent them from crime, and we are going to spend
more on all of these programs; this wide open deal--it has no goals, no
standards, no real teeth to it--spend the money on anything in the
world. That is on what we want to spend our money. Everybody who has
any support for the law enforcement community doesn't like kids,
doesn't want to see them change, doesn't care about prevention. All you
guys want to lock them up.
Some children need to be locked up. I just told the Members of this
body about the three kids who murdered a night watchman--7, 7, and 15
prior arrests for those kids. They would have been better, that night
watchman and his family, would have been better if the court system had
enough resources to intervene effectively at that point in time.
That is not mean. That is not unkind. That is not a kind of response
that is insensitive. You simply cannot allow repeat, dangerous young
offenders to be released time after time after time with nothing more
than vague programs like this to deal with it.
Do you think that juvenile judge who has given his life to dealing
with kids, do you think that juvenile probation officer who has been
working with them all of his life, doesn't care about them? Do you
think they are not going to try to craft a program that would help
those children? I am telling you, that is what is happening in America
where there is sufficient resources for it. Some of them have to be
incarcerated.
One of the greatest success stories is in Boston, MA. You have heard
about the Boston Miracle. They did two things. They targeted their
resources. A professor from the University of Maryland advised the
Department of Justice, ``If you want to reduce crime, target your
resources on the groups and the people who need it the most, primarily
those who have been arrested.'' But in Boston they took the high crime
communities, the areas where there were gangs, they confronted the gang
members and told them if they did not change their lifestyle, they
would be prosecuted. The judges backed them up. They locked up those
who were the leaders and the others quit being so active. The murder
rate plummeted. It was dramatic what they had done.
My staff member went there and visited with them in Boston. She said,
``Do you have a place to put them when they violate probation and
curfew,'' and they said, ``Yes, that was a commitment on behalf of the
community.''
So we are giving resources to the juvenile justice system to set
aside the kind of detention facilities, alternative schools, safe
houses, whatever they feel is necessary to be able to remove that kid,
discipline them for repeat offenses, and change their lifestyle.
But it is important they not be left on the street, leading a bunch
of other kids down the wrong path. If you get rid of the main leaders,
a lot of the other kids will cease to be involved in a life of crime.
What kind of a message does it send if the police arrest a youngster
for the fourth time for an armed robbery or a car theft and nothing
happens to him? What kind of moral message is that? This prevention
grant program they want to spend $50 million on says one
[[Page S8702]]
of the goals is to teach that people are and should be held accountable
to their actions. Well, I agree with that. We are not saying that the
first time a youngster gets in trouble they need to be certified as an
adult or sent off for a long period of time, but they need to be
confronted seriously. They have to have a serious confrontation with
their own immoral, illegal act. Their parents need to be involved in
that. They need to have counseling programs, drug testing, drug
treatment, and other activities and programs designed to insist that
they get on the right track.
Judges and drug treatment people tell me that it is extraordinarily
helpful when a person who has violated the law is under the gun of the
judge. In other words, he can say you will go to that treatment
program. We are going to drug test you. I expect you to stay drug free.
I expect you to be back in school. I expect you to be home at night. In
Boston, I expect you to follow the curfew I am going to give you.
Boston has a curfew. They call it Operation Night Light. And street
police officers go out and knock on the door at 8 or 9 o'clock, or
whenever the curfew is, to see if that youngster is there. If he is not
there, something happens to him or her. They don't just forget it. That
is not happening all over America. What is happening all over America--
and I was there for 15 years as a prosecutor--is they come in and meet
their probation officer. Some of them have family meetings for 2 or 3
weeks; they meet with parents and try to turn them around. But because
of lack of resources, they say ``your curfew is 9 o'clock,'' but they
don't check. Nobody is checking on these children. They do what they
want to, basically, unless they get caught on another offense.
If we want to prevent crime, if we want to intervene--and
intervention is one of the legs of this way to defeat crime, according
to the Fraternal Order of Police--if we do that effectively, we can
begin to change people. For those who want change, they simply cannot
be allowed to travel in the community and threaten the lives and health
of other people with impunity. We have to have spaces to put them. Our
bill provides matching money that States can use, if they choose, to
expand their detention capacity. And it doesn't have to be bars; it can
be any kind of facility that would allow the judge to detain them and
not allow them to just walk free--although some of them need to be
locked up behind bars.
Let me share this number with you. Since 1980, adult prison space in
America has more than tripled. Adult crime has been dropping now for
some time now to a significant degree. I am convinced that one of the
reasons for that is because we are doing a better job of identifying
the repeat dangerous offenders, and they are serving longer periods of
time. They are not corrupting others around them, and they are not out
on the street committing crimes. Many repeat offenders--we know,
according to a Rand study--commit as many as 200 crimes per year. You
may say that is ridiculous, they don't commit 200 crimes per year.
Well, that is four burglaries a week. Many commit four in one night.
These repeat offenders commit a substantial amount of the crime in
America. And the same is true with juveniles. We simply have to
identify those, and some of them are going to have to be incarcerated.
But while we were tripling the adult prison space in America, let me
share this with you. In 1978, there were 56,000 beds in juvenile
detention facilities in America. In 1994, during a period when violent
juvenile crime has more than doubled--I am talking about armed robbery,
assault with intent to murder, murder; those kinds of things were
doubling and more than doubling during that period, and we had gone on
from 56,000 to 61,000 bed spaces by 1994.
Do you see what happened? We poured our resources into adult
criminality and we made a big impact. But we didn't respond
appropriately to juvenile crime. We did not expand our commitment
there. We did not give the judges and probation officers the resources
needed to intervene effectively, to monitor these youngsters who need
close monitoring, because they are on the edge and they can go either
way. They didn't give them those resources, and as a result, juvenile
crime continued to go up, while adult crime was declining.
(Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are beginning to
see a modest reduction in juvenile crime--although many experts are
telling us that, with the demographics of more teenagers being in the
crime-prone years, in the next few years we can expect those numbers to
edge back up. I think one reason is that since 1994 States have begun
to focus on juvenile crime and commit more resources to it. It is
beginning to have an affect.
It is a myth and not true that we have no ability to affect crime.
That is not true. Somebody said that we are going to end up putting
everybody in jail. Well, everybody doesn't rob; everybody doesn't
burglarize. We ought to do something serious to everybody who commits a
serious crime. If we do so promptly and effectively, with wisdom, in a
smart way, we can affect the crime rate, and we can make the lives of
Americans safer. We ought to do that.
To me, there is no higher function of a government than to make its
citizens safe in their communities, on their streets, in their homes,
and where they go to work. What higher function could a government have
than that? We have failed in that regard. I have seen it, and I have
talked with the judges. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police, the
Judges' Association, and the Boys and Girls Club support this project.
Our proposal--unlike the one set forth in the statute already, in
which they are adding $50 million--is targeted to deal with
criminality. Their proposal, again, is for leadership development
activities, recreational services, teaching that people are and should
be accountable for their actions. Well, there is nothing wrong with
those goals, but that is not a very good crime proposal, in my opinion.
I have been there. I have prosecuted crimes, I have dealt with every
aspect of it. That is not the way to deal with crime. That is not
targeted at all. That says you can spend the money on any doggone thing
you want to spend it on.
Our proposal--the block grant proposal--was developed along with the
support of Senator Biden from Delaware and others. And we had input and
discussions with the ranking member from Vermont on the Judiciary
Committee. Everybody had some input. They may not agree with everything
in it, but it is focused on crime prevention, intervention and
enforcement. By the way, the Senator from Delaware mentions $1 billion
in prevention programs. He admits that. We only have $100 million in
this enforcement program.
By the way, also in this bill the chairman has brought out is a new
$220 million for a safe schools initiative. It is designed to build
partnerships in the communities between police and schools and to try
to make schools safer. That is $220 million in new money in another
program designed that way. What we have left out, I am telling you--I
can't tell you how strongly I believe this; I know it in my heart--what
we are leaving out is the greatest engine for reducing juvenile crime,
and that is the juvenile court system. They are the ones that are
innovating at the most basic level, when kids are out of control. They
have the capacity to effectively order them to do things they don't
want to do, and to monitor those orders if we give them the support
necessary.
So if we put the money into the block grant program, it would enhance
prosecution and define opportunities to effectuate the bipartisan
agreement that we have to support graduated sanctions or increase
levels of punishment for repeat offenders. It would provide for short-
term confinement for those who need it. Some do. It will also provide
for the incarceration of violent repeat offenders for more extended
periods. Not all the money would be for that; only 40 percent would be
for that.
It would provide moneys for programs that require juvenile
delinquents to pay restitution. It would provide programs to require
juvenile offenders to complete schooling in vocational training. Is
that a prevention program, or not? Is that a program that doesn't care
about kids, or not? Does anybody deny that we need to have some
children go into custody of some fashion? I doubt that. It has programs
to require young juveniles to pay their child support. They ought to
support their children. They bring them into this world.
[[Page S8703]]
Programs to curb truancy. The Senator from Delaware says we need to
do something about truancy. I agree, absolutely. Truancy is a key
signal that a child is out of control. School systems, police
departments, and others ought to have an intensive effort to identify
truancy at the earliest level.
His bill, if they want to put $50 million more in, doesn't have
anything about truancy in it. The program I support does. It provides
programs that seek to curb truancy by name. Then it has programs to
collect records, drug testing of youngsters, juvenile crime prevention
programs, and night curfews. Antidrug programs could be funded under
this.
We have programs to deal with habitual offenders; programs targeted
at youth gang members, trying to break them up; and programs to train
law enforcement officers, juvenile judges, prosecutors, probation
officers, and other court personnel in how to better deal with
children.
We have $50 million on the table. That is what we have--$50 million
sitting there. Do you want to put it in this bogus program that has no
standards, can be spent for anything, or a program carefully crafted,
carefully crafted to identify those youngsters who need help, and get
it to them in a way that will reduce crime?
I am sorry if I feel strongly about it. But I have been involved in
it for a long time. And I have worked hard on this committee. I am
absolutely convinced that this is a valid program. We have many
prevention programs. This has much of a prevention aspect to it. But
what we don't have any money for is to strengthen our enforcement
aspect.
Mr. President, this is a critical issue to me. It is the overlook
aspect of crime in America: How can we most effectively intervene and
change the lifestyle of these youngsters? Too often they are coming in
for vandalism, petty theft, maybe for burglary, maybe for a household
burglary, a car theft. And they come in and get involved in some other
serious crime, are treated as an adult, and sent off for 15 years in
the slammer. If we could have intervened for the first offense or two
effectively, sometimes they might have been well served if they had
been sent to jail or detained a few days. If we had intervened
effectively there, we would have fewer crime victims and less need for
housing for a youngster who became a career criminal and ended up
serving a long time in jail.
Mr. President, that is the purpose of our amendment. I believe it
meets all the standards for prevention, and for enforcement, and for
intervention. I think it is the right way to go.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It would
significantly cut the proposed funding for an effective prevention
program, known as Title V. And it would undermine this bill's balanced
approach between prevention and enforcement.
Let me explain why we should support this program.
First, it is truly bipartisan. It was originally drafted in 1992 by
Senator Brown and myself. Last year, the full Senate supported
increasing its funding level from $20 million to $75 million. And this
year, with the support of Senators Campbell, Specter and Reid, its
funding level is $70 million. Although on its face it gets $95 million,
$25 million is set aside for a separate anti-drinking program. So if we
cut $50 million, Title V gets the same $20 million it gets every year--
and there will be no increase.
Second, it relies on local communities--who know their needs better
than the federal government--to identify solutions tailored to local
needs. Let me tell you about some of these programs which get funding
in Wisconsin.
In Madison, Title V funds an after-school program for junior and high
school age at-risk youth living in targeted low income neighborhoods.
In Racine, it funds home visits by social workers and prenatal and
postnatal education to mothers in low-income neighborhoods. In
Jefferson County, it supports a program that works with school
bullies--and their victims--to reduce school violence.
And these kinds of innovative programs are supported by Title V all
over the nation. For example, in Senator Sessions' home state of
Alabama, a Title V program in Tuscaloosa, has--according to its
organizers--``made a significant impact in the incidence of juvenile
violence and crime.''
Under Title V, communities qualify for funds only if they establish
local boards to design long-term strategies for combating juvenile
crime, and if they match federal funds with a 50 percent local
contribution. Local communities know what works, and they don't throw
good money after bad.
Finally, Title V works. Nearly 400 participating communities--from 49
states--believe in this program so much that, according to the GAO,
they've matched federal money almost dollar-for-dollar--far more than
the 50 percent match this program requires. And studies confirm that
many of these programs have reduced crime in cities across the nation,
including cities like Cincinnati, Ohio and Woodbury, Iowa.
Mr. President, it's a good idea to get rid of prevention programs
that don't work. In fact, I authored legislation that resulted in a
very controversial study by the Justice Department, which said that
many prevention programs don't work. And with Senator Cohen I
introduced legislation to junk bad prevention programs and consolidate
many others. But we should keep and expand the programs that do work--
especially ones like Title V that use federal dollars to inspire local
action and local contributions.
Mr. President, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I could respond at some length to the
comments made by the Senator from Alabama. His intensity of concern and
his legitimate efforts, which have been extraordinary in the area of
juvenile justice, are something that I admire. He obviously has strong
feelings expressed by the Senator from Delaware.
I know that there are a number of other Senators who wish to speak on
this issue to express their thoughts. But I have had the courtesy of a
number of Senators who have come up to me and said they would withhold
their statements because there is a group of Members who wish to get
down to the White House for the bill signing on the IRS, which is a
fairly significant bill. I would like to get this vote completed before
that occurs.
Let me simply say that I believe this is an extraordinarily balanced
approach. We have eventually divided the money between prevention and
incarceration, for the lack of a better term. It is an attempt to
address both sides of the issue of juvenile justice within this bill.
Yes, there are other programs outside of this bill that address both
sides. In fact, there is a lot more incarceration money in this bill
that wasn't talked about. But the fact is that this is a very balanced
approach, both sets of programs are extremely credible, and we will
move forward on the issue that we are concerned about, which is trying
to reduce juvenile crime, which is clearly one of the major issues
facing this country today.
Mr. President, at this time I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from New Hampshire to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from Alabama. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]
YEAS--64
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
[[Page S8704]]
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--36
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3245) was agreed
to.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the managers of the legislation are trying
their best to move this bill along. Senator Daschle and I have been
working trying to keep extraneous amendments off of this bill,
amendments that are not really related to it, strictly legislating on
this appropriations bill. We have had some success over here, and,
obviously, there has been an effort and success on the Democratic side.
As usual, the longer we go, the longer the list of amendments. We need
to get some finite list of amendments and work on this bill to get it
completed.
It is my intent, after discussion with Senator Daschle and the
managers, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, that we complete this
bill tonight and that we have votes tonight, as late as is necessary.
Everybody needs to know that this is not going to be a night where we
all leave at 7 o'clock and the managers try to make things happen and
nothing happens. We are going to be voting into the night. If it takes
going to 11, 12 or 1 o'clock, I think it is time we have to do that in
order to complete this work.
In that vein, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments
be the only remaining list of first-degree----
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished leader yield? I have to check
two other things. We are not prepared to agree to that.
Mr. LOTT. I had the impression we had cleared this on both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Not on this side, not yet.
Mr. LOTT. Senator Daschle is aware we are going to try to lock in the
list. I must say, the list is 70 amendments, not exactly a great
achievement.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We can clear it after a while, but I am not ready to
agree right now.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if it helps, if the distinguished leader
wishes to check that, I have a brief comment I want to make about this
last vote. I will be willing to do that and you can check that.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, why don't we do that. We will withhold while
we can run our checks then. The Senator from Vermont can comment and,
hopefully, we can get it worked out.
Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the majority leader a question? May I inquire
of the majority leader if there has been any further progress in
establishing a time when we are going to consider the Patients' Bill of
Rights legislation? I know there have been communications between----
Mr. LOTT. We are ready to go. We have our bill. I think we have a
good bill. Senator Kennedy has his bill. I would like for us to just
have a vote on his bill and a vote on our proposal. I understand that
you feel you have solutions we need in this area. We feel very good
about our bill.
The problem has been last week, for instance, it was suggested,
``Well, we will need 40 amendments.'' If we have these bills that have
just been sent down on both sides, why don't we vote on what we have
instead of going on for days and weeks trying to reach a conclusion?
Having said that, Senator Daschle and I have continued to talk to try
to narrow down exactly when would be the best time to do it. We are
talking about how we can get an agreement with which both sides can be
satisfied. Obviously, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy,
wants to be involved in what the final unanimous-consent request will
be, and a lot of Senators on this side, including Senator Gramm, will
have an interest in it.
I think we can come up with a reasonable proposal. I have been
sending proposals since June 18, for a month. I continue to say, ``OK,
how about this?'' And Senator Daschle has responded. I know he is
negotiating in good faith. Both of us have a difficult time trying to
satisfy Senators on both sides of this issue on both sides of the
aisle, but we are narrowing them.
If we can get an agreement to a time certain that it will come up,
with a couple of days for debate and for discussion of amendments or a
limited number of amendments on both sides, that will be perfectly
reasonable. But I know of no bill in the history of mankind that needs
40 or 50 or 70 amendments. Why do we want to go through that process? A
reasonable number can be agreed to.
All I have to say is, just say yes. We are ready to do what the
Senator from Massachusetts asked for a month ago. You get a vote, we
get a vote and we move on. Yes; just say yes, we will do that.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am just wondering if it is the intention of the
majority leader to schedule this. We are into Wednesday of this week.
Is it his intention to afford us an adequate opportunity to debate
these issues prior to the time of the break?
Mr. LOTT. It is certainly my hope. We are working to try to get that
agreed to. In fact, it has been my plan to do that, and I am going to
be disappointed if we can't get it agreed to. I know there is good
faith on Senator Daschle's part; there is on mine. We will just keep
working until we get it done.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Amendment No. 3245
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his courtesy
earlier. I will be very brief. Any time we speak of juvenile justice,
there are, obviously, emotional issues that come up, as there was on
this. But I believe the Senate has voted the proper way on the motion
of the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire to table the
amendment.
We can all tell horror stories of juvenile justice. One that came to
my mind while listening to the lengthy debate this morning is a case
when I was State's attorney. A man I knew well died as he was telling
me who killed him. It was a juvenile. As he described it, we were in
the emergency room and doctors were trying to save his life. I was
there as the chief law enforcement officer of the county. And heard him
tell me who the juvenile was who killed him. So we can all tell
terrible stories.
What I also know, though, from my experience in law enforcement, and
from law enforcement experts I have talked with today all over the
country, is that prevention is still the best way to stop juvenile
crimes. It is almost axiomatic. And we have a good funding method that
the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire and the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina have put together in this
bill, and we should keep with that formula.
Had this amendment not been tabled, we would have had these juvenile
prevention moneys--we would have had 35 percent going to building
facilities and information-sharing programs, 45 percent into more
judges and probation officers and prosecutors and technology and
courts, and so forth.
The fact is, we are getting a handle on juvenile crime in this
country, but we are doing it through prevention programs. All the
police officers I have talked with in my State, and all the police
officers I have talked with elsewhere, tell me the same thing: Better
and more prevention programs to stop juvenile crime.
Among my duties as a prosecutor was to represent the State in the
most active juvenile court in our State. Nearly a third of the juvenile
cases in our State went through there. Over and over and over again, I
saw the tragedy of juvenile crimes occurring because there had not been
prevention programs. We did the right thing in this vote.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
[[Page S8705]]
Amendment No. 3252
(Purpose: To provide for mental health screening and treatment for
incarcerated offenders)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 3252.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
SEC. 121. MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING AND TREATMENT FOR
PRISONERS.
(a) Additional Requirements for the Use of Funds Under the
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Grants
Program.--Section 20105(b) of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Additional Requirements.--
``(1) Eligibility for grant.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under section 20103 or 20104, a State shall, not later
than January 1, 1999, have a program of mental health
screening and treatment for appropriate categories of
convicted juvenile and other offenders during periods of
incarceration and juvenile and criminal justice supervision,
that is consistent with guidelines issued by the Attorney
General.
``(2) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subtitle, amounts made available to a State under
section 20103 or 20104 may be applied to the costs of
programs described in paragraph (1), consistent with
guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
``(B) Additional use.--In addition to being used as
specified in subparagraph (A), the funds referred to in that
subparagraph may be used by a State to pay the costs of
providing to the Attorney General a baseline study on the
mental health problems of juvenile offenders and prisoners in
the State, which study shall be consistent with guidelines
issued by the Attorney General.''.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris
Schoenbauer, an intern, and Ellen Gerrity, a fellow, be allowed to be
on the floor during the debate on this piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment--and I
thank both Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg for their support--that
would allow States to use Federal prison construction moneys for mental
health treatment in our Nation's adult and juvenile corrections
facilities--allow States; States make that decision.
I am a Senator from the State of Minnesota. Hubert Humphrey, a great
Senator from Minnesota, once said:
The moral test of government is how the government treats
those who are in the dawn of life, children; those who are in
the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the
shadows of life --the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.
Today, throughout America, we are failing the moral test of how we
treat adults and children. I want to focus on children in mental
health, in the criminal and juvenile justice system, too many of whom
live in the shadow of mental illness.
According to a recent article in the New York Times by Fox
Butterfield--this was a front page piece. The title of it is ``Profits
at a Juvenile Prison Come With a Chilling Cost.''
I ask unanimous consent that this very fine piece of journalism be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York times, July 15, 1998]
Profits at a Juvenile Prison Come With a Chilling Cost
(By Fox Butterfield)
Tallulah, LA.--Here in the middle of the impoverished
Mississippi Delta is a juvenile prison so rife with
brutality, cronyism and neglect that many legal experts say
it is the worst in the nation.
The prison, the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth,
opened just four years ago where a sawmill and cotton fields
once stood. Behind rows of razor wire it houses 620 boys and
young men age 11 to 20, in stifling corrugated-iron barracks
jammed with bunks.
From the run-down homes and bars on the road that runs by
it, Tallulah appears unexceptional, one new cookie-cutter
prison among scores built in the United States this decade.
But inside, inmates of the privately run prison regularly
appear at the infirmary with black eyes, broken noses or jaws
or perforated eardrums from beatings by the poorly paid,
poorly trained guards or from fights with other boys.
Meals are so meager that many boys lose weight. Clothing is
so scarce that boys fight over shirts and shoes. Almost all
the teachers are uncertified, instruction amounts to as
little as an hour a day, and until recently there were no
books.
Up to a fourth of the inmates are mentally ill or retarded,
but a psychiatrist visits only one day a week. There is no
therapy. Emotionally disturbed boys who cannot follow guards'
orders are locked in isolation cells for weeks at a time or
have their sentences arbitrarily extended.
These conditions, which are described in public documents
and were recounted by inmates and prison officials during a
reporter's visit to Tallulah, are extreme, a testament to
Louisiana's well-documented violent history and notoriously
brutal prison system.
But what has happened at Tallulah is more than just the
story of one bad prison. Corrections officials say the forces
that converged to create Tallulah--the incarceration of more
and more mentally ill adolescents, a rush by politicians to
build new prisons while neglecting education and
psychiatric services, and states' handing responsibility
for juvenile offenders to private companies--have caused
the deterioration of juvenile prisons across the country.
Earl Dunlap, president of the National Juvenile Detention
Association, which represents the heads of the nation's
juvenile jails, said, ``The issues of violence against
offenders, lack of adequate education and mental health, of
crowding and of poorly paid and poorly trained staff are the
norm rather than the exception.''
Recognizing the problem, the United States Justice
Department has begun a series of investigations into state
juvenile systems, including not only Louisiana's but also
those of Kentucky, Puerto Rico and Georgia. At the same time,
private juvenile prisons in Colorado, Texas and South
Carolina have been successfully sued by individuals and
groups or forced to give up their licenses.
On Thursday, the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, an
offshoot of the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed a Federal
lawsuit against Tallulah to stop the brutality and neglect.
In the investigations by the Justice Department, some of
the harshest criticism has been leveled at Georgia. The
department threatened to take over the state's juvenile
system, charging a ``pattern of egregious conditions
violating the Federal rights of youth,'' including the use of
pepper spray to restrain mentally ill youth, a lack of
textbooks, and guards who routinely stripped young inmates
and locked them in their cells for days.
A surge in the inmate population forced Georgia's juvenile
prison budget up to $220 million from $80 million in just
four years, but the money went to building new prisons, with
little left for education and psychiatric care. ``As we went
through a period of rapid increase in juvenile crime and
record numbers of juvenile offenders,'' said Sherman Day,
chairman of the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, it
was ``much easier to get new facilities from the Legislature
than to get more programs.''
After reacting defensively at first, Gov. Zell Miller moved
quickly to avert a takeover by agreeing to spend $10 million
more this year to hire teachers and medical workers and to
increase guard salaries.
Louisiana, whose juvenile system is made up of Tallulah and
three prisons operated by the state, is the Justice
Department's latest target. In hundreds of pages of reports
to a Federal judge who oversees the state's entire prison
system under a 1971 consent decree, Justice Department
experts have depicted guards who routinely resort to beatings
or pepper spray as their only way to discipline inmates, and
who pit inmates against one another for sport.
In June, two years after the Justice Department began its
investigation and a year after it warned in its first public
findings that Tallulah was ``an institution out of control,''
consultants for the department filed new reports with the
Federal judge, Frank J. Polozola of Federal District Court in
Baton Rouge, warning that despite some improvements,
conditions had deteriorated to ``a particularly dangerous
level.''
Even a former warden at Louisiana's maximum-security
prison, acting as a consultant to Judge Polozola, found
conditions at Tallulah so serious that he urged the judge to
reject its request to add inmates.
``I do not make these recommendations because of any
sympathy for these offenders,'' wrote the former warden, John
Whitley. ``It shocks me to think'' that ``these offenders and
their problems are simply getting worse, and these problems
will be unleashed on the public when they are discharged from
the system.''
Some of the worst conditions in juvenile prisons can be
found among the growing number of privately operated prisons,
whether those built specifically for one state, like
Tallulah, or ones that take juveniles from across the
country, like boot camps that have come under criticism in
Colorado and Arizona.
Only 5 percent of the nation's juvenile prisons are
operated by private, for-profit companies, Mr. Dunlap of the
National Juvenile Detention Association estimates. But as
[[Page S8706]]
their numbers grow along with privately operated prisons for
adults, their regulation is becoming one of the most
significant issues in corrections. State corrections
departments find themselves having to police contractors who
perform functions once the province of government, from
psychiatric care to discipline.
In April, Colorado officials shut down a juvenile prison
operated by the Rebound Corporation after a mentally ill 13-
year-old's suicide led to an investigation that uncovered
repeated instances of physical and sexual abuse. The for-
profit prison housed offenders from six states.
Both Arizona and California authorities are investigating a
privately operated boot camp in Arizona that California paid
to take hundreds of offenders. A 16-year-old boy died there,
and authorities suspect the cause was abuse by guards and
poor medical care. California announced last Wednesday that
it was removing its juveniles from the camp.
And recently Arkansas canceled the contract of Associated
Marine Institutes, a company based in Florida, to run one
juvenile institution, following questions of financial
control and accusations of abuse.
A series of United States Supreme Court decisions and state
laws have long mandated a higher standard for juvenile
prisons than for adult prisons. There is supposed to be more
schooling, medical care and security because the young
inmates have been adjudged delinquent, rather than convicted
of crimes as adults are, and so are held for rehabilitation
instead of punishment.
But what has made problems worse here is that Tallulah, to
earn a profit, has scrimped on money for education and mental
health treatment in a state that already spends very little
in those areas.
``It's incredibly perverse,'' said David Utter, director of
the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana. ``They have this
place that creates all these injuries and they have all these
kids with mental disorders, and then they save money by not
treating them.''
Bill Roberts, the lawyer for Tallulah's owner, Tans-
American Development Associates, said that some of the
Justice Department's demands like hiring more psychiatrists,
are ``unrealistic.'' The state is to blame for the problems,
he said, because ``our place was not designed to take that
kind of inmate.''
Still, Mr. Roberts said, ``There has been a drastic
improvement'' in reducing brutality by guards. As for fights
between the inmates, he said, ``Juveniles are a little bit
different from adults. You are never going to stop all fights
between boys.''
In papers filed with Judge Polozola on July 7 responding to
the Justice experts and Mr. Whitley, the State Attorney
General's office disputed accusations of brutality and of
high numbers of retarded and mentally ill inmates at
Tallulah.
In a recent interview, Cheney Joseph, executive counsel to
Gov. Mike Foster, warned there were limits to what Louisiana
was willing to do. ``There are certain situations the
Department of Justice would like us to take care of,'' he
said, ``that may not be financially feasible and may not be
required by Federal law.''
The idea for a prison here was put forward in 1992 by James
R. Brown, a Tallulah businessman whose father was an
influential state senator.
One of the poorest areas in a poor state, Tallulah wanted
jobs, and like other struggling cities across the country it
saw the nation's prison-building spree as its best hope.
Louisiana needed a new juvenile prison because the number
of youths being incarcerated was rising steeply; within a few
years it more than doubled. Adding to that, mental health
experts say, were hundreds of juveniles who had no place else
to go because of cuts in psychiatric services outside of
jail. Mental health authorities estimate that 20 percent of
juveniles incarcerated nationally have serious mental
illnesses.
To help win a no-bid contract to operate a prison, the
company Mr. Brown formed included two close friends of Gov.
Edwin W. Edwards--George Fischer and Verdi Adam--said a
businessman involved in the venture's early stages, who spoke
on the condition of anonymity.
None of the men had any particular qualification to run a
prison. Mr. Verdi was a former chief engineer of the state
highway department. Mr. Fischer had been the Governor's
campaign manager, Cabinet officer and occasional business
partner.
Tallulah opened in 1994, and the town of 10,000 got what it
hoped for. The prison became its largest employer and
taxpayer.
From the beginning, the company formed by Mr. Brown, Trans-
American, pursued a strategy of maximizing its profit from
the fixed amount it received from the state for each inmate
(in 1997, $24,448). The plan was to keep wages and services
at a minimum while taking in as many inmates as possible,
said the businessman involved in the early stages.
For-profit prisons often try to economize. But the best-run
companies have come to recognize that operating with too
small or poorly trained staff can spell trouble, and experts
say state officials must pay close attention to the level of
services being provided.
``Ultimately, the responsibility belongs to the state,''
said Charles Thomas, director of the Private Corrections
Project at the University of Florida.
Louisiana officials say they monitored conditions at
Tallulah and first reported many of the problems there. But
in fiscal year 1996-97, according to the State Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, Tallulah still listed no money
for recreation, treatment or planning inmates' return to
society. Twenty-nine percent of the budget went to
construction loans.
By comparison, 45 percent of the $32,200 a year that
California spends on each juvenile goes to programs and
caseworkers, and none to construction. Nationally,
construction costs average 7 percent of juvenile prison
budgets, Mr. Dunlap said.
``That means either that Tallulah's construction costs are
terribly inflated, or the services they are providing are
extraordinarily low,'' he said.
Part of Tallulah is a boot camp, with boys crammed so
tightly in barracks that there is room only for double bunks,
a television set and a few steel tables. Showers and urinals
are open to the room, allowing boys who have been
incarcerated for sexual assault to attack other inmates,
according to a report in June by a Justice Department
consultant, Dr. Bernard Hudson.
The only space for the few books that have recently been
imported to try to improve education is a makeshift shelf on
top of the urinals. Among the aging volumes that a reporter
saw were ``Inside the Third Reich,'' ``The Short Stories of
Henry James'' and ``Heidi.''
From their wakeup call at 5:30 A.M., the inmates, in white
T-shorts and loose green pants, spend almost all their time
confined to the barracks. They leave the barracks only for
marching drills, one to three hours a day of class and an
occasional game of basketball. There is little ventilation,
and temperatures in Louisiana's long summers hover
permanently in the 90's.
The result, several boys told a visitor, is that some of
them deliberately start trouble in order to be disciplined
and sent to the other section of Tallulah, maximum-security
cells that are air-conditioned.
Guards put inmates in solitary confinement so commonly that
in one week in May more than a quarter of all the boys spent
at least a day in ``Lockdown,'' said Nancy Ray, another
Justice Department expert. The average stay in solitary is
five to six weeks; some boys are kept indefinitely. While in
the tiny cells, the boys are stripped of all possessions and
lie on worn, thin mattresses resting on concrete blocks.
The crowding, heat and isolation are hardest on the 25
percent of the boys who are mentally ill or retarded, said
Dr. Hudson, a psychiatrist, tending to increase their
depression or psychosis.
Although Tallulah has made some improvements in its
treatment of the emotionally disturbed over the last year,
Dr. Hudson said, it remains ``grossly inadequate.''
The prison still does not properly screen new arrivals for
mental illness or retardation, he reported. The part-time
doctor and psychiatrist are there so infrequently that they
have never met, Dr. Hudson said. Powerful anti-psychotic
medications are not monitored. Medical charts often cannot be
found.
And the infirmary is often closed because of a shortage of
guards, whose pay is so low--$5.77 an hour--that there has
been 100 percent turnover in the staff in the last year, the
Justice Department experts said.
Other juvenile prisons that have come under investigation
have also been criticized for poor psychiatric treatment. But
at Tallulah this neglect has been compounded by everyday
violence.
All these troubles are illustrated in the case of one
former inmate, Travis M., a slight 16-year-old who is
mentally retarded and has been treated with drugs for
hallucinations.
Sometimes, Travis said in an interview after his release,
guards hit him because his medication made him sleepy and he
did not stand to attention when ordered. Sometimes they
``snuck'' him at night as he slept in his bunk, knocking him
to the cement floor. Sometimes they kicked him while he was
naked in the shower, telling him simply, ``You owe me some
licks,''
Travis was originally sentenced by a judge to 90 days for
shoplifting and stealing a bicycle. But every time he failed
to stand for a guard or even called his grandmother to
complain, officials at Tallulah put him in solitary and added
to his sentence.
After 15 months, a judge finally ordered him released so he
could get medical treatment. His eardrum had been perforated
in a beating by a guard, he had large scars on his arms, legs
and face, and his nose had been so badly broken that he
speaks in a wheeze. A lawyer is scheduled to file suit
against Tallulah on behalf of Travis this week.
One reason these abuses have continued, Mr. Utter said, is
that juveniles in Louisiana, as in a number of states, often
get poor legal representation. One mentally ill boy from
Eunice was sentenced without a lawyer, or even a trial.
Poorly paid public defenders seldom visit their clients after
sentencing, Mr. Utter said, and so are unaware of conditions
at places like Tallulah.
Another reason is that almost all Tallulah's inmates are
from poor families and 82 percent are black, Mr. Utter noted,
an imbalance that afflicts prisons nationwide to one degree
or another. ``They are disenfranchised and no one cares about
them,'' he said.
In September, Tallulah hired as its new warden David
Bonnette, a 25-year veteran of Angola State Penitentiary who
started there as a guard and rose to assistant
superintendent. A muscular, tobacco-chewing man with
[[Page S8707]]
his initials tattooed on a forearm, Mr. Bonnette brought
several Angola colleagues with him to impose better
discipline.
``When I got here, there were a lot of perforated
eardrums,'' he said. ``Actually, it seemed like everybody had
a perforated eardrum, or a broken nose.'' When boys wrote
complaints, he said, guards put the forms in a box and pulled
out ones to investigate at random. Some were labeled, ``Never
to be investigated.''
But allegations of abuse by guards dropped to 52 a month
this spring, from more than 100 a month last summer, Mr.
Bonnette said, as he has tried to carry out a new state
policy of zero tolerance for brutality. Fights between boys
have declined to 33 a month, from 129, he said.
In June, however, Ms. Ray, the Justice Department
consultant, reported that there had been a recent increase in
``youth defiance and disobedience,'' with the boys angry
about Tallulah's ``exceptionally high'' use of isolation
cells.
Many guards have also become restive, the Justice
Department experts found, a result of poor pay and new
restrictions on the use of force.
One guard who said he had quit for those reasons said in an
interview: ``The inmates are running the asylum now. You're
not supposed to touch the kids, but how are we supposed to
control them without force?'' He has relatives working at
Tallulah and so insisted on not being identified.
The frustration boiled over on July 1, during a tour by
Senator Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota Democrat who is
drafting legislation that would require psychiatric care for
all incarcerated juveniles who need it. Despite intense
security, a group of inmates climbed on a roof and shouted
their complaints at Senator Wellstone, who was accompanied by
Richard Stalder, the secretary of Louisiana's Department of
Public Safety and Corrections.
Mr. Stalder said he planned to create a special unit for
mentally ill juvenile offenders. One likely candidate to run
it, he said, is Trans-American, the company that operates
Tallulah.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Almost 200,000 people behind bars in the United States
of America, according to Mr. Butterfield, are known to suffer from
schizophrenia, manic-depression, or major depression--the three most
severe mental illnesses. This rate is four times greater than for the
general population. And there is strong evidence, particularly among
juveniles, that their numbers in the jails are growing.
The vast majority of these people, colleagues, have not committed
serious violent crimes. Some are homeless people charged with minor
crimes that are a byproduct of their mental illness. They just get
swept up and incarcerated. Others are picked up with no charges at all,
in what police call ``mercy arrests,'' simply for acting strange.
Jails and prisons often find themselves unprepared to deal with the
mentally ill. For instance, medication may not be properly monitored or
guards do not know how to respond to disturbed inmates who are simply
not capable of standing in an orderly line for meals. A common result
is that these inmates find themselves in solitary confinement.
Colleagues, 200 years ago the most common treatment for the seriously
mentally ill was jail. Thousands of people with severe disorders were
brutally locked away and forgotten. This did not change until Dorothy
Dix, and other reformers in the middle of the last century,
successfully fought to have these people transferred form jails to
hospitals.
I fear that our jails are once again becoming dumping grounds for ill
people who need treatment and care and that as a result we are
recriminalizing the mentally ill in America today.
On July 1, Mr. President, I went with the National Mental Health
Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth. Mr.
President, I want to just briefly summarize this trip and then focus on
mental health and children.
First of all--and I have talked with my colleagues from Louisiana who
care a great deal about this. Let me say that, in particular, the
warden, David Bonnette, is very committed to trying to make the
changes.
I went there because I had seen some preliminary Justice Department
reports that essentially said there were kids who really had not
committed any crimes--by the way, the vast majority of children, over
90 percent in the juvenile corrections system, have not committed
violent crime. But I heard that there were kids who had been dumped in
this facility--but the same can be said for other facilities in our
country--who had not committed any violent crimes. Some had not
committed any crime. And then, to make matters worse, there is no
medication, no counseling, and there they are. It is unconscionable.
I went to visit this facility. When I got there, I first met with
people in the administrative building. A lot of officials from
Louisiana were there, quite a bit of media was there--journalists, TV,
radio. But forget all that.
We had some initial negotiations because I wanted to visit where the
solitary confinement cells were. I wanted to find out why kids were put
in these cells for up to 6 or 7 weeks at a time, up to maybe 23 hours a
day--if my colleagues are listening. I wanted to find out why.
Before visiting there, we first went to a building where these kids--
and they are kids from age 11 to age 18--were eating. I say to my
colleague from South Carolina, he might be interested in this. Again, I
am not trying to point the finger of blame, but I saw these kids
eating, and probably 85 percent of them were black, African American,
ages 11 to 18. There are 500-plus kids in this facility.
I went over to where some of these kids were eating, and I said,
``How are you doing?'' And this one kid said, ``Not so good.'' I said,
``What do you mean?'' He said, ``This food, they never serve this food.
They just did this for today. We don't ever get this kind of food.
These clothes, we never had these clothes. Every day it's the same
clothes. Every day it's the same underwear. It's hot. There's no air
conditioning. And we don't have any clothes like this, clean clothes.
These shoes, we never had any shoes like this. Smell the paint on the
table. These tables have all been freshly painted. This is just a show
for you, Senator.''
Then I turned to officials from Louisiana, and I never heard them
contradict that. Again, I am going to end up very much in the positive
about what I think is going to happen now.
And then we walked across the compound--that is what I will call it--
because I wanted to get to where these solitary confinement cells were.
And this one young man climbs up on a roof, leaps up on a roof, and
runs toward me and a whole lot of people who are with me. And I said to
him, ``You're going to get in a lot of trouble. Why are you doing
this?'' He said, ``I want to make a statement.'' I said, ``What is your
statement?'' He said, ``This is a show. And we're all going to get
beaten up when you leave. We get beaten up all the time.''
Then I met with four young guys. One had stolen a moped. That is why
he was there. One was there for breaking and entering, and another was
breaking and entering. The point is, they talked about being beaten up
all the time.
Now, the Justice Department has also chronicled some of these
conditions. The truth of the matter is, I believe the warden there and
the State of Louisiana knows that things have to change. That is the
good news, I hope. There has now been a civil rights lawsuit filed.
There is a tremendous amount of interest.
What I want to say to colleagues, and I believe this Fox Butterfield
article was terribly important as well, but I want to just simply talk
about some of what I observed, regarding the mental health in children.
One hallucinating child was in isolation for observation, yet his
transfer to an appropriate mental health facility was uncertain.
Another child I met was taking three different types of powerful
psychiatric medications but had only seen a psychiatrist twice in the
last 8 months. The Justice Department chronicled instances where boys
were being repeatedly sexually and physically abused, and children with
mental illness were being housed with youths who had committed violent
crimes--mentally ill children who had received no therapy, and when
they are having the symptoms they are often isolated or punished for
their illness.
Mr. President, I just say that what is happening to these troubled
children who were dumped in these facilities and get no care, many of
whom shouldn't be there in the first place, is a national tragedy. All
across our country we are dumping emotionally disturbed kids into
juvenile prisons. Each year more than 1 million youth come in contact
with the juvenile justice system, and more than 100,000 of these youth
are detained in some type
[[Page S8708]]
of jail or prison. These children are overwhelmingly poor, and a
disproportionate number of them are children of color.
By the time many of these children are arrested and incarcerated,
they have a long history of problems in their short lives. As many as
two-thirds suffer from mental or emotional disturbances. One in five
has a serious disorder. Many have substance abuse problems and learning
disabilities, and most of them come from troubled homes.
Tallulah is not the only offending facility. The Justice Department
has exposed gross abuses in Georgia, Kentucky, and other juvenile
facilities all across our country. Other States are experiencing
similar problems. Investigators found extreme cases of physical abuse
and neglected mental health needs, including unwarranted and prolonged
isolation of suicidal children who are hog-tied, and chemical
restraints are used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, as
well as forced medication and even denial of medication. Children with
extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self-mutilation never
even saw a psychiatrist. This is a Justice Department report, Justice
Department findings on conditions in our juvenile ``correction''
facilities.
Mr. President, our current system fails mentally ill adults and
children. The screening and treatment of mental and emotional
disturbances are inadequate or nonexistent at correctional facilities.
Mental illness typically is addressed solely through discipline,
isolation, and restraint. At Tallulah, children told us they were
beaten and put in isolation for long periods, even months, echoing in
painful detail what has been revealed in the Justice Department
reports.
The tragedy of this situation is that we know what works--treatment.
But our current system for adults and children with mental illness
favors punishment over treatment. For children, we know that family
focused, individualized treatment, delivered in a child's community can
improve that child's mental health and prevent them from offending in
the first place. It is proven that if you integrate these mental health
and substance abuse services with schools and child agencies and you
make it happen at the local level, it provides even greater success. In
fact, linked with community services, these other treatment programs
have been shown to reduce contact with the juvenile system by 46
percent.
This amendment, really, builds on this. Under this amendment, States
receiving Federal prison construction moneys would be able to use these
funds to implement mental health screening and treatment of adult and
juvenile offenders within their correctional systems. It is badly
needed. Those States receiving Federal prison construction moneys would
also be required to develop a plan for mental health treatment of
mentally ill offenders. Finally, States receiving these funds would be
required to provide the attorney general an initial baseline study of
mental illness in their correction facilities.
We can't any longer ignore this tragedy. What I saw in Tallulah is a
national disgrace. The wholesale neglect of adults and youth with
emotional disturbances in our prisons must end. We, as a society, have
the moral obligation to see that they get the help they need.
I thank both of my colleagues for supporting this amendment. I want
to end on this note. I said it once earlier. I want to make it crystal
clear, because I am sensitive to not doing any bashing of any one
State. Yes, I visited the facility in Tallulah. I will tell you
something, those conditions shouldn't exist. I will tell you something
else, beyond the connection of mental health in children and children
who have never committed a crime, they just get dumped in these
correction facilities, and then when they are there they get no
treatment, no vocational ed treatment, precious little education, no
counseling, inadequate medical attention, on and on and on.
Mr. President, the other thing I want to say, which is another point
which I guess speaks back to the vote we just had, I tell you I am all
for holding people accountable when they commit a brutal or heinous
crime. I have said it before and I will say it again, when three 16-
year-olds beat up an 85-year-old woman and leave her for dead, I don't
feel sorry for them. But I tell you Democrats and I tell you
Republicans, anybody who believes that those kinds of conditions that I
saw at Tallulah Correctional Center--they exist in a lot of other
centers, and people in Louisiana are taking action to make things
better, and I believe they will--anybody who thinks that is the answer,
is way off base. A lot of those kids, those 11-year-olds and 12-year-
olds I met, I wouldn't have been afraid to meet then at 10 at night
before they came to this ``correction'' facility, but I wouldn't want
to meet some of these kids at 10 at night alone after they have been in
these facilities.
What do you think we will get from this with these kinds of
conditions? What do you think we will get from this when you put kids
in brutal conditions? You make them brutal. Every one of these children
who I visited with is a mother's child and a father's child. This is
disgraceful. This is disgraceful.
I wouldn't say this is necessarily the central issue in the country.
That is why I thank my colleagues for their support. But I am telling
you I really believe this amendment will be very helpful, because what
this amendment will do is it will say to the States, look, if you want
to do the assessment before you incarcerate a kid, if you want to find
out what happened by way of violence in the home or substance abuse, or
whether or not the kid should even be in a correctional facility versus
somewhere else, and you want to figure if they should be incarcerated--
some should--or what kind of treatment is needed, you can use some of
this money to do that. We have estimates of up to 25 percent-plus of
the kids in these juvenile correction facilities are struggling with
these mental problems and we just abandon them.
The second thing it said is, look, States, with your prison system,
you have to lay out the plan that you have for dealing with some of the
people who are in the system who are struggling with these mental
problems and what kind of treatment they will get. We are worse off as
a nation in terms of losing our soul if we don't do this. Frankly, it
is in the self-interest of every family in America to make sure we get
treatment to these kids and treatment to some of these people who are
incarcerated. If they don't get the treatment, or the conditions that I
described today from Fox Butterfield in the New York Times article, we
are all worse off for it.
So I thank both my colleagues for their support. I hope I will get
strong support in conference committee as well. I am very proud to have
had a chance to introduce this amendment, and I am pleased that the
amendment is going to be accepted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I have just been informed that the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana wanted to be heard on the amendment.
I understand that the Senator will speak after we agree to the
amendment. She will be here shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3252) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment by my
distinguished colleague, Mr. Wellstone, has been accepted. I wanted to
say how much I admire him for bringing this issue to the attention of
the Senate and for his eloquent presentation on what I think is a real
problem in our Nation. As he outlined, in
[[Page S8709]]
Louisiana, during his last visit, he found that one of our facilities
sure could stand great improvement. I am also positive that there are
many facilities in other States in our Nation that can also use
improvement and attention.
I wanted to say for the Record that we talk, in campaigns
particularly and finally when we get here to this body, a lot about
being ``tough on crime.'' We talk about being smart and tough because
it takes a combination of that to really drive down these juvenile
crime rates, drive down crime rates in America. We need to remain
tough, with tough penalties; but we also have to be smart. This was a
smart amendment that we accepted just a few minutes ago. This was maybe
one of the smartest things we have done in a couple of weeks here--and
maybe for a long time --because we have allowed States to take some of
their money for construction and use it for mental health services.
It does us no good, Mr. President, as we know, to keep juveniles in
facilities that are inappropriate and don't offer the proper training
and counseling, only to turn them into hardened criminals--for them to
then be released to go back into our neighborhoods and communities and
wreak havoc when we could have done the smart thing, which Senator
Wellstone has urged us to do, and what we have now done, by intervening
earlier and providing this counseling, which would prevent us from
spending extra money. But it is not just the extra money that we spend,
it is also the loss of life, the loss of property, the pain and
suffering that is caused when we don't do these things early on. So
spending a small amount of money for the proper mental health
counseling would go a long way, I think, in our Nation toward getting
us to our goal of reducing crime across the board in America.
I want to thank the Senator for his visit to Louisiana. I am familiar
with this facility. I had some dealings with this and three other
facilities when I was State treasurer in Louisiana. At that time, many
years ago, I objected to the construction of these facilities based on
the thought that it was profits driving them and not good policies
about how to incarcerate, when to incarcerate, and what kind of
counseling these juveniles would get. Sometimes they are first
offenders, sometimes they are nonviolent offenders. The lack of those
services has provided a prospective. I did not prevail, obviously,
because these facilities were built. We can clearly see now that there
are problems when our policies are driven by profits, not good crime-
fighting policies and good prevention. I am thankful and glad that we
adopted this amendment. I want to voice my support for what we are
doing. Hopefully, we can do more of it.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina
is recognized.
Amendment No. 3253
(Purpose: To amend section 3486 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to offenses involving the sexual exploitation or other abuse
of children)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an
amendment numbered 3253.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
Sec. 121. Section 3486(a)(1) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``or any act or activity
involving a Federal offense relating to the sexual
exploitation or other abuse of children,'' after ``health
care offense,''.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, we all know that the Internet has
become the tool of choice for sexual predators and child pornographers.
In fact, the Senate just yesterday attempted to deal with pornography
on the Internet by refining the Communications Decency Act.
There are numerous legislative proposals to deal with this issue.
I especially want to thank Chairman Gregg. Under his leadership in
this bill, he has provided millions for the Justice Department to
investigate these crimes. And his leadership on this issue is to be
commended--for the method which he has handled it, and the far-reaching
effect it is going to have.
I asked the FBI what tool is it that they most need to go after
sexual predators on the Internet. What would do the most good? They
tell me that a legislative change that is most needed by them is
administrative subpoena authority to quickly get records on sexual
predators--that administrative subpoena authority would do more to
expedite matters than anything else we could do.
Mr. President, the FBI has an operation known as ``Innocent Images.''
The operation was created in the wake of the disappearance of a small
boy in Maryland. The FBI found an elaborate operation being used to
lure children over the Internet. That was its sole purpose. Thus far,
the operation has net 200 indictments, 150 convictions, and 135
arrests.
Literally every day you cannot pick up a newspaper without reading
about a case of a sexual predator looking for children on the Internet.
When the FBI testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in
March, Director Freeh said that when an agent, pretending to be a
child, signed onto a ``chat room'' with 23 other children, 22 of the
23--23 supposed children--22 of the 23 turned out to be adults seeking
improper contact with the girl, the one out of the 23.
That is how pervasive this problem is today on the Internet.
What the FBI needs most is an administrative subpoena authority for
cases that involve a Federal violation related to sexual exploitation
and abuse of children.
They have informed my staff that this would be the most useful tool
they could have in order to crack these cases.
This would allow them to quickly access records from Internet service
providers regarding a potential sexual predator using the Internet to
prey on children. Without this authority, the FBI has to go through a
very cumbersome process of contacting the U.S. attorney and convening a
grand jury just to get this information.
The FBI has already had this administrative subpoena authority in
narcotics cases and health care fraud cases. But surprisingly they do
not have it in sexual predator cases involving our children.
I know that health care fraud is important. But it is not really more
important than catching sexual predators.
Mr. President, there is a very practical reason this is needed as
well.
The FBI task force on this issue has had to get 6,200 grand jury
subpoenas for routine subscriber information off of the Internet. This
would reduce the administrative burden on U.S. attorneys, and certainly
on the grand jury system. Further, because of grand jury secrecy rules,
this information cannot be shared with State and local law enforcement
officials. So once it is acquired through a grand jury, there still are
impediments to using it.
Together with local law enforcement police, the FBI needs help to
catch these people. It is very important that we move in this
direction. But this is a narrow approval of the use of the
administrative subpoena, so that cases involving Internet crimes on
children can be solved quickly and the information obtained quickly.
Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to accept this amendment.
Mr. President, I understand the amendment is to be accepted. I urge its
a adoption.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe there is no further debate on
this amendment. I urge simply a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from North Carolina.
The amendment (No. 3253) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
[[Page S8710]]
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
Amendment No. 3254
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on saving Social Security
first)
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for
himself, and Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered
3254.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE BUDGET AND SOCIAL
SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
(1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 44
million Americans, including 27.3 million retirees, over 4.5
million people with disabilities, 3.8 million surviving
children and 8.4 million surviving adults, and is essential
to the dignity and security of the nation's elderly and
disabled;
(2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds have reported
to the Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social
Security system ``is estimated to fall short of expenditures
beginning in 2021 and in each year thereafter . . . until the
assets of the combined trust funds are exhausted in 2032'';
(3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting
principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all
require saving Social Security first, in order that the
Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom
generation, beginning in 2010;
(4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, the Congress
intended that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses
be used to prefund the retirement of the baby boom
generation;
(5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session
of Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton called on
the Congress to ``save Social Security first'' and to
``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, that is any
penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary
measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the
twenty-first century'';
(6) Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
expressly forbids counting Social Security trust fund
surpluses as revenue available to balance the budget.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress and the President should--
(1) continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance
the budget without counting Social Security trust fund
surpluses;
(2) work in a bipartisan way on specific legislation to
reform the Social Security system, to ensure that it is
financially sound over the long term and will be available
for all future generations; and
(3) save Social Security first by reserving any surpluses
in fiscal year 1999 budget legislation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator proposing a
second-degree amendment?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire reserves the
right to object.
Mr. HOLLINGS. This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on Social
Security.
Mr. GREGG. May we have a look at it?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. We all voted for it. It is the same thing we voted
for.
Where do you need to ask unanimous consent for an amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the Senator does
not have a right to send a second-degree amendment to the first-degree
amendment until that first-degree amendment has been disposed of, or
has had some action, or unless consent is granted, and the Senator from
New Hampshire reserves the right to object.
Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that
the Senator from South Carolina be recognized for the purposes of
debate only, and that immediately upon the conclusion of his remarks
the floor be returned to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
With respect to this particular sense-of-the-Senate amendment, it
really goes right to the heart of the expression ``Saving Social
Security first.'' The fact is, as we talk about campaign finance
reform, the abuses and the scandals of campaign finance reform are not
corporate money, labor money, soft money, hard money, Buddhist temple
money, Lincoln bedroom money. The scandal of campaign finance is the
looting of the Social Security fund by politicians who want to get
reelected, whereby they determine every year that they have a big
surplus.
The reason for this amendment, of course, is the constant chatter,
particularly on the other side of the Capitol, about Social Security,
surpluses, and taxes.
In order to get a surplus, here is exactly the moneys necessary to be
used and even allow you to talk the language. Under the law, we are not
allowed to talk the language, under section 13301. But in violation of
Section 13301, a statute signed into law November 5, 1990, the CBO
report uses numbers of the so-called unified budget. This is not a long
report, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of the CBO
report of July 15 be printed in the Record.
I understand the Government Printing Office estimates the cost of
printing this report in the Record to be $2,222.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Economic and Budget Outlook for Fiscal Years 1999-2008: A
Preliminary Update, July 15, 1998
(Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office)
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the
federal budget for fiscal year 1998 will record a total
surplus of $63 billion, or 0.8 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP). If current policies remain unchanged, the
surplus is expected to rise to $80 billion in 1999 and reach
$251 billion (nearly 2 percent of GDP) by 2008. Excluding the
surplus in Social Security and the net outlays of the Postal
Service (both of which are legally classified as off-budget),
CBO's new projections show an on-budget deficit of $41
billion in 1998, which gives way to surpluses in 2002 and in
2005 through 2008.
The budget outlook has improved significantly in the past
six months. Unexpectedly strong revenue collections by the
Treasury in the first nine months of fiscal year 1998 are the
major reason that CBO has gone from projecting a small
deficit last January to estimating a surplus of $63 billion
today. The strength of 1998 revenues, together with a
slightly more optimistic economic outlook, also forms the
basis for increases in CBO's projections of the surplus for
1999 through 2008.
Determining the degree to which this year's unanticipated
revenues should carry over into projections of future
revenues is difficult at this time because the reasons for
the increase are still largely unknown. In January, CBO
projected that 1998 revenues would total $1,665 billion. By
March, revenue collections to date suggested that the total
would reach $1,680 billion. Based on collections through
June, CBO believes that 1998 revenues will total $1,717
billion. New economic data explain less than $7 billion of
the increase in the projection since January, while new
legislation is responsible for $1 billion. That leaves $45
billion, almost all in revenues from individual income taxes,
to be explained by other factors.
At this point, analysts can only speculate about the
sources of income that produced the added revenues in 1998
and their implications for revenue growth in future years.
Certain explanations of the sources of the additional income
would suggest that projections of revenues should be adjusted
by growing amounts over time. But others point to temporary
factors and would suggest an adjustment that fades away over
several years. After assessing the possible causes, CBO has
chosen a middle path: it has assumed that the factors
producing the additional revenues in 1998 will continue to
add a similar amount to revenues in future years.
Changes in the economic outlook also boost surpluses
projected over the next decade. A smaller expected decline in
corporate profits as a share of GDP increases projected
revenues, and slightly lower real long-term interest rates
after 2000 reduce interest payments on the national debt. A
reduction in
[[Page S8711]]
the projected rate of inflation--which holds down required
cost-of-living increases, the growth of Medicare costs,
nominal interest rates, and assumed increases in
discretionary spending after 2002--significantly lowers
projected outlays in the longer term. But lower inflation
does not have a major impact on the surplus because it also
slows the growth of taxable incomes, leading to a reduction
in projected tax revenues that offsets the reduction in
outlays.
CBO now expects lower outlays in 1998 than it projected in
March, but that decrease largely reflects temporary factors
that are not expected to reduce spending in the future.
Legislation enacted since March has lowered projected
surpluses by a few billion dollars a year--primarily
reflecting higher spending for transportation programs.
The Economic Outlook
The economy has continued to grow at a healthy pace, with
low unemployment and subdued inflation. CBO projects that
growth will slow over the next few years and that the
unemployment and inflation rates will gradually rise (see
Table I). The current outlook is not dramatically different
from CBO's last economic projections, made in January, but
small increases in real growth, somewhat lower inflation,
profits that account for a larger share of GDP, and lower
real long-term interest rates significantly affect the
budget's projected bottom line.
TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF CBO ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS, CALENDAR YEARS 1998-2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecast Projected
Actual -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal GDP (Billions of
dollars):
Summer 1998................. 8,080 8,487 8,849 9,213 9,582 10,019 10,486 10,966 11,458 11,963 12,486 13,029
January 1998................ 8,081 8,461 8,818 9,195 9,605 10,046 10,529 11,038 11,565 12,112 12,684 13,280
Nominal GDP (Percentage change):
Summer 1998................. 5.8 5.0 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3
January 1998................ 5.8 4.7 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
Real GDP (Percentage change):
Summer 1998................. 3.8 3.3 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1
January 1998................ 3.7 2.7 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1
GDP Price Index (Percentage
change):
Summer 1998................. 2.0 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
January 1998................ 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Consumer Price Index \1\
(Percentage change):
Summer 1998................. 2.3 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
January 1998................ 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Unemployment Rate (Percent):
Summer 1998................. 4.9 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
January 1998................ 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Three-Month Treasury Bill Rate
(Percent):
Summer 1998................. 5.1 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
January 1998................ 5.1 5.3 5.2 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Ten-Year Treasury Note Rate
(Percent):
Summer 1998................. 6.4 5.8 6.1 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
January 1998................ 6.4 6.0 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Tax Bases (Percentage of GDP):
Corporate profits: \2\
Summer 1998............. 10.0 9.6 9.4 9.2 8.8 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3
January 1998............ 9.9 9.7 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.7
Wages and salaries:
Summer 1998............. 48.0 48.7 48.7 48.7 48.7 48.7 48.7 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6
January 1998............ 48.0 48.4 48.5 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.7 48.8 48.8 48.8 48.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The consumer price index for all urban consumers.
\2\ Corporate profits are the profits of corporations, adjusted to remove the distortions in depreciation allowances caused by tax rules and to exclude
capital gains on inventories.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Department of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Federal Reserve Board; Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
The forecast for 1998 and 1999
The growth of real GDP is likely to slow to 2 percent for
the rest of calendar year 1998 and early 1999, down from the
4 percent pace set during 1997 and the first quarter of 1998.
Factors contributing to the slowdown include a continuation
of the recent increase in the real trade deficit, a pickup in
inflation, and weaker profits.
Demand for U.S.-produced goods and services has been
dampened by events overseas. The economic contraction in Asia
stemming from that region's currency crisis was the major
reason for the slowdown in demand, but an already strong
dollar and the slowly growing demand in Europe also
contributed to stagnating real exports and accelerating
import growth. The outlook is for continued strength of the
dollar and weak demand growth overseas, which make it likely
that foreign trade will continue to depress demand for U.S.
goods into 1999.
The underlying rate of inflation--the increase in the
consumer price index (CPI) excluding energy and food prices--
is forecast to rise slightly over the next year and a half
because of strong upward pressure on wages and a partial
dissipation of the factors that have been dampening price
growth for several years. Growth of the overall CPI on a
year-over-year basis was 1.7 percent in June, but that
measure is distorted by the sharp drop in petroleum prices
this year. The underlying rate of inflation was 2.2 percent
through June. CBO's forecast assumes that the underlying rate
will increase slowly to 2.7 percent by the end of 1999.
Because energy prices are expected to remain steady, the
forecast growth rate for the overall CPI is similar.
Some favors that have held down CPI growth over the past
two or three years will continue to have an effect. For
example, import prices are expected to continue declining in
1998 (in part because of the Asian crisis), and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics will institute more changes to the CPI that
will reduce its growth by about 0.2 percentage points in 1999
and later years. However, import price deflation is expected
to fade during 1999. In addition, medical care inflation,
which grew relatively slowly and dampened overall inflation
in the past two years, is forecast to bounce back from its
1997 low of 2.6 percent to more than 4 percent a year during
the next 18 months.
Corporate profits, which have stagnated since the third
quarter of last year, will remain under pressure through
1999. Rising wages and an expected increase in the growth of
employee benefits will push the growth of total
compensation higher at the same time that sales growth
slows. Thus, costs per unit of output will rise more
rapidly over the next year and a half than in 1997. Some
of those costs will be passed on in the form of higher
prices, but some will be absorbed through lower profits.
The anticipated rise in inflation may lead to higher
interest rates, but any increase is likely to be mild and
temporary. If the Federal Reserve Board is uncertain about
the pervasiveness of the slowdown in economic activity, an
increase in inflation may prompt it to raise short-term rates
by the end of the year. Long-term rates may also pick up
slightly. However, if economic growth slows to a 2 percent
rate for 1999, short-term interest rates will probably ease
back to their current levels by the end of that year.
The projection for 2000 through 2008
CBO does not forecast cyclical economic effects beyond two
years. Instead, it calculates a range of estimates for the
medium-term path of the economy that reflect the possibility
of booms and recessions. CBO then presents the middle of that
range as its baseline projection of the economy for 2000
through 2008. Over that period, CBO expects real GDP to grow
at an average rate of 2.2 percent a year, the CPI to increase
at an average rate of 2.5 percent, and short-term interest
rates to average 4.5 percent.
The small variations in real GDP growth and other variables
during that period that are apparent in Table I do not stem
from any assumptions about cyclical effects in those years.
The slight drop in the projected growth rate of real GDP
between 2002 and 2008 reflects a demographic assumption that
growth of the labor force will slow in line with slower
growth of the working-age population and an assumption that
growth of investment will return to a lower, long-term trend.
In order to achieve the projected average values assumed over
the 2000-2008 period without having a misleadingly sudden
drop at the end of 1999, CBO phases in reductions in
inflation, interest rates, and profits as a share of GDP over
the first few years of the projection period.
Changes since January
CBO now forecasts that real GDP in 1998 will be higher than
it anticipated in January and projects that real GDP will
grow, on average, about 0.1 percentage point a year faster
over the entire 1998-2008 period than was projected at that
time.
Inflation, whether measured by the consumer price index or
the GDP price index, is lower this year than was forecast in
January, largely because of a drop in energy prices.
Inflation is expected to rise over the next two years, with
the increase in the CPI projected to grow from 1.7 percent in
1998 to 2.7 percent in 2000. However, the average
[[Page S8712]]
growth rate for the CPI from 2002 through 2008 is projected
to be 2.5 percent a year--about 0.3 percentage points lower
than had been projected in January. Because of changes that
the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made or plans to make in
how it measures the CPI, the 2.7 percent inflation projected
for 2000 is comparable to 3.4 percent inflation calculated on
the basis of the measurement techniques used before 1995. The
Federal Reserve Board is unlikely to be satisfied with
inflation at that rate over a long period; thus, CBO assumes
that inflation will be lower, on average, after 2000.
The GDP price index is also projected to increase at a
slower pace than CBO anticipated in January. That assumption
of lower inflation significantly reduces both nominal GDP and
the total national income and product account (NIPA) tax base
in the latter years of the projection period. As a share of
GDP, however, the total tax base is higher in the current
projection than it was in January. Corporate profits as a
share of GDP in 1998 and 1999 are similar to the previous
forecast, but the projection for subsequent years is
significantly higher than before (although the share still
drops over time). CBO increased that projection because of
lower projected interest rates, which reduce the debt-service
costs of companies and boost profits. The projection for
wages and salaries as a share of GDP has changed little since
January.
Nominal interest rates are lower than previously projected
because of the assumed decline in inflation. The outlook for
real (inflation-adjusted) short-term interest rates is
unchanged from January. However, inflation-adjusted long-term
rates are projected to be lower because of the dramatic
reduction in the variation of inflation. Such a reduction
tends to reduce investors' concerns about locking in
investments for the long term and reduces the extra
interest--the inflation risk premium--that they demand on
long-term investments.
Uncertainty of the outlook
One source of errors in predicting the future performance
of the economy is data on its recent performance. Reported
data on GDP and the components of national income are
regularly revised, sometimes by quite large amounts. Because
forecasts necessarily depend on the economic data that are
currently available, the likelihood of revisions to those
data increases the uncertainty of any forecast.
In addition, there is a risk that future events will cause
a significant divergence from the path laid out in the new
forecast. The economy could be more adversely affected by the
Asian crisis than CBO assumes; the tightness of the labor
market could cause a significant jump in the rate of
inflation (such as the increase of 3 percentage points that
occurred in the 1960s); or the stock market could drop
precipitously. Conversely, the Asian crisis could have little
additional effect on the United States; productivity growth
might remain higher than CBO anticipates, which would permit
a continuation of rapid noninflationary growth and stronger
profits; or labor force participation rates might again
increase rapidly, easing pressures on the labor market for a
few years. Such alternative outcomes could have a substantial
effect on the budget, increasing or decreasing its bottom
line by $100 billion or more in a single year.
The budget outlook
In March, CBO projected that the total federal budget would
show a surplus of $8 billion in fiscal year 1998--the first
surplus in almost 30 years--but warned that the final budget
numbers for the year could quite easily show a small deficit
or a larger surplus. With actual spending and revenues
reported for three-quarters of the fiscal year, a surplus
this year is now virtually certain, and CBO has boosted its
projection of that surplus to $63 billion (see Table 2).
Moreover, the improvement in the budget outlook for 1998--
primarily associated with higher-than-anticipated
revenues--seems likely to carry over to future years as
well. Assuming that policies remain unchanged, CBO
projects that the surplus will generally increase over the
next 10 years, reaching $251 billion (1.9 percent of GDP)
in 2008.
Although the total budget is expected to show a healthy
surplus in 1998, CBO expects that there will still be an on-
budget deficit. On-budget revenues (which by law exclude
revenues earmarked to Social Security) are projected to be
$41 billion less than on-budget spending (which excludes
spending for Social Security benefits and administrative
costs and the net outlays of the Postal Service, but includes
general fund interest payments to the Social Security trust
funds). By 2002, and in 2005 through 2008, the budget will be
balanced even when off-budget revenues and spending are
excluded from the calculation.
TABLE 2.--CHANGES IN CBO BUDGET PROJECTIONS SINCE MARCH 1998
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1998 Baseline Surplus............... 8 9 1 13 67 53 70 75 115 130 138
=============================================================================================================
Changes:
Legislative:
Revenues.......................... 1 1 (\1\) -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1
Outlays \2\....................... -1 -3 -4 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1 -1 (\1\) 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................ (\2\) -2 -4 -5 -5 -4 -4 (\2\) 1 1 2
=============================================================================================================
Economic:
Revenues.......................... 7 13 15 5 (\1\) -3 -10 -17 -24 -33 -43
Outlays........................... 1 9 10 12 16 24 32 40 48 56 63
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................ 8 22 25 17 16 21 22 24 23 23 21
=============================================================================================================
Technical
Revenues.......................... 30 48 50 51 49 50 49 51 52 52 55
Outlays \2\.......................
Other than debt service....... 16 -1 (\1\) -1 -1 (\1\) -2 -1 (\1\) 1 1
Debt service.................. 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 26 30 34
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................... 48 51 57 61 61 66 65 72 78 83 90
=============================================================================================================
Total Changes............... 55 71 78 73 72 82 84 96 102 106 113
=============================================================================================================
Summer 1998 Baseline Surplus.............. 63 80 79 86 139 136 154 170 217 236 251
=============================================================================================================
Memorandum:
Total Change in Revenues.............. 38 62 65 56 48 46 37 35 29 20 13
Total Change in Outlays............... 18 9 13 17 23 37 46 61 73 86 99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500 million.
\2\ Increases in outlays are shown with a negative sign because they reduce surpluses.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Changes since March
Actual revenues for 1998 reported by the Treasury have been
higher and actual outlays have been lower than CBO had
projected in March. Revenues now seem likely to reach $1,717
billion this year, $38 billion (2.2 percent) higher than the
March estimate and $53 billion (3.2 percent) higher than CBO
projected in January. CBO also expects total outlays of
$1,654 billion this year, $18 billion (1.1 percent) less than
projected in March.
The unexpected revenues in 1998 have led CBO to boost its
projection of revenues in later years because some of the
unknown factors that have affected 1998 taxes will probably
continue to have an impact. The reductions in 1998 spending,
by contrast, result largely from temporary factors and have
little effect on CBO's projections of spending beyond 1998.
CBO's spending and revenue projections incorporate the
effects of legislation enacted since March, but those effects
are relatively small. Changes prompted by CBO's new economic
projections have had a larger effect on the budget
projections, but not nearly as large as the revisions
stemming from the increased 1998 revenues. The most
significant change in the economic outlook is a decline in
projected inflation, but that change has a limited impact on
projected surpluses because it lowers both spending and
revenues.
Changes in Projected Revenues. In January, CBO predicted
that revenues would total $1,665 billion in 1998. That
projection was based on actual collections reported through
November, economic data available at that time, and CBO's
forecast of economic activity through the rest of the year.
In March, actual collections reported through January let CBO
to raise its projection to $1,680 billion. Based on actual
collections reported through June, revised economic data, and
a new economic forecast, CBO now expects total collections of
$1,717 billion for the year.
[[Page S8713]]
Revisions to data on aggregate wages and salaries, corporate
profits, and other variables reported in the national income
and product accounts, and to CBO's forecast of those NIPA
variables, explain about $7 billion of the $53 billion
increase in projected revenues since January (Higher-than-
expected wages have boosted projected individual income and
payroll taxes by $11 billion, including the effects of
bracket creep, but lower profits have reduced corporate
income taxes by $5 billion.) Legislation enacted since
March explains an additional $1 billion of the increase.
That leaves a $45 billion increase in expected revenues to
be explained by other factors.
What is known from the data on actual collections is that
the $45 billion increase in the projection results almost
entirely from additional individual income taxes. About one-
third of the unexplained increase was in final payments in
April, which reflect tax liabilities on income received in
calendar year 1997. One-third was in higher-than-expected
with-holding on 1998 incomes. The other one-third was in
higher-than-expected estimated tax payments on 1998
liabilities, which are also based on 1998 incomes.
However, available data provide virtually no information
about the sources of the increased income that generated
those tax collections. A well-founded explanation of the
unexpected revenues would require detailed information from
tax returns about the incomes that generated tax liabilities
in calendar years 1997 and 1998. But such information is
available only through 1996. Sufficient data on 1997 incomes
and tax liabilities will not be available until late this
year, and data on 1998 liabilities will not be available
until late 1999.
This year will be the third year in a row in which actual
revenues exceed the amount CBO estimated in its winter
baseline projections. The unexpected revenues represented 1.7
percent of total revenues in 1996, 4.6 percent in 1997, and
are likely to represent 3.1 percent this year. Some of the
explanations for the additional revenues in the previous two
years could apply to the unexplained revenues in 1998. CBO
based its projections of 1996 revenues on reported NIPA
incomes that turned out to be too low and were later revised
upward. Incomes for higher-income tax-payers--particularly
income from partnerships--grew faster than expected. In
addition, the growth in deductions lagged behind incomes. Not
all of the factors affecting the unanticipated revenues in
1997 are known yet, but unexpectedly high realizations of
capital gains in calendar year 1996 clearly contributed to
them. The explanation for the additional revenues in 1998 is
likely to be some combination of these and other factors.
How projections of future revenues should be adjusted to
reflect the outcome in 1998 depends on which of the factors
were actually at work, and to what extent. If incomes in the
recent past were higher than has been reported in the NIPA
data, that discrepancy would produce an effect that would be
expected to grow over time at roughly the rate of the
projected growth in incomes. Although the incomes of high-
income taxpayers could continue to rise more rapidly than
average incomes, they could also grow at the same rate or
more slowly, producing a constant or declining effect on
future revenues. An increase in realizations of deferred
income that has accumulated over a number of years--such as
capital gains--often is a temporary phenomenon that could
even lead to lower revenues in the future.
After assessing the possible alternatives, CBO has chosen a
middle course. its projections assume that the unexplained
revenues in 1998 continue over time, neither growing nor
fading away. That assumption, along with small changes
resulting from other adjustments, generates the technical
changes to revenues shown in Table 2. (Technical changes are
those that are not attributable to legislation or the
economy.)
CBO also revised its revenue projections to reflect
legislation enacted since March, primarily the Internal
Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Those
changes increase revenues in some years and decrease them in
others but boost them by a total of $3 billion over the 1998-
2008 period.
Changes in CBO's economic projections affected revenues
much more substantially than did legislation. Over the next
few years, the revised economic assumptions increase revenues
by as much as $15 billion a year. But after 2002, the revised
outlook reduces revenues by amounts that grow to $43 billion
in 2008. Slightly higher real GDP and a not-quite-as-sharp
decline in corporate profits as a share of GDP boost
projected revenues. However, lower projected inflation pushes
down nominal GDP and incomes, resulting in a drop in revenues
that more than offsets those upward effects after 2002.
Because lower inflation also pushes down spending, that
reduction in revenues does not have a major impact on the
budget surplus.
Changes in Projected Outlays. CBO anticipates that 1998
outlays will be $18 billion lower than projected in March.
About $5 billion of that reduction occurs in discretionary
spending. A supplemental appropriation bill enacted in May
boosted discretionary outlays by an estimated $1 billion, but
that increase was more than offset by slower-than-anticipated
spending for a number of programs. For instance, spending for
highway construction and maintenance is likely to be some
$1.5 billion less than was projected in March, largely
because of delays in providing funding for the spending
allowed by obligation limitations enacted for 1998. Spending
for disaster relief is now expected to be $1 billion less
than previously estimated, and reductions in projected
spending for a variety of natural resources and environmental
program total about $1 billion. Projected outlays for various
other discretionary programs have been reduced by smaller
amounts.
Lower projected mandatory spending in 1998 accounts for the
remaining $12 billion in decreased outlays. More than $1
billion of that reflects economic effects--unemployment and
interest rates that are lower than previously anticipated.
Legislation enacted since March as had virtually no effect on
net mandatory spending. Thus, the remaining $11 billion
reduction in projected mandatory spending is attributable to
other, techinal factors. More than $3 billion of the
reduction is in Medicare, largely the result of a decision by
the Health Care Financing Administration to slow the
processing of payments to health care4 providers. Net outlays
have also been reduced by $1.8 billion because it appears
likely that proceeds from the sale of the United Stated
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) will be received in 1998
instead of in 1999, as CBO previously projected. CBO had
assumed that $1.5 billion would be paid in 1998 as part of
the settlement stemming from the 1996 Supreme Court decision
holding the federal government liable for losses resulting
from statutory changes in the treatment of certain savings
and loan assets. It now appears that almost none of the
payments will occur this year. Projected net spending for
credit programs of the Federal Housing Administration has
been reduced by $1.5 billion. Spending for a variety of other
mandatory programs has also been revised downward.
Lower outlays in 1998 have not led to a reduction in
projected spending in 1999 through 2008. The 1998 reductions
largely reflect one-time events that either have no impact on
future spending or are likely to increase it. For example,
the slowdown in the processing of Medicare payments will
lower 1998 spending but will have little or no effect on
spending in future years, since the amount saved in any year
because of the delay will roughly equal the amount that is
carried over to that year from the previous year. And
collecting proceeds from the USEC sale in 1998 will clearly
increase net outlays in 1999 above what they would have been
if the proceeds had been collected in that year.
Legislation enacted since March has increased projected
spending over the 1999-2008 period by a total of $23 billion.
Most of that increase stems from the additional spending
provided by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, enacted in June. That legislation boosted total
discretionary spending allowed under the Deficit Control Act
by creating separate statutory caps on outlays for highways
and for mass transit while reducing the existing cap on
nondefense spending by an amount smaller than that allowed
under the new caps. That increase in discretionary spending
was only partially offset by reductions in mandatory spending
provided in the act (primarily from overturning a 1997
decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs that made it
easier for veterans suffering from smoking-related diseases
to qualify for compensation benefits).
Changes in CBO's economic projections have reduced
projected spending by amounts that grow to $63 billion by
2008. A slight reduction in anticipated real long-term
interest rates produces savings in interest on the national
debt. Much more significant, however, are the reductions in
spending that result from lower projected inflation. Lower
inflation holds down the size of required cost-of-living
adjustments for benefit programs such as Social Security,
slows the growth of Medicare spending, and by lowering
nominal interest rates, curbs spending for interest on the
debt. Since CBO's projections assume that discretionary
spending will grow at the rate of inflation after the
statutory caps on such spending expire in 2002, the decline
in projected inflation also reduces discretionary spending
projected for 2003 through 2008. Lower inflation has a small
effect on the surplus, however, because it reduces revenues
by at least as much as outlays.
Current revenue projections for 1998 through 2008
CBO projects that revenues will grow about 3.5 percentage
points faster than the economy in 1998, reaching 20.5 percent
of GDP--a post-World War II high. In 1999, revenues are
projected to grow only slightly faster than the economy and
will equal 20.6 percent of GDP (see Table 3). After that,
revenues are expected to decline gradually as a percentage of
GDP through 2003 (when they will equal 19.8 percent) and then
grow at the same rate as the economy through 2008. Despite
the decline (as a percentage of GDP) from the 1999 high
point, the 19.8 percent level projected for revenues in 2003
through 2008 is equal to the level attained in 1997. Thus,
even with tax cuts in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that
reduce revenues by an estimated 0.3 percent of GDP a year,
revenues are projected to equal a larger share of GDP than in
any postwar year before 1997.
[[Page S8714]]
TABLE 3.--CBO BASELINE BUDGET PROJECTIONS, ASSUMING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS
[By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Revenues:
Individual income........... 737 821 850 867 892 933 968 1,014 1,065 1,116 1,170 1,227
Corporate income............ 182 190 196 201 201 204 210 218 228 239 250 262
Social insurance............ 539 577 604 629 652 678 706 737 772 805 839 871
Other....................... 120 129 150 152 157 163 169 174 178 182 187 193
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 1,579 1,717 1,801 1,848 1,903 1,978 2,053 2,142 2,243 2,342 2,446 2,553
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-budget............. 1,187 1,296 1,359 1,388 1,425 1,481 1,534 1,601 1,675 1,750 1,829 1,911
Off-budget............ 392 421 442 460 478 497 519 541 568 592 618 643
=======================================================================================================================
Outlays:
Discretionary spending...... 548 552 564 569 570 567 581 595 610 626 641 657
Mandatory spending.......... 896 942 997 1,052 1,115 1,165 1,234 1,303 1,389 1,443 1,531 1,626
Offsetting receipts......... -87 -84 -79 -84 -90 -101 -96 -99 -104 -109 -115 -121
Net interest................ 244 244 238 232 221 209 198 189 178 166 153 140
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 1,601 1,654 1,721 1,769 1,817 1,840 1,918 1,988 2,073 2,126 2,211 2,303
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-budget............. 1,291 1,337 1,396 1,434 1,470 1,480 1,545 1,601 1,670 1,706 1,774 1,846
Off-budget............ 311 317 325 335 347 359 373 387 402 419 437 456
=======================================================================================================================
Deficit (-) or Surplus.......... -22 63 80 79 86 139 136 154 170 217 236 251
On-budget deficit (-) or -103 -41 -37 -46 -45 1 -10 (\1\) 5 44 55 64
surplus....................
Off-budget surplus.......... 81 104 117 125 131 138 146 154 165 173 181 186
Debt held by the Public......... 3,771 3,717 3,655 3,589 3,518 3,395 3,275 3,136 2,961 2,779 2,557 2,320
Memorandum:
Gross Domestic Product...... 7,971 8,389 8,758 9,124 9,485 9,904 10,368 10,845 11,334 11,835 12,354 12,891
AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
Revenues:
Individual income........... 9.3 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5
Corporate income............ 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Social insurance............ 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8
Other....................... 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 19.8 20.5 20.6 20.3 20.1 20.0 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-budget............. 14.9 15.4 15.5 15.2 15.0 15.0 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
Off-budget............ 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
=======================================================================================================================
Outlays:
Discretionary Spending...... 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1
Mandatory Spending.......... 11.2 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.8 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.3 12.2 12.4 12.6
Offsetting Receipts......... -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9
Net interest................ 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 20.1 19.7 19.7 19.4 19.2 18.6 18.5 18.3 18.3 18.0 17.9 17.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-budget............. 16.2 15.9 15.9 15.7 15.5 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.3
Off-budget............ 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5
=======================================================================================================================
Deficit (-) or Surplus.......... -0.3 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9
On-budget deficit (-) or -1.3 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 (\2\) -0.1 (\2\) (\2\) 0.4 0.4 0.5
surplus....................
Off-budget surplus.......... 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
Debt held by the Public......... 47.3 44.3 41.7 39.3 37.1 34.3 31.6 28.9 26.3 23.5 20.7 18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deficit of less than $500 million.
\2\ Deficit or surplus of less than 0.05 percent of GDP.
Source: Congress Budget Office.
Although CBO assumes that the unexplained increase in 1998
revenues carries over into 1999--thus boosting revenues to an
all-time high of 20.6 percent of GDP--the projected growth
rate of revenues drops sharply, from 8.7 percent in 1998 to
4.9 percent in 1999. That drop is attributable in part to
economic factors--the growth in taxable incomes is projected
to slow to 4.1 percent in 1999, down from 5.8 percent in
1998. The rest comes from assuming that the unexplained
revenue effect will not increase in 1999. If, instead, that
effect increased substantially, revenues would rise at a much
faster rate. However, if the unexplained revenues resulted
largely from temporary factors in 1998, the rate of growth of
revenues in 1999 would decline even more precipitously.
Even if revenues continue to grow rapidly in 1999, CBO
believes the rate of growth will eventually slow. Because of
the scheduled tax cuts provided by the Taxpayer Relief Act,
and because corporate profits are expected to fall as a share
of GDP, CBO projects that over the next 10 years, the average
growth rate of revenues will be slightly lower than the
growth rate of the economy. Revenues are projected to grow at
the same rate as GDP from 2003 through 2008. During that
period, individual income taxes will grow faster than GDP
because individual income tax brackets are indexed for
inflation but not for changes in real income, which boosts
the effective tax rate as real income grows. But excise taxes
grow more slowly than GDP because many rates are fixed in
nominal terms.
Current outlay projections for 1997 through 2008
In dollar terms, total outlays are projected to grow from
$1,654 billion in 1998 to $2,303 billion in 2008. But as a
percentage of GDP, they are projected to decline throughout
the period--from 19.7 percent of GDP in 1998 to 17.9 percent
in 2008.
Net interest, which was the faster-growing category of
spending in the 1980s, is now projected to decline from $244
billion (2.9 percent of GDP) in 1998 to $140 billion (1.1
percent of GDP) in 2008 as projected surpluses reduce the
stock of debt held by the public by $1.4 trillion (see Table
4). Discretionary spending is projected to increase from $552
billion to $657 billion over that period but to shrink
relative to the size of the economy--from 6.6 percent of GDP
to 5.1 percent. By contrast, mandatory spending is expected
to increase both in nominal terms (from $942 billion to
$1.626 billion) and as a percentage of GDP (from 11.2 percent
of 12.6 percent). That increase comes from both means-tested
and non-means-tested programs, with Medicaid and Medicare
leading the way (see Table 5).
Table 4.--CBO PROJECTIONS OF INTEREST COSTS AND FEDERAL DEBT
[By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INTEREST OUTLAYS (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Interest on Public Debt (Gross 356 363 363 365 363 360 357 357 357 356 354 352
interest) \1\..................
=======================================================================================================================
Interest Received by Trust Fund:
Social Security............. -41 -46 -51 -57 -64 -70 -77 -84 -91 -99 -108 -117
Other trust fund \2\........ -64 -67 -67 -70 -72 -73 -75 -77 -79 -81 -84 -86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. -105 -113 -118 -128 -136 -143 -151 -161 -170 -180 -191 -202
[[Page S8715]]
Other Interest \3\.............. -7 -6 -7 -6 -7 -7 -8 -8 -9 -9 -10 -10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 244 244 238 232 221 209 198 189 178 166 153 140
FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Gross Federal Debt.............. 5,370 5,475 5,594 5,721 5,845 5,927 6,021 6,102 6,174 6,205 6,223 6,222
=======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by Government
Accounts:
Social Security............. 631 736 853 978 1,108 1,246 1,392 1,547 1,712 1,885 2,066 2,252
Other accounts \2\.......... 968 1,022 1,087 1,154 1,219 1,286 1,354 1,419 1,481 1,541 1,600 1,650
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 1,599 1,757 1,939 2,132 2,327 2,532 2,746 2,966 3,193 3,426 3,665 3,902
=======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by the Public......... 3,771 3,717 3,655 3,589 3,518 3,395 3,275 3,136 2,981 2,779 2,557 2,320
Debt Subject to Limit \4\....... 5,328 5,437 5,557 5,685 5,810 5,893 5,988 6,072 6,145 6,178 6,196 6,196
FEDERAL DEBT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Debt Held by the Public......... 47.3 44.3 41.7 39.3 37.1 34.3 31.6 28.9 26.3 23.5 20.7 18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.
Note.--Projections of interest and debt assume that discretionary spending will equal the statutory caps that are in effect through 2002 and will grow
at the rate of inflation in succeeding years.
\1\ Excludes interest costs of debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury (primarily the Tennessee Valley Authority).
\2\ Principally Civil Service Retirement, Military Retirement, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and the Highway and the Airport and Airway Trust Funds.
\3\ Primarily interest on loans to the public.
\4\ Differs from the gross federal debt primarily because most debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury is excluded from the debt limit.
TABLE 5.--CBO BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR MANDATORY SPENDING, INCLUDING DEPOSIT INSURANCE
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEANS-TESTED PROGRAMS
Medicaid........................ 96 101 109 115 123 131 141 152 165 179 194 210
State Children's Health (\1\) 0 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5
Insurance Program..............
Food Stamps..................... 23 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31
Supplemental Security Income.... 27 27 28 29 31 33 35 37 42 41 39 45
Family Support \2\.............. 17 18 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 26
Veterans' Pensions.............. 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Child Nutrition................. 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14
Earned Income Tax Credit \3\.... 22 24 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32
Student Loans................... 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
Other........................... 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 203 209 228 243 257 270 285 302 323 339 355 381
NON-MEANS-TESTED PROGRAMS
Social Security................. 362 376 389 406 425 446 467 489 513 539 567 597
Medicare........................ 208 214 230 243 266 275 302 325 359 368 406 435
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 570 590 620 649 691 720 768 814 873 907 973 1,033
=======================================================================================================================
Other Retirement and Disability:
Federal civilian \4\........ 46 48 50 52 55 57 60 63 67 71 74 78
Military.................... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Other....................... 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 81 84 86 90 94 98 102 106 110 115 120 125
=======================================================================================================================
Unemployment Compensation....... 21 19 21 22 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33
=======================================================================================================================
Deposit Insurance............... -14 -4 -4 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
=======================================================================================================================
Other Programs:
Veterans' benefits \5\...... 19 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 26 25 23 25
Farm price and income 6 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
supports...................
Social services............. 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Credit reform liquidating -10 -7 (\6\) -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6
accounts...................
Other....................... 17 17 14 24 25 26 26 26 24 24 25 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 37 44 47 52 51 52 53 53 54 52 51 55
=======================================================================================================================
Other..................... 694 733 769 810 859 895 949 1,001 1,066 1,105 1,176 1,245
TOTAL
All Mandatory Spending.......... 896 942 997 1,052 1,115 1,165 1,234 1,303 1,389 1,443 1,531 1,626
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State's Children's Health Insurance Program was created as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
\2\ Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Famly Support, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills,
Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs, Child Care Entitlements to States, and Children's Research and Technical Assistance.
\3\ Includes outlays from the child credit enacted in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
\4\ Includes Civil Service, Foreign Service, Coast Guard, and other retirement programs, and annuitants' health benefits.
\5\ Includes veterans' compensation, readjustment benefits, life insurance, and housing programs.
\6\ Less than $500 million.
Note.--Spending for benefit programs shown above generally excludes administrative costs, which are discretionary. Spending for Medicare also excludes
premiums, which are considered offsetting receipts.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
conclusion
An unexpected increase in revenues in 1998 has virtually
ensured that the total federal budget will be balanced for
the first time in almost 30 years, and nothing currently
visible on the horizon seems to threaten a return to deficits
in the near term if policies remain unchanged. However, if
any of a number of assumptions that CBO has made turn out to
be off the mark, budget outcomes could be quite different
than projected even if there are no changes in policy. for
instance, if CBO's economic projections prove to be just a
little too optimistic, surpluses could be much lower than
anticipated, while a recession similar to that of the early
1990s could even produce a deficit. Likewise, surpluses could
be lower than projected if the factors that produced the
unexpected revenues in 1998 fade away quickly. Of course, it
is also possible that the economy will be more robust than
expected or that the unexplained revenue effect will grow
over time, in which case the budget outlook is much brighter
than CBO currently projects. In the face of those
uncertainties, the current budget projections represent CBO's
estimate of the middle of the range of likely outcomes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. These are the updated figures:
In 1998, the trust fund surplus is $105 billion in Social Security;
in 1999, $117 billion; in the year 2000, $126 billion; in the year
2001, $130 billion; in 2002, $138 billion; in the year 2003, $146
billion; in
[[Page S8716]]
the year 2004, $154 billion; in 2005, $165 billion; in 2006, $173
billion; in 2007, $181 billion; and in 2008, $186 billion.
So what you see in the projection here with respect to so-called
surpluses that are now being quoted by the President, distinguished
Members of the House of Representatives, distinguished Members of this
particular body, on page 11 of the Congressional Budget Office report,
you will find that what we actually are spending over the 10 years in
order to get down to a deficit in the year 2008--they finally reduce
the deficit down according to these magnificent projections over a 10-
year period--the deficit is down to $1 billion by using $1.621 trillion
of Social Security trust funds.
Last evening--let me compliment the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota--Mr. Grams talked at length about the various countries and
how they approach the Social Security problem. He referred in several
instances to the Social Security problem--this is just late last
evening--to the ``looming crisis,'' the ``coming crisis,'' the ``fiscal
crisis.'' And most of what he says, by the way, I agree with, but there
is no real crisis in Social Security if we only stop spending the
money.
The problem is that the politicians, both Republican and Democrat,
see the Social Security trust fund as a cookie jar they can stick their
hands in to get their favorite programs. Look here, they think, I can
get my children's program; oh, no, I get my marriage penalty tax
reform; I get the corporate taxes here; I get the estate taxes over
here; I get another capital gains tax there; oh, no, I want to spend it
for Medicare. This is just the biggest scandal I have ever seen,
because that crowd up there in the gallery--namely, the media--will not
report the truth.
I hope they look right at the Congressional Budget Office report from
the 15th of this month, just a week ago. These are the supposedly
nonpartisan figures. On page 11 you will see that the deficit goes up,
in 1998, to $105 billion; and then, in 1999, to $119 billion; in the
year 2000, $127 billion; and the year 2001, $124 billion.
I remember back in 1993, when we on this side of the aisle passed the
Budget Act, the Republicans claimed that if we passed that particular
1993 budget plan, the economy would go into a nose dive; there would be
a depression. My friend on the Republican side of the aisle, the
chairman of the Finance subcommittee, Senator Packwood of Oregon, said
he would give us his house if this thing worked. Our distinguished
friend in the House, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Congressman
John Kasich, said he would change parties and become a Democrat if that
thing worked.
It has worked. It has worked, Mr. President, until now. That is why
I, the Senator from Wisconsin, and other Senators here wanted to be
heard on this. Because what is really occurring is, everybody is
dealing out the Social Security trust fund to various programs in an
illegal fashion--certainly in an immoral fashion. They are running
around telling everybody, you can count on Social Security, except for
the baby boomers. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation, it
is the Members of Congress on the Senate floor and on the floor of the
House. We, willy-nilly, are savaging, ravaging, looting Social
Security. And there is not any question that the law disallows this.
I appreciate my distinguished chairman from New Hampshire allowing me
this moment. I ask unanimous consent the Greenspan Commission report of
1983, which I worked on, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Social Security and the Unified Budget
(21) A majority of the members of the National Commission
recommends that the operations of the OASI, DI, HI, and SMI
Trust Funds should be removed from the unified budget. Some
of those who do not support this recommendation believe that
the situation would be adequately handled if the operations
of the Social Security program were displayed within the
present unified Federal budget as a separate budget function,
apart from other income security programs.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The majority of the members of this commission--I am
just paraphrasing--stated that the Social Security trust funds should
be removed from the unified budget. You will see that in report there.
When they submitted the Greenspan report, the Commission said to
remove Social Security from the unified budget. I struggled, as a
member of the Budget Committee, for almost 7 years to get it done. But
I kept moving. I kept trying different ways. I tried on Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings and that particular budget approach. But in the summer of
1990--that is why I can remember November 5--before the Budget
Committee, by a vote of 20 to 1, we removed it from the unified budget.
We got it on the floor of the Senate in October, and 98 Senators--if
any Senator who was here in October is still here, any Senator who was
here in October of 1990--they voted just that way, to remove it from
the unified budget.
I will get, later, the vote record and we will put that in the
Record. I am not trying to embarrass or account for any Senators, but I
am trying to emphasize that this body has pledged time and time again
to save Social Security first and to stop looting the fund.
So we had 98 Senators vote for that, and President George Bush signed
it into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have
printed in the Record just that 1-page law, right here, subtitle (c) of
the Budget Act on Social Security, 13301. I ask unanimous consent to
have it printed in the Record.
Subtitle C--Social Security
SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.
(a) Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and
disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President,
(2) the congressional budget, or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
(b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional
Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and
revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability
insurance program established under title II of the Social
Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals
required by this subsection or in any other surplus or
deficit totals required by this title.''.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, ``Exclusion of Social Security from all
budgets''--this is the formative statutory law. We have been talking
about criminals, while many members of this body commit a crime every
time they discuss budget surpluses. They are not obeying their own--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts
and disbursements of the Federal Old Age Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts or deficit or surplus for the purposes of--
(1) the budget of the U.S. Government as submitted by the
President,
(2) the Congressional budget,
(3) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
That was Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. We have been struggling a long time,
but we cannot get the truth out. We cannot get the truth out.
One of the deterrents to the truth is the common belief that every
President since Lyndon Johnson has used Social Security trust funds for
the general budget. This is not true, Mr. President. It was not so. No,
sir. President Lyndon Johnson did not use Social Security in order to
balance the budget in 1968-69. I was there. In fact, over on the House
side we had the conference. George Mahon was the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. We called over and asked Marvin Watson and
said, ``Ask the President if we can cut another $5 billion.'' President
Johnson said, ``Cut it,'' and we balanced the budget. President Lyndon
Baines Johnson was very conscientious about guns and butter. He was
leaving office, and he did not want to leave a heritage of busted
budgets and the charge that he had the Great Society and the war in
Vietnam and he could not afford them.
Mr. President, do you know what the budget was then? It was $178
billion for all purposes of Government, defense and domestic. Do you
know what the interest cost on the national debt is? The interest cost
on the national debt now is going to be $363 billion, according to this
recent report here--a billion dollars a day.
[[Page S8717]]
Do you know what the interest cost on the national debt was when
President Johnson balanced the budget back then? The interest cost was
$16 billion. That was interest costs for 200 years of history and the
cost of all the wars, up from the Revolution right on through World War
I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. And it was only a debt that
required taxes, interest costs, to be paid of $16 billion.
Now we are up there to almost $5.7 trillion without the cost of a
war. It has gone right on through the ceiling, a billion a day, $363
billion in interest costs. That is $350 billion more than what we had.
And we are spending the money. This is pure waste.
Many say government is too big. I agree, it is too big. But the
biggest thing in the budget is the interest costs on the national debt.
It is bigger than Social Security, bigger than defense, bigger than the
domestic budget. We keep spending for nothing. If we had the extra $350
billion since President Johnson's balanced budget--the defense budget
is only $250 billion--we could double the defense budget: Instead of 13
aircraft carriers, we will give you 26 aircraft carriers; instead of 16
divisions, we will give you 32 divisions. Double it, and still have
$100 billion for research for cancer, NIH, for education, for the
environment, for anything--for cleanups, for agriculture. We have the
money, because we are spending it on interest payments.
Why? Because Congress is not minding the store. It has a wonderful
cookie jar it takes from by the billions every year. And over the next
10 years, Congress will continue to steal from it. Over the 5-year
period, we are going to have deficits of $557 billion--$557 billion,
and we are talking about balancing the budget.
Each year, every year, instead of a surplus, there is going to be a
balance, and we keep going, going to it. In order to verify this, I ask
unanimous consent that this chart of the budget realities be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Unified Actual increases
U.S. budget Borrowed deficit deficit National in spending
President (year) (outlays in trust funds with trust without debt for
billions) (billions) funds trust funds (billions) interest
(billions) (billions) (billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
1945.......................... 92.7 ........... -47.6 ........... 260.1 ...........
1946.......................... 55.2 5.4 -15.9 -10.9 271.0 ...........
1947.......................... 34.5 -5.0 4.0 +13.9 257.1 ...........
1948.......................... 29.8 -9.9 11.8 +5.1 252.0 ...........
1949.......................... 38.8 6.7 0.6 -0.6 252.6 ...........
1950.......................... 42.6 1.2 -3.1 -4.3 256.9 ...........
1951.......................... 45.5 1.2 6.1 +1.6 255.3 ...........
1952.......................... 67.7 4.5 -1.5 -3.8 259.1 ...........
1953.......................... 76.1 2.3 -6.5 -6.9 266.0 ...........
Eisenhower:
1954.......................... 70.9 0.4 -1.2 -4.8 270.8 ...........
1955.......................... 68.4 3.6 -3.0 -3.6 274.4 ...........
1956.......................... 70.6 0.6 3.9 +1.7 272.7 ...........
1957.......................... 76.6 2.2 3.4 +0.4 272.3 ...........
1958.......................... 82.4 3.0 -2.8 -7.4 279.7 ...........
1959.......................... 92.1 4.6 -12.8 -7.8 287.5 ...........
1960.......................... 92.2 -5.0 0.3 -3.0 290.5 ...........
1961.......................... 97.7 3.3 -3.3 -2.1 292.6 ...........
Kennedy:
1962.......................... 106.8 -1.2 -7.1 -10.3 302.9 9.1
1963.......................... 111.3 3.2 -4.8 -7.4 310.3 9.9
Johnson:
1964.......................... 118.5 2.6 -5.9 -5.8 316.1 10.7
1965.......................... 118.2 -0.1 -1.4 -6.2 322.3 11.3
1966.......................... 134.5 4.8 -3.7 -6.2 328.5 12.0
1967.......................... 157.5 2.5 -8.6 -11.9 340.4 13.4
1968.......................... 178.1 3.3 -25.2 -28.3 368.7 14.6
1969.......................... 183.6 3.1 3.2 +2.9 365.8 16.6
Nixon:
1970.......................... 195.6 0.3 -2.8 -15.1 380.9 19.3
1971.......................... 210.2 12.3 -23.0 -27.3 408.2 21.0
1972.......................... 230.7 4.3 -23.4 -27.7 435.9 21.8
1973.......................... 245.7 4.3 -14.9 -30.4 466.3 24.2
1974.......................... 269.4 15.5 -6.1 -17.6 483.9 29.3
Ford:
1975.......................... 332.3 11.5 -53.2 -58.0 541.9 32.7
1976.......................... 371.8 4.8 -73.7 -87.1 629.0 37.1
Carter:
1977.......................... 409.2 13.4 -53.7 -77.4 706.4 41.9
1978.......................... 458.7 23.7 -59.2 -70.2 776.6 48.7
1979.......................... 503.5 11.0 -40.7 -52.9 829.5 59.9
1980.......................... 590.9 12.2 -73.8 -79.6 909.1 74.8
Reagan:
1981.......................... 678.2 5.8 -79.0 -85.7 994.8 95.5
1982.......................... 745.8 6.7 -128.0 -142.5 1,137.3 117.2
1983.......................... 808.4 14.5 -207.8 -234.4 1,371.7 128.7
1984.......................... 851.8 26.6 -185.4 -193.0 1,564.7 153.9
1985.......................... 946.4 7.6 -212.3 -252.8 1,817.5 178.9
1986.......................... 990.3 40.5 -221.2 -303.1 2,120.6 190.3
1987.......................... 1,003.9 81.9 -149.8 -225.5 2,346.1 195.3
1988.......................... 1,064.1 75.7 -155.2 -255.2 2,601.3 214.1
Bush:
1989.......................... 1,143.2 100.0 -152.5 -266.7 2,868.3 240.9
1990.......................... 1,252.7 114.2 -221.2 -338.6 3,206.6 264.7
1991.......................... 1,323.8 117.4 -269.4 -391.9 3,598.5 285.5
1992.......................... 1,380.9 122.5 -290.4 -403.6 4,002.1 292.3
Clinton:
1993.......................... 1,408.2 113.2 -255.0 -349.3 4,351.4 292.5
1994.......................... 1,460.6 94.3 -203.1 -292.3 4,643.7 296.3
1995.......................... 1,514.6 89.2 -163.9 -277.3 4,921.0 332.4
1996.......................... 1,560.3 113.4 -107.3 -260.9 5,181.9 344.0
1997.......................... 1,601.3 153.6 -22.3 -187.8 5,369.7 355.8
1998.......................... 1,654.0 168.3 63.0 -105.3 5,475.0 363.0
1999.......................... 1,721.0 199.0 80.0 -119.0 5,594.0 363.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government FY 1998; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1998 Economic and Budget
Outlook.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
This takes us from President Truman, in 1945, down to President
Clinton's 1999 budget and the one we passed in the U.S. Senate.
You will see when President Bush left town that the actual deficit
was $403.6 billion. That was how much we were spending. In 1993, we
passed the budget act I mentioned earlier, and we brought the actual
deficit down to $349.3 billion. Then, in 1994, to $292.3 billion. In
1995, to $277.3 billion. In 1996,
[[Page S8718]]
we reduced the deficit down to $260.9 billion. In 1997, to $187.8
billion. In 1998, it is down to $105.3 billion. You can see in 6 years,
we have gone down, down, down, down.
The Congress and the President should be credited. We have a
wonderful economy, the lowest interest rates, lowest unemployment rate,
the highest business investment, more home ownership in America,
consumer confidence at its highest, stock market going through the
roof. We acknowledge that and take credit for it. We participated in
it.
Just when we ought to stay the course and continue to reduce the
actual deficit, we have an election coming up in November. Oh, boy,
they see that cookie jar, and they are breaking ranks now. They voted
for this particular amendment unanimously in the Budget Committee. They
might want a second-degree amendment. I just want to get an actual
vote, because colleagues on this side want an actual vote so we find
out where they all stand.
I think they can outmaneuver us, there is no question about that, if
they don't want to vote. But they can't change this record. We have a
situation where instead of reducing the deficit, they want to go back
and start to increase deficits, as I related, again and again for each
year for 5 years running.
They are all talking about surpluses as far as the eye can see. Mr.
President, the surpluses as far as the eye can see are the Social
Security surpluses. These are the moneys that belong, under the law--
Greenspan said put it off budget. We put it off budget. We continue to
spend the money. I keep raising the points of order, and they just
ignore it and go on.
Right now the word is, ``Wait a minute. If we vote for this, you
can't get your tax cuts.'' Well, come, you can't get your tax cuts,
because the only way you can get your tax cuts is to loot the moneys
out of Social Security. That is how you get tax cuts. That is how you
get all of these programs that increase spending.
In order to do it, they want to use $105 billion of Social Security
in 1998. In order to get the tax cuts, how do they justify that list
the distinguished speaker put out? He had capital gains, he had estate
tax elimination, he had the marriage penalty, he had tuition tax
credits for private education--he just got it all in and said, ``Just
watch them vote against that, and we'll go after them and say, `Tax-
and-spend, tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend.' '' The truth of the matter
is, he is the one increasing taxes, because as you do this, as you loot
the Social Security fund, the debt increases, as we see by the CBO
record; and as the debt increases, spending for interest goes up. It
cannot be avoided. It is going to be spent. That is exactly what is
going on. It is fiscal cancer.
Let me say a word about that. I was on the Grace Commission, Mr.
President, and worked with Peter Grace. We were against waste, fraud
and abuse. At the very time we put out this magnificent volume, which
was 2 inches thick, of our wonderful work of eliminating waste, fraud
and abuse, we were creating the biggest waste in the history of
Government; namely, deficits and the national debt. We cut revenues, we
increased spending, we didn't pay for it, and the debt went up, up, and
away. Whereby it was a little less than a trillion dollars when we
first started with President Reagan--it was $903 billion at that
particular time--it has gone up now with 12 years of Reagan-Bush to
over $5 trillion. Of course, it has gradually gone up even though we
have been reducing the deficit each year. At this minute, we will
spend, if we approve the budget that has been approved in the Senate
and what they confirmed over on the House side, over $100 billion more
than we take in.
On April 15, we are supposed to complete the budget work. I have been
on the Budget Committee since we instituted it. Modestly, I say I used
to be the chairman, and we did reduce spending at one time. Now it is
July, and we haven't even had a conference. They appointed everybody in
the conference committee from both budget groups, but they can't
confirm because they can't face up to each other and say, ``Wait a
minute. Somebody is going to tell the secret that the only way there
are any surpluses around here is the budget trust fund surplus that we
have to loot in order to get all of these tax cuts, children's
programs, Medicare costs,'' and everything else of that kind. The media
doesn't even report it. It is a scandal.
There it is. We started the biggest waste at that particular time.
You have to understand why this is given sanction even in the business
community. I have argued with Alan Greenspan about this one. He loves
the unified budget. That business crowd doesn't want the sharp elbows
of Government crowding in to the bond market running up interest costs,
running up inflation. They don't serve in public office. They don't
have to face the statutes, laws and policies that we enact as Members
of the Congress. They say, ``Oh, it will be taken care sooner or
later.'' They go ahead with the unified budget pointing, if you please,
Mr. President, to the difference between the corporate economy and the
country's economy.
The corporate economy, of course, is higher profits. The country's
economy is for the good of society. And they don't necessarily meld. Or
it is good for the corporate economy for NAFTA to go like gangbusters
down in Mexico. That is where General Motors is headed with that
strike. Actually, Honda exports more cars than General Motors this
minute in the United States of America. We are going out of business.
I have lost 24,000 textile and apparel jobs since NAFTA. Those are
good jobs. It is an industry that under President Kennedy we found out
is necessary to the national security. After steel, it was the second
most important. It was a finding in the sense you couldn't send the
soldiers to war in a Japanese uniform. You had to have clothing.
Seventy-five percent of the clothing within the view of us in the
U.S. Senate is imported. We are at the water's edge of whether or not
we are going to have that industry.
The other industry is going down, because in the corporate culture,
if you can save--it is shown that you can save a good 20 percent of
your labor costs, 20 percent of volume, by moving to a low-wage,
offshore country.
So if you have $500 million in sales, you can move offshore. Just
keep your corporate office, your sales folks, but move your
manufacturing offshore and you make $100 million. Or you can continue
to stay here and work your own employees--they call them associates
now--and go broke because your competition is gone. The multinationals
could care less. They are in the business of making money. We are in
the business of making a good and strong economy.
And America's strength is like a three-legged stool. You have on the
one leg your values. That is strong. We sacrificed to go to Somalia. We
are now out in Bosnia. No one questions the values of the United States
of America. We have the second leg, of course, which is the military.
That is strong. But the third leg, the economic leg, is fractured, and
intentionally.
That is the corporate culture, corporate economy--move on down to
Mexico. And they promised at the time, of course, that we were going to
increase the balance of trade that we had of $5 billion. Now it is $15
billion negative. They said we are going to create 200,000 jobs. We
lost 400,000. They said it was going to solve the immigration problem.
It has gotten worse. They said it was going to solve the drug problem.
It has gotten worse. The actual Mexican worker is taking home 20
percent less pay. So they have suffered.
The $12 billion that we paid in there to keep it from going totally
under has gone back to Wall Street. It should have gone into a common
market approach where we could have developed in Mexico--and I would
vote for it this afternoon--the institutions of a free economy, a
revered judiciary, the right of labor to strike, the corporate
interests of owning property, the right of appeal, and those kinds of
things.
Over in Europe, the European countries in the common market approach
taxed themselves for 4 years, $5 billion before they allowed Greece and
Portugal.
So what happens? We use the free market approach, which is good for
the corporate economy, but not the country's economy. And therein is
where we are really headed with the fiscal cancer that is eating us
alive here, because you have $1 billion a day. We are going
[[Page S8719]]
to meet tomorrow, and we are going to spend another $1 billion for
nothing. We are going to meet on Friday, and we are going to spend
another billion in this Nation's Capital for nothing. We can meet on
Saturday, and we are going to spend another $1 billion for nothing. We
can meet on Sunday, and we are going to spend, like it or not, another
$1 billion for nothing--total waste.
Here we were trying to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, yet under the
Grace Commission we instituted the biggest waste. I thought finally--
finally--we had gotten on it. We not only were bringing down the
deficit, but in his message to the Congress, the President of the
United States said, ``Save Social Security first.'' And every
Congressman and every Senator said, ``Amen, brother. That's what we
want to do.'' Everybody went off the floor and had their little
interviews. ``We've got to save Social Security.''
So we go into the Budget Committee, and we get a vote and unanimously
vote for it. But now conferences are ongoing with respect to the
parliamentary maneuvers to make sure that you do not vote. They can
have a second-degree amendment. We will come back later on with other
bills. We will have our chance. Oh, we will just nag them and never get
to a vote, but we will point it out from now until October: ``Save
Social Security first.''
There is no surplus. This country has fiscal cancer. If you keep
spending up, up and away, interest costs on the national debt will
mount, with the debt increasing each year for 10 years running. These
are not surpluses as far as the eye can see, but rather deficits as far
as the eye can see.
And this particular report of the Congressional Budget Office--if
that is the case, Mr. President, you can see at a glance that
Congresses that are going to be meeting in the next century--for the
millennium and for the next century--we will meet, we will put a little
bit in Social Security, we will put a little bit in defense, and a big
bit in interest costs on the national debt, and we will not have any
Government.
Now, judging by their Contract with America, that is what they want:
to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Housing, the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. Just get rid of highways--they do not even want
the highway system. They objected around here and said it busted the
budget when we used highway moneys for highways. Very interesting.
We passed a highway bill, and all we used was the gas taxes for
highways. But, oh, no, they wanted to rob the highway fund for foreign
aid or any other particular project that they had in mind.
Because of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator
Chafee, we changed that. I commend him for doing it. We finally agreed
that after this year we are going to spend highway gas taxes, highway
money on highways. Boy, I am telling you, just to get something normal,
decent and understandable here in the U.S. Congress is next to
impossible.
But there it is. We have a resolution that says, ``Save Social
Security first.'' Now, they can get into parliamentary maneuvers. I
guess one thing is: Move to commit the bill, like they did earlier.
They can do another one to commit the bill with instructions and hide
behind it.
But I can tell you, whatever the maneuver is, the issue is clear; it
is almost undebatable. I want them to say, ``I am wrong on the figures
I have given.'' I want them to say the CBO is wrong on the figures or
whatever. I want them to get up here and debate it and say, ``No. It is
necessary to spend the Social Security trust fund.'' That is all I want
to hear them say. But I do not believe you are going to hear a Senator
in the Senate say that. They all are going to hide behind the
maneuvering here and second degrees and third degrees, and move to
recommit, and everything else possible; and we will get a rollcall on
that. And that will be the call on whether or not you want to continue
to loot Social Security.
I know my distinguished friend from New Hampshire does not want to do
it. There is Senator Feingold there. Under the unanimous consent, of
course, we agreed that the distinguished leader of this particular
bill, our chairman, is to regain the floor, but I hope the other
Senators here who, of course, are cosponsoring--and I put this up so we
can actually get a vote on a sense of the Senate.
And don't tell me that this is not relevant to State-Justice-
Commerce. It is relevant to the fiscal state of the United States. I
can tell you that now. We do have fiscal cancer. The media is not
paying any attention to it. They are all hiding under the unified,
unified, unified. It is against the law. I have given you the law. It
is against policies. It is against the vote of the Budget Committee.
But there is a quiet discussion. I listened on the weekend shows, and
again and again they were talking about surpluses here, surpluses
there, including, of course, the Administrator here of the
Congressional Budget Office. If we have that report--I would like to
refer just one second to that particular report so you can see even she
disobeys the law. You cannot get even the Congressional Budget Office--
the conclusion, on page 13:
An unexpected increase in revenues in 1998 has virtually
ensured the total Federal budget will be balanced for the
first time in almost 30 years.
False, according to her own records, her own figures.
The previous pages showed that is not the case. On page 11, all she
has to do is read her own document.
An unexpected increase in revenues in 1998 has virtually
ensured that the total Federal budget will be balanced for
the first time in almost 30 years and nothing currently
visible on the horizon seems to threaten a return to deficits
in the near term if policies remain unchanged.
I know I wouldn't use her to do my income tax return. I would be in
jail, I would be gone, with that kind of doubletalk.
There is no surplus. But when the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, Madam June O'Neill, comes and says there is nothing on
the horizon, when she shows that in order to say that you have to spend
$1.621 trillion of the Social Security trust fund, Social Security by
the year 2008, supposedly, if this weren't occurring, would have a
surplus of $2.252 trillion.
Look at that, on page 11 of this particular report--$2.252 trillion.
Yet everybody is going around with solutions to Social Security. The
only solution, and the first solution, is to quit looting the fund.
There won't be any $2.252 trillion. That is why you have all of the
bills in to solve the Social Security crisis, the Social Security
shortfall, the baby boomer problem. All nonsense, all out of the whole
cloth.
She is talking again and again, ``However, if any other number of
assumptions that CBO has made turn out to be off the mark, budget
outcomes could be quite different than projected, even if there are no
changes in policy. For instance, if CBO's economic projections prove to
be just a little too optimistic, surpluses could be much lower than
anticipated.''
Surpluses--there isn't any surplus in the report. There is a surplus,
supposedly, in Social Security. That is where the surplus is. Section
13301 of the Budget Act says don't spend Social Security surpluses,
don't count on them in reporting a budget; don't count on them,
Congressional Budget Office, when you analyze a budget. But she willy-
nilly talks about surpluses. It is just amazing to me, until you see
her projections, of course, of the interest costs.
Again, on page 11, she finds that interest costs on the national debt
are just going down, down, down. It has been increasing each year
anywhere from $10 to $20 billion. The debt has been going up. The
interest costs--even with that increased debt, even though interest
rates are down, the interest costs have been going up.
If you want to see the pressure brought by the Speaker on the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, look at that series of
figures straight across the board. She finds that from 1958 to the year
2008 the actual interest costs decrease $11 billion.
Totally out of the whole cloth, this is made. They kept nagging her
and they held up the Budget Committees. The Budget Committees don't
meet; they don't sit down and confer over the budget. They go on the
weekend talk shows and put out all the documents about tax cuts,
spending programs, and put in here these optimistic figures.
[[Page S8720]]
The Director of the Congressional Budget Office has responded to the
pressure of the Speaker of the House; there isn't any question in this
Senator's mind. We know what is going on.
I wish the media--whether print media, TV media, or any other media--
would please, please, please, report truth in budgeting. That is what
we had when we had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--truth in budgeting. We sold
it over on this side of the aisle, 14 votes up and down. Our Democratic
colleagues, majority, voted to cut spending over the objection, at that
time, of the leader, over the objection of the chairman of the Budget
Committee. But there was a conscience back in 1985.
Now, in 1998, it has become the game of the day: Just look over and
find whatever you want in the $100-some billion Social Security
surplus, and it grows each year. It is only $105 billion this year; 10
years out, it is $186 billion. So we have plenty of money to spend for
plenty of programs until we run right up against the wall, run right up
against the wall, and the interest costs eat us alive. We have fiscal
cancer. We won't acknowledge it.
I am glad and proud, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle, to bring up this sense of the Senate. It is more important than
the entire State-Justice-Commerce bill or any appropriations bill.
Unless we get ahold of our senses and vote a sense of the Senate that
we save Social Security first, we are gone.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I have listened to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator has a right to
yield for a question.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I have to yield back to our chair.
Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry. I believe regular order is for the
Senator from South Carolina to be allowed to yield for a question; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to yield for a
question.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand what the distinguished
chairman is saying, and I agree with him. But I want to answer that
question and then do as we agreed, because I only have the floor under
the courtesy of Chairman Gregg.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Gregg has the right
to the floor when the Senator from South Carolina completes his
statement.
I have been listening to the Senator from South Carolina, who has
offered an amendment that we have discussed before on the Senate floor.
We are reacting to recent press reports that cite one prominent member
of the majority party as saying that Congress should enact $1 trillion
in tax cuts over 10 years.
Isn t the Senator's point that those who propose massive tax cuts
would be taking the money, in effect, from the Social Security trust
funds in order to fund a tax cut; would that not be the case?
Mr. HOLLINGS. It is absolutely the case. The only place you can find
this kind of money for tax cuts is here in the Social Security trust
fund, which is a violation in and of itself of section 13301 of the
statutory laws of the Budget Act of the United States of America.
President Bush signed it, 98 Senators over here voted for it, almost
unanimous over in the House of Representatives. We voted for it. But it
is not hit-and-run driving. Let's stop right there.
Let me emphasize, in 1994 we were really distraught with respect to
the takeover artists. Individuals were coming in, the corporations, and
literally taking the pension funds, paying off the corporate debt, and
taking the remaining money and running. The employees were left high
and dry. So we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994.
Now, our good friend, the former pitcher up there from Detroit, Denny
McLain, became the head of a corporation. As the head of the
corporation, last year he had paid off the company debt with the
pension fund. That was made a felony. He got an 8-year jail term. If
you can find what jail he is in, tell him, next time, instead of
running a corporation, run for the U.S. Senate; instead of a jail term,
you get the good government award up here for looting the pension funds
to pay your debt.
That is exactly what we are doing. We go against the formal law that
we passed ourselves. We go again the policy set for corporate America.
But when it comes to us, we have to get reelected. The worst campaign
finance violation and abuse is using Social Security trust funds to
reelect ourselves, telling them we are trying to protect Social
Security.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one additional question,
and then I shall not inquire further. Will the Senator yield for that
purpose?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this ought not to be a controversial
amendment.
The question is, simply, Is there an opportunity for someone to say,
either in the Senate or the House of Representatives, that they are
going to provide hundreds of billions of dollars, or a trillion
dollars, of tax cuts under the current fiscal policy? Is there an
opportunity to do that without using the Social Security trust funds? I
can't see that that opportunity exists. While I would like to see some
additional tax cuts, I happen to think that saving Social Security
first and reducing the Federal debt would be much more meritorious for
the future of this country.
In any event, we ought not to be talking about tax cuts before there
is money to give them. That money available for tax cuts does not
include--I ask the Senator--and that money should never include, the
Social Security trust fund money; am I correct?
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. Denny McLain,
who was an all-star pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, got sentenced to 8
years for using the pension fund to pay off the company debt, in
violation of our law, the Pension Reform Act of 1994. Yet, we do it
here in violation of our own law and policy of 1994 for corporate
America. Fine and dandy. I would tell him to, next time, run for the
Senate, and instead of a jail term he will get the good government
award.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the purpose of debate only, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin be recognized. How
much time does he need?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I need 12 minutes, Mr. President.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin be
recognized for up to 15 minutes and that the floor then be returned to
me, unless the Senator from Maryland also wishes to speak. How much
time does she wish?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I want to speak on the bill itself regarding cyberporn
and cybercrime.
Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Senator need?
Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes or less.
Mr. GREGG. For the purpose of debate only, I yield 15 minutes to the
Senator from Wisconsin and 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland. I
ask unanimous consent that I retain the floor upon the conclusion of
their statements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator
from South Carolina, in offering this amendment to express the sense of
the Senate regarding the Social Security trust fund balances.
I could not agree more with the Senator from South Carolina and also
the Senator from North Dakota that there really isn't anything more
important than stopping this practice of using Social Security dollars
for things they are not supposed to be used for, including premature
tax cuts. That is the central budgeting issue in this country. The
Senator from South Carolina has been the leader for years and years in
making that point. I have greatly enjoyed working with him on this. We
are going to continue to work on this until this practice is stopped,
until this theft of Social Security funds is prevented.
Mr. President, there is a fundamental difference between the way many
in Congress approach the budget and the way the Senator from South
Carolina and I approach it. That difference is Social Security.
[[Page S8721]]
For 30 years, Presidents of both parties, and Congresses controlled
by both parties, have included the Social Security trust fund balances
in their budget calculations. As I had a chance to mention during the
debate over the budget resolution itself, the result is a false picture
of our country's fiscal health. And just like a false medical report
that covers up a serious illness, it can lead to major problems in the
future.
This false budget picture has been used so often that, in effect, it
has almost become a ``budget convention.'' It has so impressed itself
into the vocabulary of the budget that we now hear this word
``surplus'' over and over again when there is no surplus. We hear
people talking about a budget ``surplus'' in Congress, we see it in the
newspapers, and we are even seeing it in letters from constituents who
are, in effect, being misinformed into thinking that there is somehow a
surplus at this time.
Mr. President, the recent CBO estimates of our budget picture have
made this matter all the more urgent. Using this budget sleight-of-hand
known as the ``unified budget,'' some are pointing to significant
surpluses as a justification for their own budget agenda, as the
Senator from South Carolina has very eloquently outlined in his
remarks.
Mr. President, we have not achieved a budget surplus, and despite the
greatly improved budget picture, CBO still estimates that we will not
achieve anything indicating a true surplus until at least the year
2006. There is a deficit that is still being hidden, and Social
Security is the curtain that is being used to hide it.
For the current fiscal year, CBO expects the deficit to be roughly
$41 billion. That is a great improvement over the $340 billion deficit
we experienced in 1992. I am proud to have been a part of bringing that
deficit down, but that is still a significant deficit.
While the deficit picture improves slightly in the next few years, we
still face a real problem on the budget deficit. It is true that if all
of CBO's assumptions are borne out, we will barely achieve a balanced
budget in 2002 and then again in the year 2005--just in those 2 years.
And, of course, this is encouraging news. But it is hardly the kind of
significant surplus on which to establish any major new initiatives,
whether they be in the spending area or in the tax area.
It is obvious that the economy may not perform as well as CBO
expects, and the slightest change in the underlying assumptions could
mean something very different from surpluses. It could mean deficits
that are billions of dollars greater than are currently estimated. CBO
itself makes this point in its current estimates.
The report states, ``* * * if any of a number of assumptions that CBO
has made turn out to be off the mark, budget outcomes could be quite
different than projected, even if there are no changes in policy.''
Mr. President, the CBO projections also assume that Congress will be
making the spending cuts necessary to comply with last year's balanced
budget agreement. Mr. President, as is sometimes said in court, when it
comes to assuming that Congress will do everything it should do with
regard to making those spending cuts, CBO could be ``assuming facts
that are not in evidence.''
Congress has not yet made those spending cuts, and the attitude that
is being exhibited by some Members of Congress is not reassuring. We
are already seeing a bidding war develop over how to spend the so-
called surplus. It is a surplus that isn't even projected to really
exist for another 8 years, Mr. President, but they are falling all over
each other to figure out how to spend it before we finish the job.
With so many focused on how to dispense this phantom surplus, there
is an increasing risk that we will not actually finish the important
work of truly balancing the budget. Mr. President, just a little over a
year ago, a lot of our colleagues were saying it was the most important
matter before us and urging us to amend the Constitution itself to
ensure that outlays did not exceed receipts in any given year. Now,
here we are, just a few months later, and many who supported this
drastic step--and, as it turned out, unnecessary step--to amend our
Constitution are now very ready to spend a surplus that we don't have.
It could not be more inconsistent with what was at least said to be the
spirit and the purpose of the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, it has taken us several years and many tough votes to
get where we are today, to get within reach, within vision of truly
balancing the budget. It will take more tough votes to finish the job.
Unfortunately, the notion of a so-called unified budget, which just
began as a political convenience to mask the deficit almost 30 years
ago, has now become budget reality for many, many people. This has to
stop.
``Surplus'' is supposed to mean something extra like a bonus. What it
is supposed to mean is that all the bills are paid and there is really
money left over. But, Mr. President, as I noted during the budget
resolution debate, one dictionary defines ``surplus'' as ``something
more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' But the so-
called unified budget, the surplus is not ``more than or in excess of
what is needed or required.''
Those funds are needed; they are needed to pay future Social Security
benefits. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically
in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries.
There is, however, one simple, straightforward step that this body
can take to help Social Security and to protect the trust fund. It is
very simple. Just do not spend it. Don't spend it. We have no right to
spend it.
I urge my colleagues to join the Senator from South Carolina and the
other cosponsors of this amendment in passing this amendment and
expressing the sense of the Senate that we understand this essential
fact: That when Congress makes budget obligations today based on the
Social Security funds, whether in the form of tax cuts or spending
increases, we are committing to a fiscal path that jeopardizes future
Social Security benefits.
Mr. President, let me once again sincerely thank my friend from South
Carolina for his tremendous leadership on this issue. It has been a
pleasure to serve with him on the Budget Committee, and I deeply
respect his work to promote not only deficit reduction, but honest
budgeting as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I will not be speaking on the pending amendment. I
will be speaking on the overall nature of the State-Justice-Commerce
appropriations.
I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for the outstanding job
that they have done in bringing an excellent bill to the floor.
Yesterday we talked about some of the things we thought were missing
from the bill, and particularly what would affect the safety and well-
being of children.
We talked about gun locks. Mr. President, I am a supporter of gun
locks. If we put locks on our cars to protect our automobiles, locks on
our doors to protect our property, I think we should have locks on guns
to protect our children. We worked our will yesterday. That didn't
pass.
But I will tell you, the Gregg-Hollings bill brings before us a real
Justice Department commitment to protect our children. I would like to
thank them for that. I would like to thank them for their efforts in
fighting juvenile crime. I would like to thank them for bringing us
legislation to prevent violence in our schools. But most of all, I am
really grateful that they have put money in this budget to fight child
pornography on the Internet. We need cops on the beat, and we need cops
on the computers to be able to protect our communities and our
children.
Let me share with you a story.
There was a little boy in Prince Georges County whose parents had
bought him a computer where they thought it would be an opportunity for
him to learn about the world and be ready for school each and every
day. However, there was a sexual predator who treated that computer as
if it were a virtual playground. And they stalked that little boy, and
it ended in his death.
But thanks to the response of the U.S. Congress--and I would like to
particularly thank Senator Gregg for his
[[Page S8722]]
cooperation and leadership on this--we have actually put money into the
Federal budget for the FBI to establish a special headquarters in
Maryland to fight cyber-kiddieporn on the Internet, with $10
million bringing 60 FBI folks into this, and 25 special agents. I have
been there, and I have seen what they are doing to protect our
children. You would love to see these FBI agents who are making use of
the newest and latest technology to be able to intervene, intercept,
and detect those people who sit in chat rooms coming after our
children.
I sat with those agents. I watched the pictures on the screen. I was
repulsed. I was horrified not only at what I saw, but what others could
be subjected to.
Because of our prompt response, the program is actually already
working. In the short time that this committee has put money in the
Federal checkbook to fight cyberporn against children, there have been
400 search warrants executed, over 200 arrests, and we are well on our
way to over an 85-percent conviction rate.
In my home State of Maryland there have been 15 arrests, 15
indictments, and 12 convictions.
That means that we will be able to protect our children. The average
child molester has more than 70 victims throughout his lifetime.
Because of the work we have done here to put cops on the beat through
our community policing in concert with the computer, both in our
streets and our neighborhoods to protect our children, children's lives
have been saved.
In Maryland alone 15 child molesters have been taken off the streets.
That means that 1,000 Maryland children have been saved and rescued.
This is just part of what we are doing to protect our children.
I know through the work of this subcommittee, of which I am proud to
be a Member, $210 million has been put into the Federal checkbook for a
new safe schools initiative.
We need to hire more security guards, improve coordination with local
police, get the violent kids out of our schools, and while we are doing
that, in addition to the policing that we are doing, I know that this
committee has put in substantial money for prevention--not the type of
prevention where we don't know what is going to be shown for it.
This committee is a tough committee. We are going to go after the
crooks and the criminals and the stalkers. But we know that, if we are
going to have policing and punishment, we are going to do prevention,
and we are going to do it by creative activity to fight and prevent
gang violence--to be able to do structured, afterschool activity;
working with faith-based organizations.
Because of the work of this subcommittee, our streets and our schools
will be safer because we put cops on the beat and cops on the
computers.
I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak. But most of all, I
would like to thank the ranking member for this outstanding bill.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for those
words--those type of words. She could speak all day. We appreciate
that, to say the least. I want to especially thank her for her
extremely supportive and aggressive assistance in the ``Innocent
Images'' effort, which she has pointed to and explained to us that
arose out of a situation in Maryland. The central nervous system for
the FBI initiative is now in Baltimore. What they are doing, I think,
is very appropriate. They are developing protocol so they can spread
this knowledge of how to fight cybercrime against kids across the
country to other levels of law enforcement, and they are using the
protocols developed at Baltimore to do that. It has really been a
tremendous success story for the agency.
It is in large part because of the support this committee has given
to the FBI that they have been successful in this. Although they were
the ones who initiated it and they should get the credit for it, that
support has come as a result of the strong and firm commitment of the
Senator from Maryland, and her understanding of the threat. The threat
is very significant.
As she knows, because she has gone to the actual site of the activity
where the FBI is pursuing these sort of sting operations--I have seen
it done at remote sites--the amount of attempts by people who are
clearly not pursuing a positive use of cyberspace for our children, the
amount of hits in a chat room, which appear to have very significant
negative potential for our kids, is overwhelming. You can turn on a
chat room, introduce yourself as a 12-year-old girl, and within a very
brief period of time--30 seconds--have five or six hits in that chat
room, which will ask for illicit or lead to illicit activity in an
attempt to get pornographic material, or in an attempt to expose that
child to pornographic material.
Regrettably, they create travel cases where they try to get the child
to go and meet with the pedophile. In fact, we had a situation in New
Hampshire where somebody actually traveled all the way from Norway to
Keene, NH, because that individual thought they were going to be able
to have some sort of sexual activity with a child. Luckily, in this
instance at least, it was a police officer who was using the Internet
following the protocols that the FBI set out of ``Innocent Images''
that was able to stop and apprehend that individual.
But it is a very serious issue because the Internet is a great and
expansive source for our kids and something that our kids should have
access to with the opportunity to learn, the opportunity to communicate
with people across the world. It is just a unique and special
opportunity or activity that our generation did not have and the next
generation does have. Making it safer for our kids is critical. So I
thank very much the Senator from Maryland. I am in support of her FBI
initiatives in this area and certainly appreciate her kind comments.
Amendment No. 3255 to Amendment No. 3254
At this time, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the
pending Hollings amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself,
Mr. Lott, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Gramm, proposes an
amendment numbered 3255.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the pending amendment, strike all after the word
``Sec.'' and insert the following:
SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE BUDGET AND SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 44
million Americans, including 27.3 million retirees, over 4.5
million people with disabilities, 3.8 million surviving
children and 8.4 million surviving adults, and is essential
to the dignity and security of the nation's elderly and
disabled;
(2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds have reported
to the Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social
Security system ``is estimated to fall short of expenditures
beginning in 2021 and in each year thereafter . . . until the
assets of the combined trust funds are exhausted in 2032'';
(3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting
principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all
require saving Social Security first, in order that the
Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom
generation, beginning in 2010;
(4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, the Congress
intended that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses
be used to prefund the retirement of the baby boom
generation;
(5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session
of Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton called on
the Congress to ``save Social Security first'' and to
``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, that is any
penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary
measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the
twenty-first century'';
(6) saving Social Security first would work to expand
national savings, reduce interest rates, enhance private
investment, increase labor productivity, and boost economic
growth;
(7) section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
expressly forbids counting Social Security trust fund
surpluses as revenue available to balance the budget; and
(8) the CBO has estimated that the unified budget surplus
will reach nearly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
(b) Sense of the Senate--It is the sense of the Senate that
Congress and the President should--
(1) continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance
the budget without counting Social Security trust fund
surpluses;
(2) work in a bipartisan way on specific legislation to
reform the Social Security system, to ensure that it is
financially sound over the long term and will be available
for all future generations;
[[Page S8723]]
(3) save Social Security first; and
(4) return all remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.
Mr. GREGG. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Lott, Senator
Domenici, Senator Mack, Senator Gramm, and myself.
I will now propound a consent allowing for two votes, hopefully
shortly, on this Social Security issue, the first vote being a vote in
relation to the majority version of the amendment, to be followed by a
vote in relationship to the Hollings amendment. If an objection is
heard, I will have no choice but to fill up the amendment tree so that
our vote is guaranteed to be the first vote.
I would note that the amendment we have sent to the desk seeks the
same goal in that what we seek is to preserve the surplus for the
Social Security system so that Social Security can be saved first. That
should be the first and primary purpose of the use of the surplus.
However, we make the point in our amendment that after Social
Security has been saved, after we have reached an agreement for how to
save Social Security--and I happen to have a bill which accomplishes
that. It would save it for the next 100 years. It happens to be a
bipartisan bill of Senator Breaux and myself. There are other proposals
floating around. The Senator in the Chair is a strong supporter of a
number of initiatives to save Social Security. But after an agreement
has been reached by the Congress and we have put in place a system for
saving Social Security, our sense-of-the-Senate says then let's send
the money back to the taxpayers. That seems to be a reasonable approach
to me.
So we do not disagree with the desire to save Social Security first.
We only want to make sure that after Social Security has been saved,
additional surpluses go back to the taxpayers.
So with that being said, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a
total of 60 minutes, and I would be willing to adjust that if there is
a desire to adjust it, but we have been on this for almost 2 hours now,
60 minutes for total debate, to be equally divided between the majority
leader or his designee and Senator Hollings, and following the
conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or
in relationship to the Lott amendment, to be followed by a vote on or
in relationship to the Hollings amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I am trying to clear that now and find out--that is
agreeable, except for the fact that we have how many Senators seeking
time? Four Senators. We have 50 minutes. I will be the fifth one.
Mr. GREGG. An hour-and-a-half equally divided?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, an hour-and-a-half equally divided.
Mr. GREGG. I amend that request: Instead of 60 minutes, there be 90
minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to order the
yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me begin this discussion, although the
discussion has already proceeded. Much of what the Senator from South
Carolina and the Senator from Wisconsin talked about, I agree with in
the area of Social Security reform. There is absolutely no question but
that the single, biggest fiscal policy issue facing this country today
is the question of how we make the Social Security system a strong and
vibrant system for generations to come and how we avoid what will be a
fiscal disaster for our Nation if we do not address this issue in the
near term.
This problem is generated by the fact that we have a baby boom
generation headed towards retirement. It is now turning age 50. In 15
years, it will be fully retired. In 12 years, we will begin to retire a
baby boom generation that is the largest generation in the history of
this country. And as that generation has moved through the system, it
has affected this Nation in every decade throughout its life
experience. In the 1950s, the baby boom generation created a huge need
for elementary schools and baby carriages. In the 1960s, it created a
tremendous restructuring of our social fabric with occurrences
involving civil rights, involving rights of women, involving Vietnam.
In the 1970s, we saw further impact, and in the 1980s we have seen the
huge economic impact, and as we move into the 1990s, we are also seeing
the impact of that generation as it begins to save for retirement and
that is one of our primary reasons of this economic boom.
But the biggest impact this generation is going to have is when it
retires, and it begins to retire in the year 2008, and not unusually,
or not to be unexpected, in the year 2008 the Social Security system
begins to lose money. In fact, that is the year when we start paying
out more in Social Security benefits than we are taking in. By the year
2015, the Social Security system is paying out so much more than it is
taking in it basically cannot right itself. By the year 2029 or 2030,
essentially the country has such a large debt and obligation under the
Social Security system that it will be unable, in my opinion, to afford
to maintain that system and we will face a fiscal meltdown of sorts.
The way I describe it, it is as if we could pick a date when we know
as a nation we were going to have a major earthquake, a major flood, a
major hurricane come ashore, and we know that date exists and we know
it is going to occur. Obviously, it would be irresponsible for us as a
Congress not to react to that, not to take preventive action, not to
get our people prepared for that. But we know the date when we are
going to hit a fiscal crisis of inordinate proportions because the
people are already born who are going to create such a huge demand on
the system. That date is approximately the year 2015.
So what should we do? We should address it today. Why should we
address it today? Because, basically the sooner we address this, the
sooner we can solve it in a constructive and effective way and in a
positive way where everybody will end up being more of a winner than
end up being a loser. It is a lot like that old oil filter ad, ``You
can pay me now or pay me later.'' If we begin to address this problem
today, we can significantly improve the system in the long run for
everyone. If we wait even 2 years, certainly if we wait 4 or 5 years,
the capacity to address it becomes much more acute and we go off a
cliff.
So how should we address it? The proposal we put forward in our
sense-of-the-Senate is that we should address it by using the surplus
first to address it, and that is absolutely right. That is what should
be done.
I would note this was not the President's position. The President
said we should reserve the surplus, reserve the surplus until we have
solved the Social Security problem. That is what he said in his State
of the Union Address. Our position as Republicans is we should use the
surplus to protect the Social Security system. And one way to do that,
one way that has been proposed by myself and a number of other Members
in this body, including the person sitting in the Chair, is to give
people who are presently working and paying taxes into the system and
who, unfortunately, are looking at a very low rate of return for all of
the taxes they are paying into the system--in fact, if you just
happened to go to work, say, you were 20 years old and you went to work
today, the likelihood that you would get very much back from what you
paid into the system in Social Security taxes is extremely low. If you
happen to be an African American, actually it is a negative number. You
get less back than you will pay in.
So the system has some very serious problems in the way that it
returns benefits to people who are younger today. What we have
suggested is to give people today who are earning money, paying into
the system, let's give them some ownership. Let's give them the ability
to have an asset which they physically own as part of their Social
Security retirement structure. And these are called personal accounts.
Under the present system, what happens is, you pay in taxes all your
life. And, unfortunately, let's say you died when you were 58. If you
did not have a wife and you did not have children,
[[Page S8724]]
you have nothing for all those taxes you paid in--absolutely nothing.
You have absolutely no vested interest which pays your estate anything.
If you had a wife or children, they might get a little bit, but not a
whole lot compared to what you paid in.
We are suggesting that some portion of the taxes that you pay into
the Social Security system today you should have ownership of; you
should actually, physically, have the right to claim, upon your
retirement, as yours. Every year you should get a statement. You should
have a little savings book, basically--I didn't bring mine with me
today as an example; the Senator in the chair may have his--but you
should have a savings book which says how much you have in your account
at the Social Security Administration, which is yours, physically
yours. No matter what happens, it cannot be taken away from you. Those
are called personal accounts. Thus, if you were, unfortunately, to die
before you reached the age of retirement, your estate would actually
get an asset. It would get that money that was built up in that
account. That is one plus of this.
A second plus of this is that under the proposal we have, you would,
essentially, get the benefit structure which Social Security gives
today, but on top of that benefit structure you would be able to get
the benefit of the investment of that personal account. What would that
investment be in? Under the proposal we put forward, it would be in one
of a variety of what amounts to mutual funds, three or four different
mutual funds, which you would choose, which would be under the control
and operation of the Social Security Administration, so there wouldn't
be any outrageously risky investments taken. But you would have a
choice. You could choose a conservative investment, you could choose a
moderate investment--you could choose a moderate investment in
equities.
Why is that important? Today, the entire Social Security fund is
invested in Government bonds. And what do they yield? They yield about
2.5 percent interest. Over no 20-year period in history has the equity
market yielded less than 5.5 percent. So you can see the rate of return
people are getting--because the average working life is 40 years--the
rate of return people are getting on the amount which they are paying
in Social Security taxes really is pretty weak, 2.5 percent. As I
mentioned earlier, if you are an African American who happens to go
into the workforce today and you are in your early twenties, your rate
of return is zero--it is actually a negative number.
But the fact is, you would have a personal account, which you would
have some control over, which is invested by the Social Security
Administration in probably three or four different mutual funds which
you have the right to choose from but which are set up under the Social
Security auspices, much like we have, in the Federal Government, the
Thrift Savings Plan. If you are a Federal employee today, there is
something called a Thrift Savings Plan, and the Thrift Savings Plan
trustees, who work for the Federal retirement plan, set up three
different options: You can choose a high-growth fund, a moderate-growth
fund, or a low-growth fund--or a low-risk fund. You can put your money,
your savings and your retirement, into whichever one you want. This
would be the same idea under Social Security. You would get to choose
which one of those funds you want to put your money in --a low-risk
fund, a moderate-risk fund, a higher-risk fund.
When you retired, you would then own that asset. The appreciation on
that asset would be significantly better, we are absolutely sure, than
the 2.5 percent that you are presently getting under the Social
Security Administration. So that is an effective way to begin the
process of making the Social Security system solvent. That would be a
type of plan that would work.
The problem, of course, is, to make this work effectively, you have
to act sooner rather than later. You cannot wait for 3 or 4 years in
order to put this in place, because people need time to build up the
accounts. The accounts we are suggesting do not represent your entire
Social Security tax. What we are suggesting is, you use 2 percent of
your Social Security tax. We would basically give you a tax cut for
that 2 percent. You would then be able to invest that in this
retirement fund or be required to invest it in a savings fund which
would be managed by the Social Security trustees and would give you a
much better rate of return.
There are a lot of other ideas out there. The point is, we need to
get on to this issue, we need to get on to the specifics of how you are
going to make the Social Security system solvent.
The President has been traveling around the country. He has been
talking about this. Many of us on the Republican side of the Senate
have been traveling around, also talking about this. We had a
bipartisan group which involved myself and Senator Breaux on the Senate
side, and Congressman Stenholm and Congressman Kolbe on the House side,
and a whole group of people who are expert in this area. We met for 18
months, and we put together an excellent plan, part of which I have
outlined, which would make the system solvent for the next 100 years.
But it is a plan; it is not specific legislation. So, what we need is
specific legislation.
This sense of the Senate comes forward, which essentially restates
what everybody wants to do, which is make Social Security solvent. But
it does not move along the plan. It doesn't move along how you get to
actual legislation. If we really want to be constructive as a Senate,
what we should do is probably have a sense of the Senate which calls on
the President to come forward with a specific plan, and have it to us
at the end of this year, so the beginning of next year we could
actually begin to legislate on the Social Security system and Social
Security reform, because our window of opportunity here is really quite
small. If we don't put in place Social Security reform legislation by
June of 1999, I am not sure we are even going to be able to put it into
place, because then we are going to do a Presidential election. If it
gets slid past the Presidential election, we have basically missed the
window of opportunity to begin to build up equity in some kind of
personal account or any sort of equity activity which involves
investing in the market; we have given away 2 years of opportunity for
that type of investment activity.
So, what we really need is specific action. Another sense of the
Senate is nice. It is very appropriate, I suppose, to keep making this
point over and over again, so it does not end up being overly
politicized. But the fact is, what we need to do is go from the sense
of the Senate situation to specifics.
What is the difference between the two sense of the Senate amendments
here? I am not sure the differences are all that substantive, to be
very honest with you. Where the difference is, essentially, is in the
third point: ``save Social Security first by reserving any surpluses in
fiscal year 1999 budget legislation.'' Our sense of the Senate adds a
fourth item: Third, ``save Social Security first,'' which we all agree
on, and, fourth, ``return all remaining surpluses to the American
taxpayers.''
So we take it a step further. We basically add another point to the
sense of the Senate by saying, once you have saved Social Security,
let's take the other part, the surplus that is left over--there may not
be any, but hopefully there will be--and return it to the American
taxpayer.
I would say this language, ``save Social Security first by reserving
any surplus in the fiscal year 1999 budget legislation,'' is a little
confusing, because fiscal year 1999 budget legislation could either
mean the year 1999 or it could mean the 5-year period that budget
legislation covers. So it is not really clear to me exactly what
surplus they are talking about here. Is it a 1-year surplus or is it a
5-year surplus?
In any event, what we are saying is, independent of that issue, let's
save Social Security first. But if there is a surplus above saving
Social Security, let's do the right thing with it; let's return it to
the taxpayer.
Who can disagree with that? We don't want to spend it, that is for
sure. We might want to use it to reduce debt, but of course the best
way to reduce debt is to save Social Security. Once you have saved
Social Security, you have significantly reduced debt, dramatically
reduced debt, because the biggest debt the Federal Government owes is
to the Social Security system. So let's take that extra money, if there
is any, and return it to the American taxpayer.
[[Page S8725]]
I think our sense of the Senate maybe takes the Hollings sense of the
Senate, which was a good attempt, good statement on its face, in many
ways, and makes it a lot stronger, because it makes it absolutely clear
that not only do we want to save Social Security but we also want to
return any extra surplus, after we have saved Social Security, to the
American taxpayer.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, briefly I want to yield to the
distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent I add to
our particular amendment Senator Reid, Senator Ford, and Senator
Johnson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. And that we have no points of order? If somebody wants
to raise one--and it is agreed we waive any points of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized
for----
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 10 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note with interest that all Members
on the floor now are members of the Budget Committee, which I think is
particularly significant, because we are here talking about not only
Social Security and our obligation to make the system solvent--to
create a degree of confidence that, looking out into the future, we are
going to be able to say to people, some who have already worked a dozen
years: Worry not, we are here going to solve the problem of the
question of solvency on the Social Security fund and it will be there
for you --but we are also, at the same point, talking about the work
done to get ourselves to a balanced budget point and, beyond that, to
develop the surplus stream that we now see flowing very mightily.
The fact is, I think the Senator from South Carolina has worked so
hard for so many years on the independence and on the solvency of the
Social Security trust fund that he is almost ``Mr. Social Security.''
No questions are raised about Social Security when the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, isn't there defending
the system and defending the right of those who expect to have the
benefits to have them there at the time they need them.
We shouldn't start spending those projected surpluses that look like
they are going to be in abundance until we confront our biggest long-
term challenge, and that is to make sure that we have done the things
necessary to solve the questions about the Social Security trust fund.
We need to ensure that younger Americans can benefit from the system,
just as their parents and their grandparents are benefiting today. Once
we fix that Social Security system and we have really done the job, we
can consider using any remaining surpluses to provide real tax relief
to ordinary Americans, to put more money in the pockets of struggling
middle-class families.
Yes, they are enjoying this prosperity that we have, but I don't know
many of them who feel like their heads are that well above water that
they can provide the education their children will need to help ensure
that they, too, will have a decent quality of life, one that is better
than those who are working now. They need some help, and we want to do
it.
We have a commitment that, first, we are going to start putting that
money into the Social Security system, so that in the later years they
have the reliability of the pension fund, of the Social Security fund.
When we have done that, then we can, again, help the middle-class
families afford education, health care, and take care of our
infrastructure.
The point of this amendment is to say, before we start raiding
projected surpluses, that we have some hard work to do. We ought to
make the decisions that say to our young people, ``Your retirement is
going to be there,'' to do exactly what it is that the President
pledged when we saw the surplus coming, and that is, save Social
Security first.
Social Security isn't just another Government program, it is the most
important social insurance program in our Nation. It has dramatically
reduced poverty among older Americans, and it provides a critical
safety net for those who suffer from disabilities or the death of a
family member.
Keep in mind that a majority of American workers have no pension
coverage other than Social Security; that is it. Nearly a third of all
seniors get 90 percent or more of their income from the program.
Without Social Security, more than half of the elderly would live in
poverty.
It is absolutely critical that we maintain this safety net for future
generations. Yet, Social Security's long-term viability is now
threatened by the impending retirement of the baby boomers. Unless we
act, the trust fund will become insolvent in the year 2032. Do we want
to say to people who have already worked a dozen years of their life,
on average, that you can start to envision life in your later years
without the help that comes from Social Security? We can't let that
happen.
Given the importance of solving the Social Security problem, Members
of Congress on both sides of the aisle have supported the concept of
``saving Social Security first.'' In fact, I remind my colleagues that
the Senate already has approved a budget resolution that proposes to
save all future budget surpluses.
I didn't support that resolution because, like some other Democrats,
I felt it shortchanged important priorities like education and child
care and created procedural obstacles to comprehensive tobacco
legislation. But I did support the resolution's fundamental approach on
the use of surpluses. The budget resolution said that all new spending
and all new tax breaks will be fully offset, and it was the right thing
to do.
My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, especially the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee who sits here now,
Senator Domenici, deserve credit for a job well done. He worked hard,
as we all did, to get this budget into balance and to make sure that we
start on the road to developing some surpluses and protecting Social
Security.
Unfortunately, some Members are now suggesting that, ``OK, we have
some money in the bank; it looks like it is going to be there; let's
start spending the projected surpluses.'' Frankly, I think it is a
peculiar irony that we see some of those who are most concerned about
fiscal discipline, sound fiscal policy, are now saying, ``Hey, this is
the time to start getting rid of these surpluses.'' I don't understand
that when we are so deep in the hole. No one would advise a family or a
business owner to do the same thing. When you have debt on your hands--
and we have plenty of it, and it was noted by the distinguished Senator
from New Hampshire that most of that debt belongs to the Social
Security trust fund--I don't understand what it is that suddenly has
impelled these folks to want to now spend the money.
The weakening of the budget discipline seems to be based in part on
new budget projections released only last week by CBO. They are now
estimating surpluses in future years will be larger than originally
anticipated. It is great news. According to the CBO, the unified
surplus this year will be $63 billion, and by 2008 that figure will
grow for that year to $251 billion.
These figures are cause for celebration and they are cause for pride.
They show that the disciplined policies we have adopted since President
Clinton took office, including last year's bipartisan budget agreement,
are working. Members on both sides of the aisle deserve credit for
that. But CBO's new projections should not be used as an excuse to
throw fiscal discipline out the window. They don't change the fact that
Social Security still faces real, long-term problems. The trust fund, I
repeat, will become insolvent, based on current projections, in 2032.
We have to do something about that before we squander any of the
projected budget surpluses.
I fully support providing tax relief to ordinary working Americans. I
want to strengthen at the same time our Nation's commitment to
education and health care. But there isn't any reason why we can't
provide tax relief or invest more in education, and we can do it today
if we pay for it. What we ought
[[Page S8726]]
not to do is start treating future surpluses as a giant piggy bank for
an excuse to abandon the fiscal discipline that got us to the good
condition we are in today.
I also note that if Congress goes on a wild spending spree, the costs
will not be limited to the long term. We could also trifle with
investor confidence, and that then could create an upset in the market,
about which everyone is concerned. People will be watching and saying,
``When is the downturn going to come?'' It could threaten our economy.
Importantly, raiding the surplus could undermine, once again, this
great opportunity that we have to secure Social Security for those in
the long-, long-term future. It would be unfair to those baby boomers
and other young Americans.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment. Let's maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline. Let's
continue the long-term thinking that got us to the good position we are
in today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let us fulfill the commitment that was made not
implicitly but specifically to protect the retirement benefits of
today's younger Americans. Let us do the right thing. SOS: Save Social
Security first.
Thank you.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I yield 10 minutes to the chairman of the Budget
Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I thank
Senator Gregg.
First, I am pleased to be on the floor to hear the discussions that
have taken place and pleased to hear Senator Lautenberg comment about
our taxpayers and the need to return to the taxpayers--he described it
his own way--but to return to them some of their hard-earned money.
Actually, the difference between the two resolutions is very clear
now. First of all, on Social Security it could not be more clear. The
Republicans do not talk about 1999 and Social Security; they say:
``Save Social Security first''-- unqualified.
The difference between the two resolutions is very, very simple, but
I think rather profound. First of all, both resolutions purport to say,
and try to say, that we want to save Social Security first. We just say
that, and we do not qualify it with reference to years or which
budgets. We just say, ``save Social Security first.'' That is No. (3)
in our conclusionary resolves.
And then we add a fourth one. And I will just read it, because you
cannot do any better than just reading the language. ``Return all
remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.''
Now, that is very simple. That establishes that this resolution,
which is sponsored by the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg,
Senator Lott, and myself, with some additional cosponsors--what we are
saying is, take care of Social Security, no ifs, no ands, no buts. Any
additional surpluses should be given back to the American taxpayers.
Frankly, there is a great debate occurring now on what we should do
with the surpluses because, believe it or not, I recall that many
Senators said, ``We will never see the day that we have real
surpluses.'' What was being said was, ``Social Security moneys are
being used to pay for our bills. We will never reach the day when we
have surpluses without using Social Security at all that are real.''
And for this discussion, I will call them ``operating surpluses.''
``Never will we see the day.''
Well, if CBO is right, Madam President, we have seen the day, as a
matter of fact, in the sixth year of this 10-year projection. And it is
not a terribly optimistic set of economics; it does not take into
account a real big recession, but actually in its overall calculations
it assumes a rather moderate and then even a slight downturn in this
economy, and it still has, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth
years, a $40-billion-a-year operating surplus, not using a penny of
Social Security during those years.
I can recall my good friend, Senator Hollings, who is the chief
sponsor of the resolution, which I commend him for, saying we would
never get to that day. And I did not think we would either, I say to
Senator Hollings. I never thought we would. But we are there. Frankly,
we may be--we may be--in a position, believe it or not, when those
surpluses occur much sooner than that. And it may be that we can fix
Social Security permanently into the next century and have some very
big surpluses left over, for we might not need all of the Social
Security money that is in this budget to fix Social Security. We may
fix it differently and make it very solvent and truly credible for the
next 100 years.
What we are saying--and we want this loud and clear to the American
people--the American fiscal policy is such that you are paying more
taxes than we need to run our Government. And we are saying, when that
day arrives that we have fixed Social Security and we still have more
of your taxes than we need to run this Government, we are saying we
will give it back to you. I repeat--return all remaining surpluses to
the American taxpayer.
I would hope that rather than the two sides have an argument over
that, I would hope the Democrats would support ours.
Let me tell you, the only thing I can see that would not have them
joining us is if they perceive that Government isn't big enough now and
that what we must do in the future, Madam President, if we have the
surpluses that we have both been talking about, is we have to save some
of that to add more expenditures to Government.
Maybe it is wishing too much that both sides of the aisle would agree
on that, but I submit that we on this side of the aisle would have been
badly mistaken had we voted for a resolution that did not say to the
American people we have a big enough Government--we have a big enough
Government. The question now is, take care of Social Security, and then
do not use the excess revenues which we took from the public for more
Government; give it back to the people by way of tax relief.
That is a simple, as I indicated, but profound difference between the
two resolutions. And I hope--I hope--that we leave here at 4:15 having
turned a rather inconsequential vote into a very significant vote,
because on the one hand it could be a vote that said we are going to
save Social Security. But we have already agreed to that. The President
has agreed to that. We put it in our budget resolution.
The difference now is that in addition to that, which we are
reiterating, we added a second part that says: If we get there, and we
have these surpluses that it looks like we are going to have, then we
do not want to have any ifs, ands, or buts about that, we want to give
it back to the taxpayer in tax relief.
I hope that the second-degree amendment sponsored by Senator Gregg,
the chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Lott, and myself, will be
adopted.
If I have any time remaining, I yield it back and yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 3255, As Modified
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Gregg amendment be
modified to reflect the first degree status which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE BUDGET AND SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Social Security system provides benefits to 44
million Americans, including 27.3 million retirees, over 4.5
million people with disabilities, 3.8 million surviving
children and 8.4 million surviving adults, and is essential
to the dignity and security of the nation's elderly and
disabled;
(2) the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Fund have reported
to the Congress that the ``total income'' of the Social
Security system ``is essentially to fall short of
expenditures beginning in 2021 and in each year thereafter .
. . until the assets of the combined trust funds are
exhausted in 2032'';
(3) intergenerational fairness, honest accounting
principles, prudent budgeting, and sound economic policy all
require saving Social Security first, in order that the
Nation may better afford the retirement of the baby boom
generation, beginning in 2010;
(4) in reforming Social Security in 1983, the Congress
intended that near-term Social Security trust fund surpluses
be used to
[[Page S8727]]
prefund the retirement of the baby boom generation;
(5) in his State of the Union message to the joint session
of Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton called on
the Congress to ``save Social Security first'' and to
``reserve one hundred percent of the surplus, that is any
penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary
measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the
twenty-first century'';
(6) saving Social Security first would work to expand
national savings, reduce interest rates, enhance private
investment, increase labor productivity, and boost economic
growth;
(7) section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
expressly forbids counting Social Security trust fund
surpluses as revenue available to balance the budget; and
(8) the CBO has estimated that the unified budget surplus
will reach nearly $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress and the President should--
(1) continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance
the budget without counting Social Security trust fund
surpluses;
(2) work in a bipartisan way on specific legislation to
reform the Social Security system, to ensure that it is
financially sound over the long term and will be available
for all future generations.
(3) save Social Security first; and
(4) return all remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I say to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I
hope I can get to Heaven. But if I ever get to Heaven and have to make
an accounting to the Lord of all my sins, I hope I have you as my
lawyer, because you are really very persuasive.
Mr. DOMENICI. Actually, I say to the Senator, in----
Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me tell you why you miss the point and how you
danced around it. Now, here is the difference. It says, ``The CBO has
estimated''--this is the Domenici-Lott resolution; sense of the
Senate--``The CBO has estimated that the unified budget surplus will
reach nearly $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' Absolutely false
and in violation of section 13301, Madam President.
Without reading the whole thing--``Exclusion of Social Security from
all budgets.''
Now, how do you get $1.5 trillion without using $1.621 trillion,
$1.621 trillion of Social Security money? That is the first mislead
here. They first say that they are not going to use Social Security,
but then they talk about a budget surplus. And the only way they can
really mislead and continue the fraud and continue the campaign finance
fund for all of us politicians to get reelected is to talk about tax
cuts and surpluses when there are not any. There are not any, Madam
President--absolutely none. But they use $1.621 trillion in order to
get to the $1.5 trillion.
Now, Madam President, there is a further point to be made. Here is
the entire--I ask unanimous consent the trust fund surpluses from
Social Security alone for the next 10 years--rather than a $1.5
trillion surplus, there is a $1.621 trillion deficit--I ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND SURPLUSES: CBO SUMMER 1998 BASELINE
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund surplus................................... 105 117 126 130 138 146 154 165 173 181 186
Interest received by fund............................ -46 -51 -57 -64 -70 -77 -84 -91 -99 -108 -117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-interest surplus............................. 58 66 68 66 68 69 71 74 74 73 70
Trust fund balance, end of fiscal year............... 736 853 978 1,108 1,246 1,392 1,547 1,712 1,885 2,066 2,252
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Then I go to the real point with respect to surpluses,
as if there were plenty of them around. There are not.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the trust funds
looted to balance the budget.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TRUST FUNDS LOOTED TO BALANCE BUDGET
[By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security................................. 631 732 1,236
Medicare:
HI............................................ 117 113 109
SMI........................................... 34 34 51
Military Retirement............................. 126 133 163
Civilian Retirement............................. 431 460 584
Unemployment.................................... 62 72 98
Highway......................................... 22 23 56
Airport......................................... 7 10 30
Railroad Retirement............................. 19 20 23
Other........................................... 53 55 68
-----------------------
Total..................................... 1,502 1,652 2,418
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, we find out with this, Social Security is only
one-half of the problem. The truth of the matter is that this year we
will owe--these are CBO figures--$732 billion. We will owe Medicare,
$113 billion; and the hospital and SMI, $34 billion; military
retirement, $133 billion; a deficit in civilian retirement of $460
billion; a deficit in the unemployment compensation of $72 billion; a
deficit in the highway trust fund of $23 billion; a deficit in the
airport trust fund of $10 billion; a deficit in the railroad retirement
trust fund of $20 billion; and others, like Federal Financing Bank of
$55 billion.
I only limited it to 1 year, trying to get their attention to what is
going on this particular year. We can extend it out. There is no
difference there. But don't go along with this continued fraud. Don't
go along with this continued trickery. There is $1.652 trillion
overall. Social Security is less than half; almost $1 trillion from the
military retirement and civilian retirees and unemployment fund.
So the Government, us politicians, have been running around and
gabbing about everyone. I thought I could get the seniors to pay
attention to Social Security, but they are only paying attention to
Medicare and Medicaid. I have been trying my best to get them in that
particular movement. The military retirees don't understand it, and
civilian retirees don't understand it at all.
So what is really wrong is not only that CBO has estimated the
unified budget surplus will reach nearly $1.5 trillion when there is no
surplus, they act like they are trying to give dignity and credibility
to unified budgets. There is no surplus. Look on page 11 of the CBO
report, and for the next 10 years there is listed a deficit, gross
deficit. It is listed there in the column like I emphasized--otherwise,
returning all remaining surpluses.
At this point, tell me, where is a surplus in the Government
accounts? None--N-O-N-E. In fact, deficits--they mislead and say once
we make a plan for Social Security, we can continue to spend the
Medicare trust funds, the military retirement, the civilian retirement,
the unemployment, the railroad retirement, the highway trust fund, the
Federal Financing Bank. All of these are deficits--not surpluses.
So they say I hope we can get together and fuzz it all up, and there
is really no difference here. This is a cancer, I emphasize again, a
fiscal cancer because unless and until it shows instead of surpluses
over the next 5 years--and that is what we are talking about, this
year's deficit, $557 billion spent more than we take in. Deficits,
deficits, deficits--not surpluses. And we add that to the national
debt, the interest costs go up. According to June O'Neill, it doesn't,
but I can tell you right now it will go up.
You can see Mr. Greenspan hedging his bet right now. When we do that,
we will go back to the interest rates we had 10 years ago, and we are
going to be eaten alive. So we have fiscal cancer. Nobody wants to talk
about it, and we want to come up on the floor of the U.S. Senate with
this nebulous language ``return all remaining surpluses to the American
taxpayer.'' If you have them, Brother Hollings would be for that. But I
don't want to mislead the American public. I haven't been nearly 50
years in public office to come here with this kind of fraud and
doubletalk
[[Page S8728]]
to the American people. There are no surpluses. I challenge them to
point out the surplus in the highway fund, point out the surplus in
Medicare, point out the surplus in military retirement, point out the
surplus in civilian retirees, in unemployment, railroad retirement,
Federal Financing Bank, all of the rest of them.
All of them are in deficit. That is why the debt has gone through the
ceiling, and that is why we are increasing spending faster than we can
cut it. It is $1 billion a day we are increasing spending on the
interest costs on the national debt. Who in his right mind is going to
cut spending $365 billion? That is our problem. The best way to ignore
it is to put it under the rug, come in here and ``return all remaining
surpluses.'' They still want to use that language to give in to Speaker
Gingrich over on the House side; that is what they are trying to do.
That is why we are raising this all-important point right now. If I
can get their attention, just this 1 year we will have accomplished our
intent here. I retain the balance of our time.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been interested in seeing the
responses of some who come to the floor and say we support this ``save
Social Security first'' notion, and we want to add to it and make it
better.
I bet when this vote is over, within 24 hours we will have them or
their cousins or their kin or their friends talking about how big the
surplus is and how much of a tax cut they want to give.
The question is, Where do you think they can provide the money to
fund a tax cut if they are not to dip into the Social Security trust
funds, and to go back on exactly what they are now proposing in the
Gregg amendment, which is to save Social Security first?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. That is what they intend to do. But they think
the politician makes his own little laws and sits attentive to his own
applause--Plato's famous words.
The language, the image--it is a scandal. It really is a scandal. We
are going broke, and we are talking about surpluses when we have
nothing but deficit all around us.
Mr. DORGAN. Might it be the case that those who say, ``Yes, let's
save Social Security first,'' don't really mean that? They want to
protect the trust funds because the same people who are talking about
additional tax cuts right now can only get it by taking the Social
Security trust funds. Could it be they don't understand the language of
saving Social Security first, which means protecting the Social
Security trust funds?
Mr. HOLLINGS. My dear colleague, they understand the language. They
know exactly what they are doing. I can tell you here and now as a
Governor who went before Standard & Poor's, went before Moody and got a
triple A credit rating, we wouldn't have any rating at all, the U.S.
Government on its bonds, this very minute with these kinds of deficits.
You couldn't doubletalk Wall Street about surpluses. Wall Street goes
along with the unified because it is business for them. That is why I
pointed out the difference between corporate and the country's economy.
Mr. DORGAN. I understand it would be in my interest to provide tax
cuts all the time, I suppose, if we could afford to do that.
Mr. HOLLINGS. That would be lovely. Reelect me, I am for all the tax
cuts. Whoopee.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will continue to yield, if we are
collecting more money than is necessary for the Government, it ought to
go back to the folks who send it in, no question about that.
But the question is, we have a debt of nearly $6 trillion and we have
a problem in Social Security, as the Senator from South Carolina has
pointed out. Just after World War II there were a lot of warm feelings
around this country and we had the biggest baby crop ever produced in
American history. People liked each other a lot and we had a lot of
babies. Those babies are fixing to retire soon, and when they hit the
retirement rolls it will be a maximum strain on the Social Security
system. We have accrued surpluses year after year to meet that test for
the baby boomers' retirement and those surpluses are invested in
government bonds.
When the folks over here say well, gee, now we have the Congressional
Budget Office that tells us there is a surplus, they are taking one
page of the CBO report. They are forgetting the other page. The other
page says if you include the Social Security fund in your budget
totals, there is a surplus. But if you don't count the Social Security
fund--which you shouldn't be able to do, because that money is paid
into a trust fund for only one purpose--if you don't count the Social
Security trust fund, there is no surplus.
Those folks are going to the second page, taking the number they
want, and saying not only is there a surplus--which there isn't--but
with the surplus we want to provide a big tax cut.
When? The month before the election. Gee, that is Politics 101, I
suppose, but it is not good government. That is the purpose of the
amendment that is offered by the Senator from South Carolina. It says,
let us do with the Social Security trust funds what we promised the
American people we would do--that is, save them for Social Security
needs when the baby boomers retire.
Mr. HOLLINGS. They are telling the baby boomers they are the problem
when we are charging them. They are not the problem; it is us adults on
the floor of the Congress. The baby boomers are not the problem. We
provided in the Greenspan Commission and in the law passed and signed
by President George Bush on November 5, 1990, to take care of the baby
boomers. Instead of taking care of them, we are continuing to charge
them and, at the same time, telling them there is going to be a problem
in the next generation when we are causing the problem.
I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Madam President, I will just take a few
minutes out of the distinguished Senator's time to illustrate what is
being discussed here in as direct and simple terms as possible. This
chart really does it.
For years now, the Senator from South Carolina has been sounding the
alarm. He has been the Paul Revere of Social Security for years now. He
is always calling our attention to the fact that, yes, we now have
enough to fund the needs of the Social Security payout program, the
beneficiaries. But look out for the future, watch out, there is a train
wreck coming. And he works at it all the time to make it abundantly
clear. I hope the message gets through. He endorses, as we do, and as
our friends on the other side of the aisle said today--and I will use
the word perhaps ``admitted'' today--the best idea is to save Social
Security first.
Well, frankly, I was a little astounded at what I heard here. In the
same breath, they said we are taking in more than we need to spend for
Government, so essentially let's get rid of that which is left over. I
wonder if the same proponents of that type of a policy would say to
their kids, ``Listen, kids, if you have more money than you need today,
spend it.'' I doubt it. Would you, if you were running a business,
decide that if you had more than you needed for today's expenses, you
would go ahead and spend it?
I ran a big corporation before I came here. One of the things that we
always tried to do was to make sure that we were putting away the funds
necessary for long-term investment, for new programs, for new
marketing, for new production, to make sure that we would be ready for
the future to stay competitive. That is what we are saying now. We are
saying, yes, yes, to tax relief for hard-working Americans. But the
first thing that we committed to do is to make sure that we save Social
Security. I use the term ``SOS,'' which is the international call for
help--save our security, save our Social Security--SOS.
The Senator from South Carolina has been the one who stood here in
the face of all kinds of opposition and worked hard to make sure that
the message got through. Finally, it is getting through. And now, as it
gets through, we want to spend it.
Here is the picture in very simple terms. In the 5 years, including
1999 to 2003, we will have a surplus that includes Social Security--
includes Social Security. I repeat, we take in on Social Security more
than we spend; thus, we
[[Page S8729]]
are able to portray a surplus--$520 billion in 5 years. Now, if we take
out the Social Security surplus--that means the funds that the people
pay in through their payroll taxes--we wind up with a $137 billion
deficit. So we ought not to continue this sleight of hand, as I call
it, which is what is helping us to create these surpluses.
From 1999 to 2008, the surplus is Social Security; $1.540 trillion is
created because we include the Social Security balance in there. And if
we follow the policy that we have developed now, we will use those
funds to project the life of Social Security off into the future--into
the foreseeable future, beyond 2070. If we don't use the Social
Security surplus, we wind up, in this same period of time, with $31
billion compared to $1.5 trillion.
So when I hear that, yes, we want to save Social Security, oh,
absolutely; we want to send the message out to those who will come of
retirement age in the years ahead that it will be there for you. But it
can't be there for you if we spend it now, if we go ahead and do as we
have heard said and subscribe to the Republican policy of huge tax
cuts, as it comes over from the House. Get rid of this surplus; get rid
of it now; let everybody feel good; let everybody believe this is good
business practice --while we go broke in the process and create debts
that we will never be able to meet.
So I hope that we will take the amendment by the Senator from South
Carolina and get it passed. I like the amendment that we hear about
from the Senator from New Hampshire because in it they say very
clearly, save Social Security first. The language is precise: ``and
return all remaining surpluses to the American taxpayer.'' So there is
first and there is second. The second part of this is returning the
surpluses to the American taxpayer. Everybody wants to see tax relief
available to those who are working and trying to take care of their
families' needs and provide education and job opportunities. But we
can't do it with this kind of hocus-pocus that we are seeing here.
Nobody here who understands financial balance sheets would permit
this kind of thinking to overtake their judgment if they were running a
business. I would not, and I know the Senator from South Carolina would
not, and our colleagues on the other side would not do it, either. But
when you sprinkle it with a little bit of politics in there, the tune
changes, and the tune is: Spend it while you got it, baby. That is what
is being said here on the floor of the Senate. I think, frankly, it is
the kind of a message that the American people will see through.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Texas 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 8
minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce,
State, Justice Committee for yielding. Every once in awhile, we have a
debate on something that really defines the choice that the American
people face every 2 years when they go to the polls and decide whether
they want a Republican majority in Congress or a Democrat majority in
Congress. Many of the things we vote on, we agree on. Often, the
distinctions are not so clear. And often the issues where they are
clear, don't appear to be big at the time. But why I think the vote we
are about to have at 4:15 is a very important vote and why I think the
issue is significant--or at least it should be--to Americans who sit
down every night around their kitchen table and get out a pencil and
have the back of an envelope, and at the first of the month they take
the amount of the paycheck and write it at the top of the envelope and
they start subtracting bills they have to pay and try to figure out if
they are going to make ends meet and whether they are coming out ahead
that month--why this issue is a defining issue between the two parties
is that there is one small, but significant, difference between the two
resolutions that are before us. First of all, there are two very fine
resolutions. They both talk about the fact that we are blessed by
having a very strong and vibrant economy.
We are blessed by having a lot of Americans who are working, and that
we have joined together, at least to this point, in a bipartisan
commitment to try to save Social Security, which implies two things--
No. 1, we admit, on a bipartisan basis, that it needs saving; No. 2, we
are willing to do the heavy lifting to get the job done.
I know Senator Gregg has a plan and has been willing to take a
courageous stand in showing us how we can save Social Security. Senator
Domenici and I are working on a program to try to save Social Security
and protect its benefits. So the difference here is not about Social
Security, the difference is, What do you do if you save Social Security
and there is still some money left? Our resolution says that, A, we
want to save Social Security first, but we want to return all remaining
surpluses to the American taxpayer.
That is the difference between these two resolutions.
Why is that important? Why that is important is that if you take
Federal, State, and local taxes, the tax burden on American families
today is at the highest level in American history. Never in the history
of this country--at the peak of the war effort in World War II, at the
peak of the war effort in the Civil War--have we ever had working
Americans face and bear a higher tax burden than they have today.
What Republicans are saying is, first of all, we want to live up to
our obligations; we want to save Social Security not with a slogan but
with a real program, to begin to shift from a Social Security based on
the debt of the Federal Government to a Social Security based on
investment and wealth. That is the way we believe we can save Social
Security. Obviously, we are going to have a debate on that.
But the resolutions before us--both fine resolutions, but the
difference is, our resolution has a part 4; and the part 4 is: Return
all remaining surplus after we save Social Security to the American
taxpayer. We believe the tax burden is too high. So we want to save
Social Security first. But if money remains after we do that job, we
want to give it back to taxpayers.
Let me tell you why we are concerned, why we think Congress needs to
go on record.
The President proposed a budget this year. At the same moment he was
saying save Social Security first, he proposed a budget that had $56
billion worth of new discretionary spending programs busting the
spending caps that we agreed to only last year.
What we are saying in our resolution is, we do not intend to see
those spending caps breached, we do not intend to increase Government
spending; we intend to hold the line on spending, tax the surplus, save
Social Security with a real investment-based system that belongs to the
individual worker, and then to the extent that there is any money
left--and if we hold the line on spending, there will be money left,
tens, hundreds, of billions of dollars left ultimately--we want that to
go back to American families.
What would we like it to go back in the form of? We would like to
repeal the marriage penalty. We have voted on an amendment that I
offered this year to repeal the marriage penalty so that we don't have
this absurd situation where people fall in love and get married and
they end up giving the Government $1,400 additional income for the
right to live in holy matrimony. Unfortunately, that was a bill that
didn't become law.
One of the things we want to do with the money that is left when we
save Social Security, if there is money, is we want to repeal the
marriage penalty. We happen to believe that families are important. I
believe, and believe very strongly, that we are overfeeding government.
We are starving the one institution in America that really works. That
institution is the family.
I would like to stretch out the income tax brackets. The average
family in America is a two-wage-earner family. It earns $49,000 a year.
It is in the 28-percent marginal tax bracket. I would like to link them
to a 15-percent bracket so that more struggling American families who
are trying to own their own home, trying to send their children to
college, can continue to stay in that lower tax bracket longer.
Finally, I would like to junk the current unfair, complicated--and
unfath-
omable to most Americans, including me--Tax Code we have now and go to
a
[[Page S8730]]
simple system that has flatter rates and that is comprehensible to the
taxpayer, so that people can fill their tax return out in some
semblance of some form they understand.
This is a big issue on a relatively minor resolution. What is the
sense of the Senate? Some would say that it is sort of an oxymoron to
be talking about it. But to the extent there is, are we simply trying
to save Social Security, or do we want to go a step further and say
that, if we save Social Security, if any money is left, we want it to
go back to the taxpayer instead of being spent? That is what we say.
I hope people will vote for our resolution.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let me go right to the point made by
the distinguished Senator from Texas. He said, ``We believe the tax
burden is too high.'' We all agree on that. But what is increasing that
tax burden rather than decreasing it is this profligate spending,
increasing the deficit, and increasing the debt.
If you look on page 11 of the Congressional Budget Office report, you
find out that we increase spending over what we bring in for the next
10 years, and there is nothing but deficits. There are not any
surpluses. There are not any surpluses.
Go right to the point of, yes, the President did submit a budget, and
he increased spending $70 billion. You look on page 10 where the total
went up to $1.721 trillion. The budget that passed the Senate with the
vote of the distinguished Senator from Texas increased spending $70
billion. The President is guilty. The Congress is guilty.
This Senator tried a budget freeze. We had a vote on it last year,
tried it again in the Budget Committee, and couldn't get any support.
They call it the ``Fritz freeze.''
But the whole point is, return all moneys or surpluses to the
taxpayers. Common sense would indicate that there must be some
surpluses after Social Security.
I ask unanimous consent to have this chart printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 4.--CBO PROJECTIONS OF INTEREST COSTS AND FEDERAL DEBT
[By fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INTEREST OUTLAYS (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Interest on Public Debt (Gross 356 363 363 365 363 360 357 357 357 356 354 352
interest) a....................
Interest Received by Trust
Funds:
Social Security............. -41 -46 -51 -57 -64 -70 -77 -84 -91 -99 -108 -117
Other trust funds b......... -64 -67 -67 -70 -72 -73 -75 -77 -79 -81 -84 -86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. -105 -113 -118 -128 -136 -143 -151 -161 -170 -180 -191 -202
Other Interest c................ -7 -6 -7 -6 -7 -7 -8 -8 -9 -9 -10 -10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 244 244 238 232 221 209 198 189 178 166 153 140
FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Gross Federal Debt.............. 5,370 5,475 5,594 5,721 5,845 5,927 6,021 6,102 6,174 6,205 6,223 6,222
=======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by Government
Accounts:
Social Security............. 631 736 853 978 1,108 1,246 1,392 1,547 1,712 1,885 2,066 2,252
Other accounts b............ 968 1,022 1,087 1,154 1,219 1,286 1,354 1,419 1,481 1,541 1,600 1,650
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 1,599 1,757 1,939 2,132 2,327 2,532 2,746 2,966 3,193 3,426 3,665 3,902
=======================================================================================================================
Debt Held by the Public......... 3,771 3,717 3,655 3,589 3,518 3,395 3,275 3,136 2,981 2,779 2,557 2,320
Debt Subject to Limit d......... 5,328 5,437 5,557 5,685 5,810 5,893 5,988 6,072 6,145 6,178 6,196 6,196
FEDERAL DEBT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
Debt Held by the Public......... 47.3 44.3 41.7 39.3 37.1 34.3 31.6 28.9 26.3 23.5 20.7 18.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
Note.--Projections of interest and debt assume that discretionary spending will equal the statutory caps that are in effect through 2002 and will grow
at the rate of inflation in succeeding years.
a. Excludes interest costs of debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury (primarily the Tennessee Valley Authority).
b. Principally Civil Service Retirement, Military Retirement, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and the Highway and the Airport and Airway Trust Funds.
c. Primarily interest on loans to the public.
d. Differs from the gross federal debt primarily because most debt issued by agencies other than the Treasury is excluded from the debt limit.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, these are all deficits. I have asked
the other side that sponsors this resolution to, for heaven's sake,
show that dumb Senator from South Carolina where the surplus is. Show
me the surplus, and I will hush and vote for your resolution. But you
can't show me a surplus.
There is nothing but deficits in these reports. And mislead the
public so that we can use Social Security as a slush fund to reelect
ourselves--that is what we are doing. It is the greatest campaign
finance abuse that I know of to continually have the word ``surplus''
come out of the mouth of that side of the aisle. There ought to be
ashes in their mouths. They oppose--in fact, still are.
Down in South Carolina, I have a young Republican colleague running
around hollering ``the biggest tax increase in history.'' Of course, we
know it was under President Reagan and Senator Dole. That has been
analyzed in every newspaper. But I plead guilty, I voted for that tax
increase. It is not the biggest.
What happened was, we cut spending $250 billion. Yes, we increased
taxes $250 billion. We downsized the Government by over 300,000 Federal
employees. That is what has the economy good--lowest unemployment,
lowest inflation rate, biggest business investment, stock market
through the ceiling, more home ownership, more young children getting
help in receiving health care. We are in good shape.
If we can't talk the truth to each other now about where we stand
fiscally, we never will. This is one grand fraud. That is what has
occurred.
For those who fought us on down the line, instead of $250 billion--
yes, the revenues went up.
Where is the amendment that says do away with the Social Security
increase that we put in that they are now blaming me for? Where is the
amendment that says we reduce the gas tax increase that they are
blaming me for? I go home and they are blaming me. Yet, they want to
come up here and holler, ``Oh, the economy is so good; man, we got
surpluses everywhere; now what is in order is, let's all now have a
bunch of tax cuts.''
I want to expose that fraud. Don't go along with this Republic
resolution to fuzz it, using the word ``surpluses.'' As my sister used
to say, ``Saying it so doesn't make it so.''
There is no surplus. If they can find one in the Federal Government,
God bless them. I will join me. But these are all deficits.
I ask unanimous consent, once again, to have this chart of the budget
realities printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S8731]]
HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Unified Actual increases
U.S. budget Borrowed deficit deficit National in spending
President (year) (outlays in trust funds with trust without debt for
billions) (billions) funds trust funds (billions) interest
(billions) (billions) (billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
1945.......................... 92.7 ........... -47.6 ........... 260.1 ...........
1946.......................... 55.2 5.4 -15.9 -10.9 271.0 ...........
1947.......................... 34.5 -5.0 4.0 +13.9 257.1 ...........
1948.......................... 29.8 -9.9 11.8 +5.1 252.0 ...........
1949.......................... 38.8 6.7 0.6 -0.6 252.6 ...........
1950.......................... 42.6 1.2 -3.1 -4.3 256.9 ...........
1951.......................... 45.5 1.2 6.1 +1.6 255.3 ...........
1952.......................... 67.7 4.5 -1.5 -3.8 259.1 ...........
1953.......................... 76.1 2.3 -6.5 -6.9 266.0 ...........
Eisenhower:
1954.......................... 70.9 0.4 -1.2 -4.8 270.8 ...........
1955.......................... 68.4 3.6 -3.0 -3.6 274.4 ...........
1956.......................... 70.6 0.6 3.9 +1.7 272.7 ...........
1957.......................... 76.6 2.2 3.4 +0.4 272.3 ...........
1958.......................... 82.4 3.0 -2.8 -7.4 279.7 ...........
1959.......................... 92.1 4.6 -12.8 -7.8 287.5 ...........
1960.......................... 92.2 -5.0 0.3 -3.0 290.5 ...........
1961.......................... 97.7 3.3 -3.3 -2.1 292.6 ...........
Kennedy:
1962.......................... 106.8 -1.2 -7.1 -10.3 302.9 9.1
1963.......................... 111.3 3.2 -4.8 -7.4 310.3 9.9
Johnson:
1964.......................... 118.5 2.6 -5.9 -5.8 316.1 10.7
1965.......................... 118.2 -0.1 -1.4 -6.2 322.3 11.3
1966.......................... 134.5 4.8 -3.7 -6.2 328.5 12.0
1967.......................... 157.5 2.5 -8.6 -11.9 340.4 13.4
1968.......................... 178.1 3.3 -25.2 -28.3 368.7 14.6
1969.......................... 183.6 3.1 3.2 +2.9 365.8 16.6
Nixon:
1970.......................... 195.6 0.3 -2.8 -15.1 380.9 19.3
1971.......................... 210.2 12.3 -23.0 -27.3 408.2 21.0
1972.......................... 230.7 4.3 -23.4 -27.7 435.9 21.8
1973.......................... 245.7 4.3 -14.9 -30.4 466.3 24.2
1974.......................... 269.4 15.5 -6.1 -17.6 483.9 29.3
Ford:
1975.......................... 332.3 11.5 -53.2 -58.0 541.9 32.7
1976.......................... 371.8 4.8 -73.7 -87.1 629.0 37.1
Carter:
1977.......................... 409.2 13.4 -53.7 -77.4 706.4 41.9
1978.......................... 458.7 23.7 -59.2 -70.2 776.6 48.7
1979.......................... 503.5 11.0 -40.7 -52.9 829.5 59.9
1980.......................... 590.9 12.2 -73.8 -79.6 909.1 74.8
Reagan:
1981.......................... 678.2 5.8 -79.0 -85.7 994.8 95.5
1982.......................... 745.8 6.7 -128.0 -142.5 1,137.3 117.2
1983.......................... 808.4 14.5 -207.8 -234.4 1,371.7 128.7
1984.......................... 851.8 26.6 -185.4 -193.0 1,564.7 153.9
1985.......................... 946.4 7.6 -212.3 -252.8 1,817.5 178.9
1986.......................... 990.3 40.5 -221.2 -303.1 2,120.6 190.3
1987.......................... 1,003.9 81.9 -149.8 -225.5 2,346.1 195.3
1988.......................... 1,064.1 75.7 -155.2 -255.2 2,601.3 214.1
Bush:
1989.......................... 1,143.2 100.0 -152.5 -266.7 2,868.3 240.9
1990.......................... 1,252.7 114.2 -221.2 -338.6 3,206.6 264.7
1991.......................... 1,323.8 117.4 -269.4 -391.9 3,598.5 285.5
1992.......................... 1,380.9 122.5 -290.4 -403.6 4,002.1 292.3
Clinton:
1993.......................... 1,408.2 113.2 -255.0 -349.3 4,351.4 292.5
1994.......................... 1,460.6 94.3 -203.1 -292.3 4,643.7 296.3
1995.......................... 1,514.6 89.2 -163.9 -277.3 4,921.0 332.4
1996.......................... 1,560.3 113.4 -107.3 -260.9 5,181.9 344.0
1997.......................... 1,601.3 153.6 -22.3 -187.8 5,369.7 355.8
1998.......................... 1,654.0 168.3 63.0 -105.3 5,475.0 363.0
1999.......................... 1,721.0 199.0 80.0 -119.0 5,594.0 363.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1998; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1998 Economic and Budget
Outlook.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I will give it to my colleague from New Hampshire, and
he can get everything, the Congressional Budget Office figures. And the
main point to be made, Madam President, is just that. Where you see an
actual surplus down here in 1998 that they project of $63 billion, in
order to do that they had to use trust funds of $168.3 billion. They
used not only Social Security but all the rest. And then where they
project for next year an $80 billion surplus, they had to use $199
billion in trust funds from Social Security and the retirement funds.
That is how they talk that language. And I am trying to stop the
doubletalk and talk sense to the American people.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I just wanted to return to the specifics
of the resolution, because I do think it is important to note that the
resolution put forward by the Democratic membership is a resolution
which tracks the statements made by the President in his State of the
Union Address, which were that we should save Social Security first, we
should reserve the surplus until we have saved Social Security first.
That is a paraphrase, but I think it is an accurate paraphrase. In
other words, the President did not say, ``We shall use the surplus to
save Social Security.'' No, he chose his words very precisely. He said,
``We would reserve the surplus until Social Security is saved.'' If you
look at this proposal brought forward by the Democratic leadership, it
says, ``Save Social Security first by reserving any surplus.'' It
doesn't say the surplus is going to be used. It says they are going to
reserve it, again.
What is the difference here? We are saying use the surplus to save
Social Security. They are saying reserve the surplus until Social
Security has been saved. So all of the arguments they have made
relative to the surplus and how it ties into the need to have the
surplus for the purposes of benefiting the Social Security system
really are not supported by the terms and specifics of their language
because they are not even saying they intend to use the surplus to save
Social Security. They are saying they are going to reserve the surplus
until Social Security is saved, which leads one to the conclusion that
maybe what they are planning is some change, some horrific change to
the Social Security system where they are going to cut benefits and
slash here and slash there so that they can pump up the surplus and
have saved the Social Security system and still have a surplus to
spend.
You can read their language to say that. You can't read our language
to say that. Our language says, ``Use the surplus to save Social
Security.'' So the histrionics around here are a bit much, and I don't
know what they
[[Page S8732]]
mean. I don't know what they mean when they say ``reserve.'' I don't
know what they mean when they say, ``The surpluses in the year 1999
budget legislation'' because that doesn't necessarily mean the year
1999. That could mean the next 5 years, for all I know, that the budget
legislation expires.
So this is a resolution that is, to be kind, imprecisely drafted, or
maybe it isn't imprecisely drafted. Maybe they intended to obfuscate
the issue by using the term ``reserve,'' obfuscate the issue by using
the term ``1999 budget legislation.'' We do not obfuscate the issue. We
say, ``Save Social Security first,'' period. None of this qualifying
language about reserving anything. And then we say, and we don't
obfuscate this either, to the extent that there remains a surplus,
``Give it back to the American taxpayers.'' Give them a tax cut. Across
this country in State legislatures where the surpluses are being added
up--along with our Federal surplus, most States are running surpluses
--we are seeing tax cut after tax cut because the States understand
that they are taking in more than the government needs. You shouldn't
spend it. You shouldn't create new programs. You should return it to
the taxpayers.
Now, the Senator from South Carolina has spent a considerable amount
of time--in fact, he was kind enough to give me his numbers, and they
are very nice numbers, presented very nicely, well formatted--on how
there is no surplus out there besides the Social Security surplus.
Well, I know the Senator from South Carolina is a student of the
budget. In fact, he is one of the most knowledgeable people around
here. I would simply refer him to the CBO numbers which say in the
outyears there is a surplus independent of the Social Security system,
independent of the Social Security system. In other words, there is a
surplus beginning in the year 2005, which is a surplus that is not
generated in any relationship to the surplus in the Social Security
trust fund, and in 2006, in 2007, and in 2008, and beyond that maybe--
we hope. But in any event, over that 4-year period, and that adds up to
almost, by my calculations, $150 billion of surplus, which is an
onbudget surplus generated not by the Social Security surplus but
generated after you have taken into account Social Security payments.
So the CBO is telling us there is a distinct potential for there to
be a surplus which has nothing to do with the Social Security trust
funds. Not only is there a potential; they say there is going to be
one, specifically saying. So I believe the Senator from South Carolina
has misspoken on that point, or I disagree with his position on that
point. He may not have misspoken. I am disagreeing with his position,
because I am looking at the CBO July update which says there is a
surplus.
Should we use that surplus for something other than Social Security?
My own personal opinion is no. No. The onbudget surplus, that I just
talked about, should probably be also used for the purposes of
addressing the Social Security issue. That happens to be my personal
position. The way it should be done is by cutting taxes, which is what
we happen to mention here in our amendment. We should cut taxes.
What tax should we cut? We should cut the Social Security tax. Why?
Because it is the most regressive tax which we have. It is assessed
across the board. Every wage earner pays it, and it is extraordinarily
high. In fact, for most wage earners in America today, the Social
Security tax is higher than their income tax. And it has no
relationship to your total income; it simply is applied to your wage
base. So it should be cut.
That is our proposal. It happens to be a bipartisan proposal. In
fact, I think it now has something like seven or eight sponsors almost
evenly divided between the Democrat and Republican side of the aisle
here. And what we propose is to cut the Social Security tax by 2
percent, allow people to take that money, invest it in a savings
vehicle managed by the Social Security Administration, which will give
them a better return and give them physical ownership of that asset as
we have discussed earlier.
So substantively I believe the proposal that I have brought forward
here that is cosponsored by Senator Lott, Senator Domenici, Senator
Gramm, and Senator Mack is a better idea. It says, ``Save Social
Security,'' period. That has to be done. It has to be done first. And
then if there is a surplus, let's return it to the American taxpayer.
It doesn't say there will definitely be a surplus, but if we look at
the CBO numbers, we know there is a distinct possibility that there
will be a surplus because they are scoring one for us. It does not
obfuscate the issue with words like ``reserve'' and words like ``fiscal
year 1999 budget legislation.'' Pretty blunt.
So I think if the membership wants to choose a clear, concise,
specific statement that says Social Security will be saved and will be
saved first, and that then we will look at cutting taxes for the
American taxpayer, they will want to choose the amendment offered by
myself. If they wish to choose an amendment which is a little more
opaque in its presentation and does not address the issue of cutting
taxes, then they will choose one presented by the Democratic
leadership.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I think we can bring this right into focus for
everyone. The Senator was reading from page 10 about surplus, and I
have already been critical, of course, of the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, because that is using surplus funds, that
is using trust funds and moving them. The question would be--just turn
the page--on page 11 you have the Federal debt, 2002, $5.927 trillion,
and then why, if you have surpluses those years that you are talking
about, and return those surpluses to the taxpayers--why is it, in 2003
it increases, in 2004, in 2005, in 2006, in 2007, 2008--why does the
debt go up, if you have surpluses?
Mr. GREGG. As the Senator knows, there are a lot of other functions.
But I am looking at the surplus, at the deficit surplus function, on
budget, July: $37 million, $46 million, $45 million, $1 million, $11
million, zero; then we go into surplus, $5 million, $44 million, $55
million, $65 million.
We can spend the entire day here debating what the CBO means when it
puts a surplus number out which says an on-budget surplus number. But
the numbers are there. The Senator said find me a place where we can
show a surplus. I found him a place. He wants to try to talk now about
gross debt--
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right, because that is not a surplus.
They are using trust funds. That is exactly my point. That is what the
whole debate is about: Save Social Security.
Mr. GREGG. Didn't the Senator ask me to answer his question? I
believe I answered his question by pointing out to where it has shown a
surplus. So, obviously, there is an opportunity here to show a surplus
independent of the Social Security investments.
Mr. HOLLINGS. What fund shows a surplus? Because the Federal debt
goes up each year. So you show me--that is what I am saying: Name the
surplus. I agree she used the word ``surplus.''
Mr. GREGG. That is $169 billion, according to the CBO numbers,
between the period 2004 and 2008.
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is by using, of course, all these Social Security
moneys.
Mr. GREGG. No; that is independent of Social Security.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, 2004-2008, you use the year 2004, $154
billion of Social Security moneys to make it a slush fund; 2005, $166
billion; 2006, $173 billion; 2007, $181 billion; 2008, $187 billion.
That is how you use the word ``surplus.''
Mr. GREGG. No, that is not the same at all.
Mr. HOLLINGS. What fund here is in surplus?
Mr. GREGG. Let's go back to the unified budget surplus.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Unified.
Mr. GREGG. If you use the Social Security trust funds, the surpluses
in 2004 would be $154 billion. If we don't use the unified, you get a
zero number.
Mr. HOLLINGS. If you use Social Security.
Mr. GREGG. If you use the unified, you get $171 billion. If you don't
use--those are surpluses that are independent of the Social Security
system.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator and I agree that we are using Social
Security and not saving Social Security. That is what the whole debate
is about.
Mr. GREGG. No, we are not using Social Security. If I may restate the
[[Page S8733]]
point, CBO numbers, which came out on July 15, showed fairly
definitively that there is a surplus, independent of the Social
Security trust fund, of approximately $169 billion.
The Senator may not accept those numbers. He may not like those
numbers. He may feel those numbers are inaccurately, inappropriately
arrived at. But those are the numbers which we have been given. Which
leads to the secondary point, because the numbers are really almost
irrelevant to the debate. It leads to the secondary point here, which
is the key point, which is that there is a potential to give the
American taxpayers a tax cut. Let's give it to them. Let's lock in the
statement, ``We want to give a tax cut, if there is a surplus in excess
of what we need to benefit the Social Security system and make it
solvent.''
Why would we walk away from the opportunity to say to the American
taxpayer, ``If we can make the Social Security system solvent, after we
have done that, if we have extra money, we are going to give you a tax
cut?'' Why would we ever want to walk away from such a statement? I
think it is a fairly reasonable statement, a clear statement, concise
statement, unlike the statement from the Democratic leadership which is
totally--which is very hard to understand because it uses terms like
``reserve,'' uses terms like ``fiscal year 1999 budget legislation,''
both of which are terms of art and which are very hard to understand,
would be very hard to even get a legal definition of, much less a
commonsense definition of.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, assuming the Senator was correct, the
reason you don't walk away, if you can possibly ever quit using Social
Security as a slush fund, is the almost $1 trillion--that is why I put
this chart in--from Medicare. We are still using Medicare. There is a
surplus in Medicare right now. We have debated that. But we are using
that to balance the budget. Military retirement, civilian retirement,
unemployment, highway, airport moneys, railroad retirement, the other
funds there, Federal Financing Bank and others--it is $1 trillion worth
of other moneys.
If we could ever stop using those, which are deficits, and make them
balance, just in the black instead of in the red, then I would go along
with all the tax cuts. I want to go along with the tax cuts anyway. I
voted to save the tax increase on guns just yesterday. I voted to cut
the other so-called penalty, marriage penalty, on another item. I don't
mind cutting taxes. But, overall, let's not act like we have money to
spend when we are going broke, and that causes the debt to increase,
which causes the interest costs to increase, which causes the waste to
increase.
They act like, ``We can play the game and we will get to it later.''
That is what is really hurting us, the $1-billion-a-day interest costs
on the national debt for absolutely nothing.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to support Senator Hollings'
amendment. This amendment puts the Senate on record in support of
Saving Social Security first. It says before we do anything with the
budget surplus, whether that is cutting taxes or funding worthwhile
programs, we must ensure the solvency of Social Security. This is a
very important vote. It expresses our commitment to the Social Security
system for the millions of Americans who currently rely on Social
Security. It also sends a powerful message to the millions of Americans
who have come to doubt that Social Security will be there for them when
they retire.
I support this amendment because I believe that promises made must be
promises kept. We must be thoughtful and cautious when addressing the
needs of a system that so many Americans count on, especially elderly
women and disabled children. We need to ensure that we have the
resources necessary to put Social Security on a sound footing, for both
the short-term and the long-term.
Now we are in the midst of a historic event: the first federal budget
surplus in decades. We've gone from a record deficit of $290 billion in
the last year of the Bush Administration to a projected surplus of $80
billion for fiscal year 1998. There is no end to the proposals on how
to use this ``extra'' money. I believe that we should follow President
Clinton's lead and not commit the surplus to any program until we first
resolve the long-term solvency of the Social Security system.
When you remove the Social Security Trust Fund from the budget
calculation, there is no surplus and the budget isn't balanced. The
Social Security Trust Fund is an important part of our current fiscal
good fortune. We must continue to work to bring the budget into true
balance without counting Social Security Trust Fund balances. In the
past, I have voted to remove the Social Security Trust Fund from the
federal budget calculation and I will continue to do so in the future.
While Social Security is still in the overall budget calculation, any
budget surplus should not be used to justify new spending initiatives.
Our seniors, disabled, and survivors deserve better.
We are in the early stages of a deliberative process to determine the
best way to assure the solvency of Social Security. I am pleased that
President Clinton started this initiative by putting Social Security
solvency front and center in his State of the Union Address. Since
then, various groups, both public and private, have brought forth a
vast range of proposals. I am taking part in that debate and want to be
an advocate for the original intention of the Social Security program:
a safety net for our seniors and for the disabled.
Let me say again that I believe that promises made must be promises
kept. I want that to be a guiding principle for any plan to modify the
Social Security program. I am pleased to support this amendment that
reaffirms our commitment to Saving Social Security First.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask that Senator Murkowski be added as
a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as I understand it, there are a few
minutes left. I wanted to come to the floor to commend the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina on his amendment. I believe
this is really one of the most critical economic and fiscal decisions
we will make this year. It will probably affect, more dramatically than
anything else we do, the budget, the deficit, and, most certainly,
Social Security. There are four numbers that I think everybody needs to
understand. I know a lot of this has been discussed before.
The first number is $520 billion; $520 billion is the projected
surplus including Social Security trust funds that we anticipate
between now and the year 2003. If you take out the Social Security
trust funds, you get to the second number---$137 billion. If we remove
the Social Security trust funds, we actually have a deficit over the
next 5 years of $137 billion.
Let us not kid anybody here. When we talk about a surplus--and I wish
we could talk more forcefully and more convincingly that, indeed, we
have a surplus--the reality is that we have a surplus only if we
include the Social Security trust funds.
Let's move to the second set of numbers. The first is $1.548
trillion. All of these figures, by the way, Mr. President, are CBO
numbers. That figure is the budget surplus including the Social
Security trust funds that CBO anticipates for the next 10 years.
The fourth and final number is $31 billion; $31 billion is all that
CBO anticipates that we will have over the next 10 years in surplus if
we do not include the Social Security trust funds.
There should not be any question about our circumstances. Do we have
a surplus? Yes. But it is yes with an asterisk, and that is what the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina says so forcefully and so
convincingly. We have a surplus only if we are prepared to drawn down
those Social Security trust funds that we know we are going to need in
the outyears.
When we talk about how do we use the surplus, it is pretty simple.
The question we should be asking is, How do we use the Social Security
trust funds? Of the roughly $650 billion over five years and $1.5
trillion over the next 10 years in Social Security trust funds, how do
we use them?
[[Page S8734]]
Most of us believe very strongly that we ought to use those funds for
one purpose and one purpose only: to pay out the commitment that we
have made to Social Security recipients in this generation and the next
and the next.
That is the question. That is why this resolution is so important,
and that is why I hope everybody will support the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from New Hampshire
has 3 minutes 3 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Democratic side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute on the other side.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest we yield back all time and go to a vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield back the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3255 offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3255) as modified, was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 3254
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
numbered 3254 offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--53
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 3254) was rejected.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator
from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order and
subject to relevant second-degrees; that following the disposition of
the below listed amendments the bill be advanced to third reading, and
a vote occur on passage of the bill as amended.
I further ask that following the vote on the Senate bill, the bill
remain at the desk awaiting receipt of the House companion bill, all
after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2260 be
inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
I further ask that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint the
following conferees on the part of the Senate: Gregg, Stevens,
Domenici, McConnell, Hutchison of Texas, Campbell, Cochran, Hollings,
Inouye, Bumpers, Lott, Mikulski, and Byrd. Finally, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate bill be indefinitely postponed.
I submit the list of amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list of amendments is as follows:
Amendments to CJS
Gregg--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
Stevens--Relevant.
Managers--Relevant.
Kyl--Border crossing cards.
Kyl--Internet gambling.
Kyl--Special masters.
Specter--Schuykill Courthouse.
McCain--P.O.W./M.I.A.
McCain--Patent and trademark office.
Sessions--Relevant.
Sessions--Relevant.
Brownback--Modifies membership of Fed./State joint board on
universal service.
Grams--International criminal court.
Grams--Extradition of U.S. Nationals.
Grams--Provides standard notification of UN no growth
budget certification.
Faircloth--Admin. subpoena authority for FBI on child
exploitation.
Inhofe/Brownback--Patent and Trademark office building.
Nickles--Defense attorneys.
Smith, Wyden, and Craig--H2-A.
Hatch--Relevant.
Hatch--Relevant.
Thompson--Federalism.
Allard--Satellite mapping.
Akaka--Relevant.
Baucus--Havre Montana training site.
Biden--Sec. 403, UN arrearages.
Biden--Violence against women.
Biden--Relevant.
Biden--Relevant.
Biden--Relevant.
Bingaman--Trademark.
Bingaman--Relevant.
Bingaman--Relevant.
Bryan--Children's online privacy.
Bumpers--Immigrant investors program.
Bumpers--Telephone privacy.
Byrd--Relevant.
Byrd--Relevant.
Dodd--Blocking software.
Dorgan--USTR.
Durbin--Child access protection.
Durbin--Nursing relief for disadvantaged areas.
Durbin--Voluntary criminal background check for senior
housing volunteers.
Durbin--Law enforcement training elderly abuse.
Feingold--Cable rates.
Feingold--Juvenile detention.
Feingold--Relevant.
Feinstein--Gangs.
Feinstein--Killer clips.
Ford--Relevant.
Graham--H2A workers.
Graham--Tourist visas.
Graham--Relevant.
Harkin--Communications.
Hollings--Manager's amendment.
Hollings--Relevant.
Hollings--Relevant.
Johnson--National Weather Service.
Johnson--Sentencing commission.
Kerrey--Copper.
Kerrey--Money to TIIAP.
Kerry--Relevant.
Kohl--Background check.
Landrieu--Adoption of immigrant children.
Lautenberg--Funding for prosecutions.
Lautenberg--Funding for certain police activities.
Leahy--Kurds.
Lieberman--Asian financial crisis.
Moseley-Braun--Embargo prohibition.
Moseley-Braun--Internet predators.
Moynihan--Relevant.
Reed (RI)--TPS to Liberians.
[[Page S8735]]
Torricelli--Bounty hunters.
Torricelli--Gun safe.
Torricelli--New Jersey radio use.
Torricelli--Nonsource point pollution.
Wellstone--Battered immigrant spouses.
Wellstone--Mental health.
Wellstone--Sexual assault of prisoners.
Wyden--72 hour holding period.
Mr. GREGG. Under the agreement which we have been talking about, we
will now turn to the Senator from Arizona for an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Amendment No. 3257
(Purpose: To prevent any consolidation of the Patent and Trademark
Office until the Administrator of General Services conducts a cost-
benefit analysis that is not limited to a specific geographical region
and makes a recommendation on the basis of that analysis)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The bill
clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 3257.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 62, strike ``Provided further,'' on line 3 and all
that follows through line 16 and insert the following:
``Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available under this Act or under any other
provision of law may be obligated or expended by the
Secretary of Commerce, through the Patent and Trademark
Office, to plan for the design, construction, or lease of any
new facility for that office until the date that is 90 days
after the date of submission to Congress by the Administrator
of General Services of a report on the results of a cost-
benefit analysis that analyzes the costs versus the benefits
of relocating the Patent and Trademark Office to a new
facility, and that includes an analysis of the cost
associated with leasing, in comparison with the cost of any
lease-purchase, Federal construction, or other alternative
for new space for the Patent and Trademark Office and a
recommendation on the most cost-effective option for
consolidating the Patent and Trademark Office: Provided
further, That the report submitted by the Administrator of
General Services shall consider any appropriate location or
facility for the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall not
be limited to any geographic region: Provided further, That
the Administrator of General Services shall submit the report
to Congress not later than May 1, 1999.''.
Mr. McCAIN. I understand we have a time agreement on this amendment?
Mr. GREGG. There is no time agreement yet, but I would ask unanimous
consent there be half an hour.
Mr. McCAIN. This is the Patent Trademark Office relocation. I just
say to my colleagues I intend to be brief. I would be glad to have any
time agreement that is reasonable. So I would be glad to enter into any
time agreement.
Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
Mr. McCAIN. I have not asked for a unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). There is no unanimous consent
request pending.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I would not ask for a unanimous consent, but I would ask
unanimous consent for the Senator from Utah to be recognized without
losing my right to the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, all I ask is that the Senator from Utah be
permitted the opportunity to speak following the remarks of the
distinguished Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I say to those who are interested,
I will be glad to enter into a very short time agreement. I know the
Senator from New Hampshire wants to finish up the bill, and so I will
be glad to enter into a very short time agreement.
Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It prohibits the Patent
and Trademark Office from spending any funds to plan for or proceed
with the consolidation and relocation of its facilities until 90 days
after the General Services Administration submits a new report to the
Congress on the costs versus benefits of relocating all Patent and
Trademark Office facilities to a new facility or location, and the
costs associated with leasing versus lease-purchase, Federal
construction, or other alternatives for new space, and finally, a
recommendation of the lowest cost alternative for the project.
Most importantly, the amendment requires a GSA report to be prepared
without regard to a specific geographic location. I want to repeat, Mr.
President, so all my colleagues know, the amendment requires the GSA
report to be prepared without regard to a specific geographic location.
The proposal to consolidate and relocate the various offices of the
Patent and Trademark Office is an enormous project, the largest real
estate venture the Federal Government is expected to enter into in the
next decade. The current proposal raises serious questions.
First, the project is estimated to cost the taxpayers approximately
$1.6 billion. About $1.3 billion of this amount is to pay for a 20-year
lease of a new 2-million-square-foot facility somewhere in Northern
Virginia. The additional $250 million is what the Patent and Trademark
Office proposes to spend to ``improve'' the building, to bring it up to
PTO standards, which appears to me extravagant and luxurious amenities
that most of America's businesses do not provide to even their senior
executives.
Most alarming, the language contained in the committee bill imposes
no enforceable ceiling on the potential costs of this huge project.
Both the Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers
Union have raised serious concerns about the enormous cost of this
project.
How can we claim to wisely spend Americans' hard-earned tax dollars
when we are essentially giving the Patent and Trademark Office a blank
check for this project? I have no desire to prohibit the Patent and
Trademark Office from streamlining and improving its operations. It may
be that the PTO does need to consolidate and relocate. However, we have
a responsibility to ensure that this consolidation takes place in a
fiscally responsible manner.
The proposed Patent and Trademark Office building complex is
shamefully expensive and extravagant. In addition, in putting the
proposal together, the Congress limited the Patent and Trademark Office
to considering only sites in Northern Virginia, which is certainly not
an inexpensive area for construction and leasing of office space.
To make matters worse, the bill before the Senate does not
effectively limit PTO's budget for this project. The amendment I
propose would require GSA to reevaluate the site selection process and
look at more cost-effective alternatives which are not tied to one
specific locality.
Mr. President, this $1.6 billion project is entirely too expensive.
Under the current proposal, PTO plans to lease a 2-million-square-foot
building ``shell,'' which is essentially a structure with walls,
ceilings, floors, and windows, but without electrical wiring, computer
and telecommunication lines, carpeting, furniture, and all the other
necessary interior fixtures.
The Patent and Trademark Office will not have to pay the costs of
constructing the building ``shell.'' However, the Patent and Trademark
Office plans to spend an outrageous amount of taxpayers' dollars to
bring the building up to its ``standards.''
First, the PTO is authorized to spend up to $88 million to ``build
out'' the shell. This includes such necessary items as carpeting,
electric, plumbing fixtures, and necessary environmental control
upgrades to support the computer-intensive work of the office.
Unfortunately, compared to the Government's ``standard'' rate for
this type of expenditure, building out the PTO building will cost 20
percent more than most Government buildings.
For example, the PTO building costs are $44 per square foot. NASA's
new building was $37 a square foot. FERC's building cost $36 per square
foot. And the Government standard is $36.69 per square foot.
On top of that $88 million, the PTO also plans to spend another $29
million for extravagant amenities, including extra elevators, granite
and marble decor, jogging and walking trails, sculpture gardens, and
outdoor amphitheaters.
That is a total of $117 million to finish the interior of the
building and to add millions of dollars of extravagant amenities. On a
per-square-foot basis, that is $58 per square foot of occupiable space,
or 58 percent over the Government standard. But that is not all. The
[[Page S8736]]
PTO also plans to spend another $135 million to move into the building,
install the telecommunications equipment and buy furniture. Almost half
of this money, $65 million, is for the purchase of new furniture and
furnishings, including $250 shower curtains--$250 shower curtains--
$1,200 chairs, $1,000 coat racks and $562 mailroom stools.
Mr. President, in case my colleagues missed that, I will repeat, $250
shower curtains--I would like to view that shower curtain--$1,200
chairs, $1,000 coat racks, and $560 mailroom stools.
Altogether, then, the PTO will pay $250 million to bring the building
up to its standards, standards which far exceed the Government's norms,
and which can only be called luxurious by any standard.
After spending $252 million to spruce up the premises, the PTO is
prepared to pay $50 million per year for a 20-year lease, over and
above the cost of its improvements listed above. That is approximately
$1.3 billion in lease payments alone over the next 20 years.
Altogether, now, the PTO project is expected to cost the taxpayers
almost $1.6 billion, and we will not even own the building at the end
of 20 years. Let me repeat, we will not even own the building at the
end of 20 years.
Remember how the cost of the Ronald Reagan building skyrocketed? The
Ronald Reagan building, which is 3 million square feet, began at $362
million and ended up costing $800 million. That is a huge cost
increase. This deal will be worse than the Ronald Reagan deal. The PTO
project involves a 2.3 million square foot facility that will cost $1.6
billion when finally completed.
The new PTO building will be smaller than the Reagan building,
700,000 square feet smaller, and it is much more expensive. We spent
$800 million on the Reagan Center, but at least we own a building that
is designed to last at least 200 years and includes rentable space to
offset its costs. The PTO deal is insane. The taxpayers pay to finish
the interior building, add a myriad of extravagancies, and then pay to
lease it for a total of $1.6 billion over 20 years, and at the end of
20 years, we give the building back to the owner. What kind of a deal
is that? I think it is remarkable, remarkable.
The project was destined to become a fiscal nightmare. Our first
mistake was we didn't allow ourselves to look at all possible locations
to determine the most cost-effective facility to house the PTO complex.
Instead, we only looked at sites in Northern Virginia. The sheer
excesses in the PTO's proposals for the building's amenities are
unbelievable: $250 shower curtains, $1,000 coatracks, and miles of
walking and jogging paths. The tax dollars should be spent on
processing patent applications. We should not be spending America's
hard-earned tax dollars on extravagant perks. We should be spending tax
dollars on processing patent applications, and we should make sure we
spend them in the most cost-effective manner possible, by looking at
all possible locations for this Government facility, not just one
region.
Mr. President, I am not trying to kill this project. Maybe the PTO
does need to consolidate. However, I think we, as a body, have a
responsibility to act to ensure that the cost of this project is
justified and kept in check. The amendment will require the GSA to take
another look at this project before we spend $1.6 billion on it.
I would like to quote from a letter from the Citizens Against
Government Waste:
At a starting price tag of $1.3 billion, the PTO facility
will dwarf the final cost of the $800 million Ronald Reagan
International Trade Building, which has 700,000 more square
feet. Adding insult to injury, at the end of the 20-year
lease period, the government would not even own the PTO
building.
The PTO says it needs 2.3 million square feet. However, the
Department of Commerce Inspector General has issued a report,
Insufficient Planning is Jeopardizing PTO's Space
Consolidation Project, which casts serious doubt on the
appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the venture.
In the letter they mention not only $250 shower curtains and $1,000
coatracks but $700 baby cribs.
On behalf of the 600,000 members of [Citizens Against
Government Waste], we are pleased to endorse your amendment.
. . .
I have a letter from the National Taxpayers Union.
. . . the Reagan Building is built to last 200 years, at
about half the cost of the proposed 20-year PTO lease.
That is just the start of this giant boondoggle.
PTO's costs just for moving into the new headquarters could
run more than $130 million. That ought to buy a new building,
not just pay for relocation.
As part of the move, PTO plans to purchase $65 million in
brand new furniture, including $250 shower curtains, $750
cribs, $309 ash cans. . . .
On that list are $309 ash cans.
The environmental clean-up costs of possible PTO relocation
sites could be as high as $194 million--some may contain
carcinogens or even unexploded ordnance.
. . . the PTO plan is ``flawed because the lease
development project lacks a defined cost ceiling.'' By a 3 to
1 margin, PTO employees represented by the Patent Office
Professional Association oppose the move to a new complex.
I am surprised at that. Maybe they don't like $250 shower curtains.
It would appear that PTO Commissioner Bruce Lehman is
seeking a grand monument to his tenure, to be leased at
government expense. If your amendment fails, the PTO lease
will stand as the largest monument ever erected to government
excess.
For these reasons we endorse your PTO Amendment and urge
your Senate colleagues to support it. The vote will be . . .
weighted [et cetera].
I have a letter here from the American Intellectual Property Owners
association.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I am almost finished. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator has made frequent use of ``taxpayers
dollars,'' but I think in a sense of fairness, and I will eventually
speak in greater detail, primarily the funding for this important
function is entirely derived from the fees paid by the users of the
services. It is not involved, these egregious sums of taxpayer dollars.
I thought the Senator might want to comment on that, because I
certainly will bring that out.
Mr. McCAIN. My only comment is when somebody pays a fee to the
Government for a service, I don't know how you differentiate between
that and money being taken out of someone's paycheck--because they are
paying. They are not receiving this Government service for free. So you
can call it a user fee, but that is the same thing as when you and I
buy an airline ticket and 10 percent of that goes to the FAA to keep
the FAA in operation, the air traffic control system, et cetera. Most
people still view that as a tax.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished friend, when we go to the
Department of Transportation to consult and get their advice on an
issue, issues which are very much foremost in my distinguished
colleague's mind now on aviation, we don't pay any fees. When we go to
the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice to work with
other Government agencies and Departments, fees are not paid. This
thing was devised by Congress, this institution, to operate on a
rotating basis of fees paid, which fees are passed on down the line to
the consumers. I just wanted to bring that out.
Last, you mentioned the IPO. They just sent in a letter today
endorsing it. I know the Senator is trying as hard as he can to list as
many persons with an objection, but at the appropriate time I will put
this letter in the Record. In the meantime, I will get a copy for the
Senator. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. When he does talk, I
would be interested in hearing him discuss the $250 shower curtains,
$750 cribs, $309 ash cans, and $1,000 coatracks. I would be very
interested in hearing--perhaps he has had an opportunity to view those.
I would like to see them myself. In fact, perhaps we could have a
hearing and view some of that, because it must be exciting stuff there,
and all of the miles of trails.
Also, I would have to ask about the logic of my friend from Virginia.
We pay $1.3 billion over 20 years, we take a shell and we put in all
the furnishings, all the wiring, all the plumbing and everything into
it, and then after 20 years it is not even ours, after a payment of
$1.3 billion. I don't understand it.
By the way, let me mention two things to my friend from Virginia real
quick. No. 1, I know this amendment will not be agreed to. That is why
I am willing to have a relatively short time agreement. I have no
illusions about that. But I think it is important to put all of this on
the record here.
[[Page S8737]]
I also am aware both Senators from Virginia are very committed to
this project. I understand and admire their commitment.
I also want to mention one thing about the chairman, the
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He is going to say,
and I will respectfully agree with him, he has wrestled with this issue
for years. He has done everything he can to try to resolve this issue.
He has my utmost respect and appreciation for his efforts. I just
happen to think this is the wrong answer. I think it is wrong to pay
$250 for a shower curtain. I think it is wrong, after 20 years, to have
to give back a building that you basically built, except for the shell.
Frankly, I think it is wrong, in all due respect to my two friends from
Virginia, that we should earmark any Government facility in a
geographic-specific location. I think there should have been
competition for this from all over the Washington, DC, area, if not
from all over the United States of America.
Mr. President, I will yield the floor. Again, I will be glad, for the
sake of the managers, to enter into a time agreement with my colleagues
who want to speak on this issue so we can move on to the next
amendment. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Utah is to be recognized at this time.
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman
while reserving my rights to the floor.
Mr. GREGG. I would like to reach a time agreement, if possible. I
understand the Senator from Utah wishes to speak for about 10 minutes?
Mr. HATCH. Probably less, but if the Senator will list 10 minutes,
that is fine.
Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Both Senators, Mr. President, would like, say, 15 minutes
equally divided between my distinguished colleague and myself.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest all debate on this amendment be concluded within
25 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. GREGG. The allocation will be 10 minutes--sorry, 30 minutes--10
minutes to the Senator from Utah, 15 minutes to the Senator from
Virginia, and 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the next amendments in order, subject to relevant second
degrees, and that following debate, each amendment be laid aside to
reoccur at 9:30 this evening in a stacked sequence in the order in
which they were debated.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes prior to each
vote for closing remarks.
The amendments are:
The pending McCain amendment, a Durbin amendment on guns, a Thompson
amendment on federalism, a Bumpers amendment on telephone privacy, a
Nickles amendment on defenders, a Feingold amendment on child
exploitation, and a Kyl-Craig amendment on gaming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply state that the next series of
amendments with rollcalls will be at 9:30 this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that if my remarks are less than
10 minutes, that it be cut off the time that the Senator asked for.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Arizona. If adopted, the McCain amendment
would result in needless, costly delays in the user process to obtain
better facilities for the Patent and Trademark Office.
Look, we studied this thing to death. We know doggone well if this is
delayed again, you are only going to have one bidder instead of three,
and there is the question of whether that one bidder will do anything
to save any money.
In fact, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Arizona
would cost a lot more money. Let me make my case.
The PTO procurement process has been studied to death. We don't need
another study. Let me catalog for you the attention that has been paid
to this procurement process. The PTO procurement process has been the
subject of two comprehensive studies: one by the Inspector General of
the Department of Commerce and another by an independent consultant who
reported to the Secretary of Commerce. The independent consultant was
Jefferson Solutions, which is headed by the former director of OMB's
Office of Procurement Policy in the Reagan and Carter administrations.
Both studies agreed that the competitive lease procurement should
proceed so that the PTO can obtain the benefits of competition. Let me
emphasize that, from the start, the PTO procurement process followed
all the rules and complied with all the safeguards in the Standard
Federal Government Procurement Procedures.
These studies are in addition to the normal Government procedures. Of
course, they do provide for competitive bidding. Mr. President, Senator
McCain's amendment calls for a study of the benefits of leasing versus
purchase, Federal construction, and other housing alternatives, such as
lease purchase. This has already been done.
The GSA, the Department of Commerce, and the OMB thoroughly evaluated
the options before submitting the lease prospectus for congressional
approval. Both the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concurred,
when the prospectus was authorized in the fall of 1995, and in light of
the limited funds available for capital investment and operating lease
of the PTO, that is in the best interest of the PTO's fee-paying
customers, which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has raised.
Furthermore, in a colloquy between Senators Gregg and Warner
conducted on the Senate floor during the vote on H.R. 3579, Senator
Gregg agreed that no funds would be available in the foreseeable future
to purchase or construct a facility to house the PTO.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate is not in
order. The Presiding Officer cannot hear the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
H.R. 3579, which became law, required the Secretary of Commerce to
review the project and submit a report to Congress by March of 1998.
This is the Jefferson Solutions report that I referred to earlier.
The cost-benefit analysis that accompanied it, called the Deva
report, showed the PTO will save $72 million over the 20-year life of
the lease by consolidating.
I don't know about the shower curtains, but that is a lot of money to
be saving compared to what we would lose if we went ahead with the
amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I know he is trying to save
money, and I have no problem with that.
The Jefferson Solutions report found that the consolidation of PTO
space through a competitive lease would improve workflow efficiencies
and improve the environment for employee retention, as well as reduce
costs.
In addition to these studies and reviews, the procurement process has
been tested judicially. A 1997 protest by the existing landlord
alleging improprieties in the terms and conditions of the procurement
was dismissed. Similarly, an unfair labor practice complaint filed by
one of the PTO's unions was dismissed earlier this year.
Given these numerous studies, reviews, and court tests, why is it
that we are here debating this issue yet once again? There appears to
be a campaign to delay the procurement process, and I have to ask who
is behind it. I don't think it is a matter of $250 shower curtains.
I know that Senator McCain is not motivated by a desire to merely
delay. I am sure he has real concerns based on facts as he views them.
But the fact of the matter is, he is talking about peanuts compared to
the millions and millions of dollars that will be lost if we do another
study rather than go ahead after all of this work has been done, all
the studies have been done. It is crazy. Nevertheless, there has been
an ongoing campaign to delay this.
[[Page S8738]]
Who is behind it? Is it the parties who use the PTO services? No. The
parties who use the PTO are the patent applicants, patentees, and
trademark registrants. They oppose this amendment, and they want the
procurement process to go ahead.
But, Mr. President, the current landlord of the PTO makes over $40
million a year from renting space to the PTO. Would 1 year's additional
rent be worth mounting a campaign of delay? That is $40 million plus
the $72 million we are talking about we lose by another study. I think
you can buy a lot of shower curtains for that.
It would be to the landlord's benefit to delay it. That is why he has
hired a major lobbying firm to kill this process. It is not the public
demanding a delay, it is the PTO's current landlord. I can hardly blame
him, because he will make $40 million more. But I would blame us if we
permitted that to go on just because of some shower curtains and a few
other things that the distinguished Senator from Arizona has mentioned.
I conclude, Mr. President, with an assurance that I am as concerned
as anyone with cost overruns and lavish spending in the procurement
process. I am disturbed by allegations of amphitheaters, exercise
tracks, and high-priced furniture. I pledge to work with anyone who has
a concern about specific excesses in the procurement prospectus. In
fact, I intend to support the Inhofe-Brownback amendment that cuts back
on build-out appropriations and the ability of the PTO to get more
money for moving expenses. Congress should investigate these particular
allegations and take a surgical approach. Another comprehensive study,
however, is not the answer.
Let me just say for the benefit of the distinguished Senator from
Arizona, he may have some points here, but they are very, very minor in
comparison to the moneys that will be saved by moving ahead rather than
having another delay by losing $72 million on one side and $40 million
on the other over a few shower curtains. It just seems penny-wise and
pound-foolish. I am against this amendment. I hope we defeat it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I will be very brief. I concur with the assessment
just rendered by the distinguished Senator from Utah. My distinguished
senior Senator, Senator Warner, and I are both very much opposed to
this amendment. It is a delaying tactic that simply benefits the status
quo and costs money.
For the benefit of Senators, I will quote from a couple of the
reports that were referenced indirectly by the Senator from Utah, if I
may. The Appropriations Committee, July 2, committee report:
The committee has reviewed the reports submitted by the
Secretary, and does not object to the Secretary's direction
that the competitive procurement process should continue.
An independent report dated May 15, 1998, by Jefferson Solutions,
Inc., BTG, Inc., Economics Research Associates:
The PTO has used a sound methodology and valid reasoning in
defining its need for new space, in researching its current
and future functional needs, and in managing its
consolidation and space acquisition process.
With respect to this, the Department of Commerce inspector general
report in March 1998 in terms of its fiscal prudence:
Long-term cost savings should be realized because the
current leased PTO space is more expensive than the $24 per
square foot authorized by the Congress.
An independent report, May, 22, 1998, by Deva & Associates:
The conclusion of this business case analysis . . . is that
the PTO should proceed . . . because the agency will incur,
over the 20-year lease period, $72,395,278 less in costs.
A Department of Commerce inspector general report with respect to
necessity, dated March, 1998:
Most of PTO's current leased facilities . . . are in need
of alterations to comply with fire, safety, and handicapped
accessibility laws.
PTO has a growing workload and is currently occupying
noncontiguous space that is operationally inefficient.
The new facility should promote the collocation of various
working groups, thereby improving efficiency and
productivity.
From an independent report by Jefferson Solutions and others, dated
May 15, 1998:
The proposed PTO amenity package is not ``gold plated,''
and is consistent with other recent federal and private
sector office projects.
A point that was made earlier by my distinguished senior colleague,
it is the customers who pay the fees. And here is what they have to
say, the executive director of the Intellectual Property Owners:
We are at a loss for why anyone would want to keep the PTO
in outdated facilities at higher cost . . .
The executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law
Association:
Further delaying the procurement would likely result in an
additional loss of interest. The result would be to award, by
default, a sole source lease extension to the existing
landlord. Moreover, a new competitive process would almost
certainly have to open up the area of consideration to a
larger geographic territory, with additional costs and
dislocations for [current] PTO employees and [their] users.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is that to the extent that there are
any excess costs--first of all, I believe that is a worst case
scenario.
Second, it can be addressed by the amendment that is going to be
offered by Senators from Idaho and Kansas. And I will support that
amendment, as the Senator from Idaho has indicated he will support it.
But the bottom line is, this is designed to save $72-plus million.
Delay will simply continue the inefficiency and cost more money. If
there is a concern--and I would share the concern that the Senator from
Arizona expressed about any unnecessary costs--we can address that, but
do not stop the process that has been ongoing for years, which simply
will increase the costs in a very significant way.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished
senior Senator. And I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his
very clear remarks on this. I worked until late last night with
Senators Brownback and Inhofe to devise an amendment to which I have
now added my name. And I send this amendment to the desk just for the
purpose of filing it. And the managers have indicated--both the
majority and minority--that it will be eventually accepted as part of
the managers' package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be printed in the Record.
(The text of the Amendment (No. 3259) is printed in today's Record
under ``Amendments submitted'')
Mr. WARNER. But this amendment achieves many of the goals recited by
Senator McCain, to crunch this down to a realistic purchase of
equipment and not have the items which clearly were excessive in cost,
as recited by our distinguished colleague from Arizona.
I credit the distinguished Senator from Arizona. He is a constant
watchdog on these various issues. And I responded to one of his points
here. This is not taxpayers' dollars. Secondly, the reason we are
pursuing this type of an arrangement is simply because there are
insufficient taxpayers' dollars in the Treasury for the Government to
build the building. And therefore, we have to work on this building
lease type of financing to lower the burden of cost, indeed, to the
taxpayers for the construction of a building which is absolutely
essential.
This vital function of Government, patent and trademark, is now being
performed by very loyal, highly skilled Government workers. And they
are disbursed in a number of buildings--a number of buildings. And
anyone who understands the simple basis of management and trying to do
a job knows that if you have your employees, first, in 16 different
buildings--I want to repeat that; 16 different buildings--this concept
is to bring it into a central concept financed under a lease
arrangement, not by taxpayers' dollars, but by the payment of fees.
So I say to my colleagues, this is a matter which both sides of the
aisle have addressed in terms of cost containment. Both sides of the
aisle have addressed in terms of its need and the propriety of a
process that started in
[[Page S8739]]
1995 in the Senate Environment Committee which has overall oversight of
this type of work.
I have today a letter addressed to me from the General Services
Administration which, once again, reiterates in absolute clarity the
fact that they have reviewed this process, they have reviewed the
proposals, and it is their conclusion that it is in the public
interest.
This is the Government agency in which we have reposed the trust and
the confidence to make the vast number of technical decisions which are
required for a very expensive contract, or in this instance a lease
arrangement build.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the General Services
Administration letter and a letter from the IPO printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1998.
Hon. John W. Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: The purpose of this letter is to
express my strong support for continuing the ongoing
procurement of leased space for the Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) in Northern Virginia. After studying the various
alternatives for providing this space; new federal
construction, leasing, lease purchase and other alternatives,
we concluded that leasing was the most advantageous given the
resources available for such activities.
Since 1993 the PTO and the General Services Administration
(GSA) have worked together to meet the requirements
stipulated in the authorization provided by the Congress. As
a result of this joint effort, we have initiated a
procurement which has been both fair to the competitors and
efficient in the way it has been accomplished.
This action has been reviewed by the Inspector General of
the Department of Commerce, an independent set of procurement
experts hired by the Secretary of Commerce and other
independent experts. In each case it has been determined that
the proposed action is cost effective and in the best long
term interest of the PTO. These studies have shown that a
$72,000,000 savings will occur over the term of this action
when compared to the current situation.
Furthermore, this action has the full support of the
intellectual property community that the PTO serves.
Sincerely,
David J. Barram,
Administrator.
____
Intellectual Property Owners,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1998.
Re IPO's opposition to your proposed amendment to the
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill (S. 2260)
that would delay the competitive procurement of new
office space by the PTO.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: We are writing to urge you not to
offer your proposed amendment to the appropriations bill that
would have the effect of stopping or delaying the procurement
of office space for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO).
Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) is an association that
represents companies and individuals who own patents,
trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Our members obtain
about 30 percent of the U.S. patents that are granted to U.S.
residents and pay more than $100 million a year in user fees
to the PTO.
We have followed the plan for procurement of office space
by the PTO for the past year, received several briefings, and
examined several documents and reports. We are confident that
the current procurement of new office space for the PTO on a
competitive basis is in the best interest of IPO members. The
latest information available to us indicates that the PTO
will save $72.4 million over the 20-year term of the
projected lease under the competitive procurement, compared
with the cost of remaining in existing space. The study on
which this conclusion is based prepared by the consulting
firm of Deva and Associates, P.C. We understand it has been
reviewed by numerous authorities, including a consulting firm
hired by Commerce Secretary Daley, the Commerce Inspector
General, the PTO, the GSA, and the OMB. Allegations that the
PTO is proposing extravagant above-standard fit-out costs, or
that the competitive bidding procedure has been mismanaged,
are unsupported by any facts, as far as we can determine.
We have been briefed on the very high costs listed in the
Deva report for certain furnishing. We are satisfied that
these number do not yet reflect savings that the PTO will
realize through mass purchases, standardization, and
competition. We hope Congress will not delay the procurement
simply because of these cost estimates for furnishing.
Congress, with the benefit of advice from PTO users, will
have the opportunity to control the costs of PTO furnishing
when it approves annual appropriations requests.
Sincerely,
Herbert C. Wamsley,
Executive Director.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to reiterate, I rise today in opposition
to the McCain amendment which seeks to delay the procurement of space
for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office pending an evaluation by the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). It should be noted that I
have agreed to accept an amendment offered by my colleagues Senator
Brownback and Senator Inhofe regarding cost containment measures for
the PTO consolidation in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations
bill.
The Government's prospectus process provided thorough answers to all
questions raised by the McCain amendment. Through the prospectus
process, authorized by the Public Buildings Act, as amended, the
Government submitted to the Congress detailed justification for
procuring a new consolidated space for PTO.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, which I chair, in addition to the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held extensive
hearings on this prospectus and approved the prospectus in the Fall of
1995. Both committees concurred that in light of the limited funds
available for capital investment, an operating lease for the PTO is in
the best interest of the PTO fee paying customers.
Mr. President, during these hearings, the government testified and
the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction agreed, that procuring
consolidated space for the PTO would achieve greater efficiency as well
as cost-savings to the taxpayer while providing a more effective work
environment for the PTO to perform its mission.
Pursuant to the language in the supplemental appropriations bill, the
Department of Commerce performed a review of these same issues and
found conclusively that the PTO consolidation is in the best interest
of the United States and the procurement should proceed.
This project has been studied and studied and studied. These studies
include: the Department of Commerce's Inspector General; an independent
consultant to the Secretary of Commerce (Jefferson Solutions; headed by
the ex Directors of OMB's Office of Procurement Policy in the Reagan &
Carter administrations), both of which agree that the competitive lease
procurement should proceed, so that the PTO can obtain the benefits of
competition.
Mr. President, it should further be noted that GSA, the Department of
Commerce and OMB thoroughly evaluated the benefits of leasing versus
purchase, Federal construction and other housing alternatives, such as
lease purchase, before submitting the lease prospectus for
congressional approval in the first place.
The PTO procurement does not involve expenditure of taxpayer money.
PTO and all its operations and procurement are supported entirely by
fees paid by its customers. The PTO does not, and will not, receive any
taxpayer money.
In a colloquy between myself and the distinguished floor manager of
this bill, Senator Gregg during the Senate debate on the supplemental
appropriations bill H.R. 3579, P.L. 105-174, Senator Gregg agreed that
no funds will be available in the foreseeable future to purchase or
construct a facility to house the PTO.
P.L. 105-174 already required the Secretary of Commerce to review the
project and submit a report to Congress by March 1998. That report,
conducted by Jefferson Solutions, and the cost benefit analysis report,
referred to as the DEVA Report that accompanied it, show that the PTO
will save $72 million over the 20-year life of the lease by
consolidating.
Mr. President, this $72 million is a conservative estimate of the
savings that will be achieved. For example, if the PTO were to purchase
less expensive furnishings than are reflected in the DEVA Report, the
cost savings would be greater.
While Senator McCain and others may charge that the furniture
estimate used in the DEVA Report is high, I would indicate that the
DEVA Report shows the ``worst case'' costs. These costs are used to
calculate the potential savings of consolidation, and are certainly not
the actual costs that the PTO will spend on furniture.
[[Page S8740]]
The actual furniture costs will be lower, because they will include
economies that will be achieved through competition, mass purchase and
standardization. Therefore, the savings from consolidation will likely
be higher than $72 million.
The PTO intends to conduct a furniture inventory and will use
existing furniture where practicable.
In conclusion Mr. President, PTO is not contracting for a new $1.3
billion building. It is contracting for a new competitive 20-year
lease. It would cost at least $1.3 billion for the PTO to remain where
it is for the same 20-year period. The offerors in the prospectus have
the option of building, renovating or consolidating to meet the PTO's
space needs.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works carefully
considered the need for the facility, various alternatives, and the
costs of each approach before authorizing the lease procurement to be
conducted by the GSA for the PTO.
PTO will only move if it is economic and efficient to do so under the
current competition. It is not a foregone conclusion that PTO will
relocate. Crystal City, the current site of the PTO, is one of the
three sites competing in the procurement.
Taxpayer protections include the following:
The rental rate ceiling of $28.50 per square foot contained in the
approval resolutions are at or below the rates that PTO is currently
paying, and current market rates in Northern Virginia; the build out
allowances for the interior space are fixed in the procurement
documents at less than $45.00 per square foot; an amount that is
comparable to most government facilities; PTO currently leases 1.9
million rentable square feet of office space in 16 separate buildings
in Arlington, Virginia. The prospectus calls for 2.17 million to 2.39
million square feet of space, which is between 15% to 25% more than
currently exists, due to a projected increase in PTO's work from the
now 5,200 employees to 7,100 employees by 2002. This is overall a 37%
increase in the work force of PTO, which accounts for the increase in
space needed to house this growing agency.
PTO will only move if it is economic and efficient to do so under the
current competition in which the incumbent lessor is one of the four
finalists.
I have seen the PTO study that compares costs of consolidation to
remaining in existing buildings. Even with all these costs, the bottom
line is that the PTO will save $72 million over the life of the new
lease.
Senator McCain said he would yield back his time. So I say to the
distinguished manager, the time allocated for debate on this side,
indeed, with my fellow colleague from Virginia has been completed. And
Mr. McCain asked me to inform you he would yield back his time.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senators from Virginia for their prompt and
concise debate. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. WARNER. We wish to accommodate our distinguished colleagues, the
managers of our bill.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
Mr. CRAIG. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I do not know of a request. I imagine the manager can
proceed with the vote.
Mr. GREGG. Do you wish to have the yeas and nays?
Mr. WARNER. I do not ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. GREGG. I think we will wait for Senator McCain to return to
determine whether or not we need that.
Mr. WARNER. Fine. I think we should accommodate my colleague and
friend from Arizona. I just wished to raise the fact that a recorded
vote had not been sought yet.
Mr. GREGG. That is absolutely correct. We will now proceed to the
Durbin amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the Durbin amendment and
second-degrees--I will reserve my unanimous-consent request.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be
allowed to lay down his first-degree amendment, that that then be laid
aside and the Senator from Idaho be immediately recognized to offer a
first-degree amendment relative to firearms enforcement. Further, I ask
there be 40 minutes for debate on both the Durbin and Craig amendments
combined, to be equally divided between Senator Craig and Senator
Durbin, with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment,
and following the conclusion or the yielding back of time, pursuant to
our previous unanimous consent request, a vote will occur at or about
9:30 in relation to the Craig amendment, to be followed immediately by
a vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3260
(Purpose: To prevent children from injuring themselves and others with
firearms)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr.
Chafee, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Lautenberg and Mrs. Feinstein
proposes an amendment numbered 3260.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title I of the bill, insert the
following:
SEC. __. CHILDREN AND FIREARMS SAFETY.
(a) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--Section 921(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(34) The term `secure gun storage or safety device'
means--
``(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, prevents
the firearm from being operated without first deactivating or
removing the device;
``(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm
that prevents the operation of the firearm by anyone not
having access to the device; or
``(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device
that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and
that can be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination,
or other similar means.''.
(b) Prohibition and Penalties.--Section 922 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection
(x) the following:
``(y) Prohibition Against Giving Juveniles Access to
Certain Firearms.--
``(1) Definition of juvenile.--In this subsection, the term
`juvenile' means an individual who has not attained the age
of 18 years.
``(2) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
any person that--
``(A) keeps a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and
ammunition for the firearm, any of which has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce or otherwise
substantially affects interstate or foreign commerce, within
any premise that is under the custody or control of that
person; and
``(B) knows, or reasonably should know, that a juvenile is
capable of gaining access to the firearm without the lawful
permission of the parent or legal guardian of the juvenile;
shall, if a juvenile obtains access to the firearm and
thereby causes death or bodily injury to the juvenile or to
any other person, or exhibits the firearm either in a public
place, or in violation of subsection (q), be imprisoned not
more than 1 year, fined not more than $10,000, or both.
``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (2) does not apply if--
``(A) the person uses a secure gun storage or safety device
for the firearm;
``(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed
Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the juvenile
obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance
of the official duties of the person in that capacity;
``(C) the juvenile obtains, or obtains and discharges, the
firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or
more other persons;
``(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on
objective facts and circumstances, that a juvenile is likely
to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept;
or
``(E) the juvenile obtains the firearm as a result of an
unlawful entry to the premises by any person.''.
(c) Role of Licensed Firearms Dealers.--Section 926 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(d) The Secretary shall ensure that a copy of section
922(y) appears on the form required to be obtained by a
licensed dealer from a prospective transferee of a
firearm.''.
(d) No Effect on State Law.--Nothing in this section or the
amendments made by this
[[Page S8741]]
section shall be construed to preempt any provision of the
law of any State, the purpose of which is to prevent children
from injuring themselves or others with firearms.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Amendment No. 3261
(Purpose: To require increased efforts for the prosecution of offenses
in connection with the unlawful possession, transfer and use of
firearms, particularly in connection with a serious drug offense or
violent felony)
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment
numbered 3261.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``SEC. . INTENSIVE FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES.
(a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall endeavor to
expand the number of cities and counties directly
participating in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative,
as enhanced in this section, (and referred hereafter to as
``YCGll/Exile'') to 50 cities or counties by October 1, 2000,
to 75 cities or counties by October 1, 2002, and to 150
cities or counties by October 1, 2003.
(2) Cities and counties selected for participation in the
YCGll/Exile shall be selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury and in consultation with Federal, State and local
law enforcement officials. Not later than February 1, 1999,
the Secretary shall deliver to the Congress, through the
Chairman of each Committee on Appropriations, a full report,
empirically based, explaining the impact of the program
before the enhancements set out in section on the firearms
related offenses, as well as detailing the plans by the
Secretary to implement this section.
(b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, utilizing the
information provided by the YCGll/Exile, facilitate the
identification and prosecution of individuals--
(A) illegally transferring firearms to individuals,
particularly to those who have not attained 24 years of age,
or in violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act; and
(B) illegally possessing firearms, particularly in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (g)(1)-(2), or in violation
of any provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 in connection with a
serious drug offense or violent felony, as those terms are
used in that section.
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, commencing October
1, 1998, and in consultation with the Attorney General, the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the State of Pennsylvania, the City of
Philadelphia and other local government for such District,
establish a demonstration program, the objective of which
shall be the intensive identification, apprehension, and
prosecution of persons in possession of firearm in violation
of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 (g)(1)-(2), or in violation of any
provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 in connection with a serious
drug offense or violent felony, as those terms are used in
that section. The program shall be at least two years in
duration, and the Secretary shall report to Congress on an
annual basis on the results of these efforts, including any
empirically observed effects on gun related crime in the
District.
(3) The Attorney General, and the United States Attorneys,
shall give the highest possible prosecution priority to the
offense stated in this subsection.
(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall share information
derived from the YCGll/Exile with State and local law
enforcement agencies through on-line computer access, as soon
as such capability is available.
(c)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall award grants (in
the form of funds or equipment) to States, cities, and
counties for purposes of assisting such entities in the
tracing of firearms and participation in the YCGll/Exile.
(2) Grants made under this part shall be used--
(A) to hire additional law enforcement personnel for the
purpose of enhanced efforts in identifying and arresting
individuals for the firearms offenses stated in subsection
(b): and
(B) to purchase additional equipment, including automatic
data processing equipment and computer software and hardware,
for the timely submission and analysis of tracing data.''.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the unanimous
consent request we have 40 minutes equally divided between the Senator
from Idaho and myself.
I say by way of introduction, it is interesting we have two
amendments that I don't believe are in conflict. I believe they are
complementary. They both relate to guns. As I understand the amendment
of the Senator from Idaho, he is seeking to reduce gun crime. I believe
I will be able to support him. It appears to be consistent with my
view, that those who misuse guns in the commission of a crime shall be
accountable, regardless of their age. If that is what the Senator from
Idaho seeks to do, I fully support it.
The amendment which I offer is complementary and very important
because it addresses an issue which all of us, unfortunately, know too
well. On the floor of the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago, my colleague
from California, Senator Feinstein, came up and said to me, ``There's
just been a wire story report that two children in Jonesboro, AR, have
taken guns and shot classmates and a teacher.'' We couldn't believe
that horrible story. Then it turned out to be true--four children
killed, and a teacher, who put her life on the line to protect another
student, also died.
As the information started coming in about Jonesboro, AR, we heard a
story similar to what had happened in Pearl, MS, and what would later
occur in Springfield, OR. The curious thing about the situation in
Arkansas was that an 11-year-old child and a 13-year-old child took 10
lethal weapons and a reported 3,000 rounds of ammunition, went to the
woods behind the school, activated the fire alarm, and shot away at the
classmates.
Where did an 11-year-old child and a 13-year-old child come up with
10 lethal weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition? That question
stuck with me as I considered this legislation. The story goes, now,
that one of the kids went to the parents' home to pick up the guns and
go about this violent, grizzly business and found out that the parent
had locked the guns up under lock and key. The kids tried to break open
the storage locker. They failed. They went to a grandfather's house,
where they picked up the guns and ammunition and went out in the woods
and went about their deadly task.
How many times have we heard this story or versions of it? How many
variations have we heard? The next day, in Dale City, CA, a high school
student turns up at school with a semiautomatic pistol. You can bet
that high school student didn't legally purchase it at a gun dealer.
And that same day in Cleveland, OH, a 5-year-old turns up at a day care
center with a loaded handgun.
The point of my amendment is to say let's get down to the bottom line
here. We are as concerned about troubled children and violent behavior
as anyone can be. Let us focus our attention on all that we can do to
stop that. Make no mistake, a troubled child is a sad reality. A
troubled child with a gun is a tragedy about to happen, not just to
himself but to other innocent people.
This amendment which I am offering, called the Child Access
Prevention Law, sets to establish a national standard which says that
every gun owner in America has a responsibility to store his gun
safely. An adult who has a gun in the house and knows, or should know,
that a child could gain access to the gun, and a child does gain access
and thereby causes death or injury or exhibits the gun in a public
place, is subject to a Federal misdemeanor penalty of up to 1 year in
prison, with up to $10,000 in fines.
But the exceptions are important as well. If that adult has stored
the gun with a trigger lock, with another safety device, or under lock
and key, then they are not bound by this law; they have met the
standard of care.
If the juvenile uses the gun in a lawful act of self-defense, this
provision does not apply either.
If the juvenile takes the gun off the person of a law enforcement
official, the gun law that I have suggested here does not apply either.
If the owner has no reasonable expectation that children will be on
the premises, then this law does not apply either.
Finally--and this is a point I want to make clear--we specifically
say if the juvenile, the child, came up with the gun as a result of a
burglary, stealing the gun out of premises where they did not have a
legal right to enter, then there is no liability on the part of the gun
owner.
We are talking about a situation where a gun owner owns guns, knows
that children are present, and doesn't store them safely. Fifteen
States have
[[Page S8742]]
already addressed this. Ten years ago, the State of Florida passed the
first law. They said: ``There are too many children being killed with
guns accidentally and intentionally. We want gun owners to accept the
responsibility of storing them safely.'' In the first year after the
Florida law was passed, gun accidents involving children went down 50
percent. Fourteen other States have passed this law. Nationally, there
has been a reduction of 20 percent in the gun accidents that have
occurred in those States that have already passed a similar law to this
one.
What we are talking about here is establishing a national standard
but not preempting any State law. If your State has a child access
prevention law, then that will be the controlling law in every
circumstance, and not this Federal law.
But I tell you this, you need only sit and talk to parents who have
been through this to understand how important it is for us to have a
standard of care for gun owners across America. A woman from my
hometown sent me a handwritten letter about her little boy going to
play next door, and another playmate pulls out a gun that his parents
left unattended. It was loaded. He fired the gun. She wrote:
That little bullet went through my little boy's heart, and
mine too.
And mine, too.
Susan Wilson who came here just a few weeks ago, the mother of a
little girl that she sent off to school, gave her a kiss goodbye and
sent her off to school in Jonesboro, AR, never to see her alive again.
This suggestion for a change in law is not about taking anybody's
guns away, it is about taking guns seriously. It says to every gun
owner: You not only have the right to own a gun and the right to use it
legally and safely, you have a responsibility--a responsibility--to
store it safely and keep it away from children.
One of the experts on the Senate floor when it comes to guns is the
Senator who is engaged in this debate with me, the Senator from Idaho,
Senator Craig. Yesterday, during the course of a debate on trigger
locks, Senator Craig said:
Proper storage of firearms is the responsibility of every
gun owner.
And then Senator Craig said:
A general firearm safety rule that must be applied to all
conditions is that a firearm should be stored so that it is
not accessible to untrained or unauthorized people.
And, in Senator Craig's words:
That is the right rule. That is the one that really fits.
That is the one that really works well and then you don't
have the accidents to talk about.
I think that is as strong an endorsement of the bill that I am
offering as any language I could offer as part of this record.
I will tell you what I have found as I have traveled around and
talked about establishing this standard of care so kids don't have
access to guns. What I have found is overwhelming support from law
enforcement. These are the men and women who answer the calls after
there has been a terrible accident or a child has taken a gun out and
shot someone intentionally. There has been solid support on this
proposal from teachers. Can you imagine, a teacher who goes into a
classroom, prepared to teach children, wonders if one of those kids has
brought a gun to school. In my home State of Illinois, last school
year--not this last one, the one before--144 kids were expelled for
bringing weapons to school. It is, unfortunately, a growing trend in
America.
In most instances, those weapons came from homes where the guns had
not been safely stored. Mark my words, a child will always find
Christmas gifts and a gun, no matter where you hide them. If you put it
in the back of the drawer, behind the T-shirts, or up on the shelf in
the closet, it is not good enough. We are a nation of 265 million
people. We are a nation of 300 million guns, or more--300 million. At
this moment, it is estimated that half of those guns are readily
accessible to children, and a third of all guns are loaded. That is a
tragic accident about to occur.
My goal in introducing this is not to send people to jail. My goal is
to initiate a national conversation raising the level of awareness and
saying to gun owners nationwide: Accept your responsibility to store
your guns safely. If you want to own a gun, if you want to exercise
your right, exercise your right responsibly. Save the children from
these tragedies. Save the parents from this grief. Save innocent
victims from what might occur.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to
the desk.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment will
be so modified.
The amendment (No. 3261), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``--. INTENSIVE FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES.
(a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall endeavor to
expand the number of cities and counties directly
participating in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative,
as enhanced in this section, (and referred hereafter to as
``YCGII/Exile'') to 50 cities or counties by October 1, 2000,
to 75 cities or counties by October 1, 2002, and to 150
cities or counties by October 1, 2003.
(2) Cities and counties selected for participation in the
YCGII/Exile shall be selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury and in consultation with Federal, State and local
law enforcement officials. Not later than February 1, 1999,
the Secretary shall deliver to the Congress, through the
Chairman of each Committee on Appropriations, a full report,
empirically based, explaining the impact of the pre-existing
youth crime gun interdiction initiative on federal firearms
related offenses. The report shall also state in detail the
plans by the Secretary to implement this section and the
establishment of YCGII/Exile program.
(b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, utilizing the
information provided by the YCGII/Exile, facilitate the
identification and prosecution of individuals--
(A) illegally transferring firearms to individuals,
particularly to those who have not attained 24 years of age,
or in violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act; and
(B) illegally possessing firearms, particularly in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1)-(2), or in violation of
any provision in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 in connection with a
serious drug offense or violent felony, as those terms are
used in that section.
(d) Within funds appropriated in this Act for necessary
expenses of the Offices of United States Attorneys,
$1,500,000 shall be available for the Attorney General to
hire additional assistant U.S. attorney and investigators in
the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a demonstration
project to identify and prosecute individuals in possession
of firearms in violation of federal law.
(3) The Attorney General, and the United States Attorneys,
shall give the highest possible prosecution priority to the
offenses stated in this subsection.
(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall share information
derived from the YCGII/Exile with State and local law
enforcement agencies through on-line computer access, as soon
as such capability is available.
(c)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall award grants (in
the form of funds or equipment) to States, cities, and
counties for purposes of assisting such entities in the
tracing of firearms and participation in the YCGII/Exile.
(2) Grants made under this part shall be used--
(A) to hire additional law enforcement personnel for the
purpose of enhanced efforts in identifying and arresting
individuals for the firearms offenses stated in subsection
(b); and
(B) to purchase additional equipment, including automatic
data processing equipment and computer software and hardware,
for the timely submission and analysis of tracing data.''.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in section (2) of my original amendment,
this was the same language with the same intent. Senator Specter, who
has this initial program in Philadelphia, had some concerns about the
language. I will be happy to provide you with a copy. It doesn't change
the intent of the amendment at all.
Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois, in all respects, I am sure,
approaches this Senate with the right intent, an intent that I think
all of us would honor--that is, to try to make the world a safer place,
to try to make people more responsible. There is a problem, a very real
problem. Our bills are different, and I think they are very
incompatible in that regard. I hope the Senator from Illinois can
support my legislation. I wish I could support his, but I cannot.
Mr. President, here is the reason I cannot. The Senator from Illinois
would like to take a victim and make that individual a criminal. In
other words, if an adult owns a gun and a child of that adult, or a
friend of that adult who happens to be less than 18 years of age, or a
nephew, finds that
[[Page S8743]]
gun and that gun is used in an accident or in the commission of a
crime, or certainly when a death occurs, the victim--the person who had
his or her gun stolen from them--all of a sudden becomes the criminal.
That is an interesting juxtapose in our society from which we really
have tried to stay away. We have focused on criminals and criminal
acts. But a failure to make secure or to abide by what the Senator
would say is a safekeeping of all 300 million guns in this society
would make a person a criminal.
We know how guns are used. In high crime areas, they are used for
self-protection. In high crime areas and urban housing--not the nice,
suburban household the Senator might envision in his debate--oftentimes
a gun is kept loaded. Is that house totally secure? Do children come
and go from it? Is it in a high-rise suburban environment, where there
might be gang violence, where some members of gangs might have full
access to the house because they are cousins or the children of that
person using that gun for self-protection? That is very possible. Those
exceptions are not provided for here. They must be provided for here if
the Senator from Illinois is to have a law with any teeth in it.
The reality is simple. We reverse, for the first time in our society,
the kind of a test as it relates to an act of violence. In this case,
the person who has the gun stolen from them all of a sudden becomes the
criminal. That is an interesting and strange argument that we have
never had put before us before. All of us are interested in controlling
violent acts and criminal acts that occur in the commission of a crime.
My amendment moves very directly to do that.
In fact, my amendment is a movement in a direction that I think is
extremely positive and is already underway. It is already underway
because what it says is that the Federal firearm laws we have on the
books will be implemented and they will be enforced. Judges don't like
them. They don't like to play around with them. They don't necessarily
like to prosecute them. Yet, where it happens, crime rates go down and
life becomes much safer.
What I am talking about and what I wish the Senate to vote on and
place into law is the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which is
currently a 17-city demonstration project aimed at reducing youth
firearm violence and expanding this initiative by putting some real
teeth in it, much like the model of the Richmond, VA, program that I
will discuss in a few minutes. My idea, although it is not novel, is
that when most Federal firearm laws were enacted, the notion was to
punish criminals who commit violent firearm crimes, not to go after the
innocent victim who might have had their guns stolen from them. This
has not happened.
We already heard on the floor yesterday that this administration has
cut the prosecution of violent acts where guns are used by nearly half.
They simply don't pursue the criminal. Yet, it ought to happen. My
amendment suggests that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in
consultation with the attorney general, work with the State of
Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia to establish a demonstration
program where the objective will be to identify, apprehend, and
prosecute all persons who commit firearm violations.
Let me tell you about something happening in Richmond, VA. Down
there, a Federal prosecutor said to law enforcement officers, ``If you
will report to me felons who are arrested in the commission of a crime
who are using a firearm, I will prosecute them. Plain and simple. No
plea bargaining. We are going to prosecute.'' That Federal officer
handed out this little card to every cop in Richmond, VA. This card has
a listing of all of the Federal gun possession crimes. It goes on to
list them. There is a number to call. An individual officer can call
the ATF, and there is a pager number.
Here is the rest of the story. Gun-related homicides dropped from 140
last year to only 34 this year.
Now, what I am saying is what we ought to be doing in Richmond and in
Philadelphia, and a lot of other places across the Nation, is
incorporating Federal authority along with local authority to go after
the criminal who uses the gun. I am sure the Senator from Illinois and
I have voted for laws or bills that create laws that say if you do thus
and so, and you use a gun, it is a Federal firearms violation. But we
don't get the courts to prosecute them, and we don't follow through; we
don't insist.
This administration, by their own statistics, has truly been asleep
at the switch. Let's incorporate juveniles, education, tracking, gun
trafficking, and all of those combinations together, and go after the
people who are truly responsible. Guess what happens? The crime rate
goes down. Incorporate that with the kind of work that has already been
done and you will create a safer place.
The Philadelphia Exile Project--generally called Project Exile all
over the country--creates that kind of dynamic. Then I go on to expand
it, so that we go from 50 cities to, by October of 2000, 75 cities, and
by 2002, to 150 cities and counties across our country. This is the
kind of proactive thing that goes directly at the problem. What does it
say? It doesn't say to the innocent victim who has had their property
stolen and it gets used in a crime, and if you didn't do all of these
right things, guess what, you are the criminal.
Now we haven't criminalized a child taking a car and having an
accident against the parent--especially if they stole the car, took it
without permission. Yet, today we would be doing that with guns. I
think that is wrong. I think the Senator from Illinois is right. He
should be able to support my amendment because it goes at the root
cause. It incorporates all of the agencies, and it makes real the very
thing that he and I want done. We want the laws enforced. We want
criminals prosecuted. We know that 90 percent of the crime out there is
the result of not new action, but old action --people with criminal
records. That is what this is all about.
We have taken the concept of going after the criminal, we have
incorporated it with the juvenile crime gun interdiction initiative,
brought those kind of things into combination, and I think we have a
dynamic force here.
What do we do?
We provide new information about illegal firearm activities to
communities. We identify differences in adult, juvenile, and youth
illegal firearms activities. We extend access to firearm-related
enforcement information. We initiate community, State, and national
reporting on firearms trafficking. We enable enforcement officers to
focus their resources where they are likely to have the greatest impact
on illegal trafficking to juveniles and violent youth gang members.
I think for those who were listening yesterday, when we look at the
deaths created by juvenile activities with firearms today, the vast
majority of the 95 percent are in that higher bracket. The accidental
are there--not insignificant, but very, very small.
That is the reality of what I attempt to do. It incorporates
demonstration projects today that are working. It makes them Federal
law. It expands them across the Nation. It goes after the criminal, and
not the innocent victim who has had their property stolen. My colleague
from Illinois would like to make them the criminal. That is a strange
position to have in Federal law. We ought to leave that alone.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that I might have 7 minutes to
speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE. I would appreciate it if the Chair would let me know when
the 7 minutes are up.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to yield to my cosponsor of
this legislation, the Senator from Rhode Island, 7 minutes.
I say at the outset that I support the bill offered by the Senator
from Idaho. It is a good bill. It tries to establish more care with
handguns. But it doesn't address the issue which the Senator from Rhode
Island and I seek to address.
I yield to him.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the Senator
from Idaho and his remarks.
He indicated that it was a ``shocking''--if I am quoting him
correctly--``shocking'' event to punish the person
[[Page S8744]]
whose weapon caused the damage; the person who is careless in the
storage of that firearm under this legislation pays a penalty. The
Senator from Idaho, as I understood him, thought that was a very
strange procedure.
I will say this, Mr. President. I think every one of us know that if
you own a pit bull, and you don't keep that pit bull tied up properly,
and it mauls some innocent child, that the owner of that pit bull is
liable. We have a situation akin to that--not pit bulls, but
dangerously loaded weapons that are carelessly strewn about someone's
home. A youngster comes in and gets hold of them and uses it for
destructive purposes. That person that owns that weapon ought to pay
the penalty. The suggestion that this is something strange and unheard
of strikes me in itself as being strange.
Mr. President, we have seen, all of us, these horrible incidents that
have taken place over the past year in schools where youngsters have
obtained weapons frequently because the weapons are not properly
stored. They are not properly locked up. They are left around not only
carelessly, but they are loaded.
Let's just review these, if we might.
In October, a 16-year-old at Pearl High School in Mississippi went to
school with a hunting rifle. He shot and killed a student and a
teacher, leaving a second teacher with a bullet wound in the head.
In December, a student at Heath High School in West Paducah, KY, used
a pistol to kill three other students.
I mean, this is what is happening in our schools.
The shooter was 14 years old.
In March, two boys in Jonesboro, AR, one 11 years old and the other
13 years old, pulled the fire alarm in their school. As students and
teachers left the building, the two boys began shooting. They killed
five people: Four young girls, and a teacher.
In April, a 14-year-old boy in Edinboro, PA, went to a school dance
with a gun he apparently removed from his father's bureau drawer. He
killed a science teacher and injured two students and another teacher.
At Thurston High School in Springfield, OR, a 15-year-old who was
suspended for carrying a gun to school returned to school the next day
and opened fire in a crowded cafeteria. He killed two students and
wounded 19 others--19 others. He killed two, and wounded 19 others.
Police suspect he shot and killed his parents as well.
These are terrible, tragic shootings.
According to Handgun Control, 91 percent of handguns involved in
unintentional shootings come from the home where the shootings occur.
Mr. President, this is a national disaster. There are 192 million
firearms--192 million firearms--in the possession of private citizens
in our Nation, and 35 percent of American homes contain at least one
gun.
Each year, more than 500 children accidentally shoot themselves or a
sibling, a family member, with a family gun.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the firearms-related
death rate for American children under the age of 15--I mean, I think
it is important we realize what we are talking about here. These
youngsters are under 15. The rate in the United States for the death
rate of these children through guns is 12 times higher than that of the
other 25 industrialized nations combined.
One thing is certain. It is simply too easy for children to get a
gun. At the very least, adults should be encouraged to store their guns
in a manner and a place that is inaccessible to children. If they
don't, and if the child uses the gun to harm himself or someone else,
the adult should be held responsible.
I find it hard to argue with that premise. As I say, if there is a
pit bull, no one would argue a bit that the pit bull should be chained
up. We have seen incidents--certainly, I have seen them in my State--
where they are not chained and they maul some youngster terribly. The
owner of that dog, that pit bull, is held responsible. And the owner of
a gun that is far more dangerous than that pit bull should likewise be
held responsible.
Are we embarking on something radical here, something that is
unacceptable by the public?
In April, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was taken--a bipartisan
poll by Peter Hart and Bob Teeter, whom most of us know. We know Bob
Teeter. We have worked with him. Others on the other side have worked
with Peter Hart.
This is the question:
Congress is considering legislation that holds adults
criminally responsible if they allow young children to have
access to firearms that are used to injure or kill another
person. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?
That was the question. You are going to hold adults criminally
responsible if young children have access to firearms that are used to
injure or kill another.
The answer was 75 percent said they favored this type of legislation;
21 percent said they opposed it, and 4 percent were undecided.
It seems to me that it is time that we in Congress caught up with the
American people on this issue. Here is an opportunity to encourage gun
owners to act responsibly by keeping their weapons out of the reach of
children.
This amendment does not prevent anybody from owning a gun. That is a
red herring, if anybody suggests that. It says if you are a gun owner
who has reason to expect a child to be on the premises, you must store
your gun safely. I don't think the National Rifle Association would
object to that. Certainly, it seems to me, they would encourage people
to store their weapons safely. If they failed to store them safely, and
a child uses it to harm himself, or someone else, the gun owner can be
held criminally liable. That makes total common sense to me.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense approach to
gun safety.
I thank my cosponsor who worked so hard on this, and I thank the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes thirteen seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me only make a few comments as it
relates to what Senator Chafee has said, because I think it is
important that we understand the reality of some of what he has
portrayed. The pit-bull argument sounds not only exciting, it sounds
horrifying. Now, there is a little thing in law called, in this
instance, the first bite. In other words, if it is known that the dog
is dangerous, then there is a responsibility. If it is not known that
the dog is dangerous and the dog has never shown dangerous tendencies,
then the owner is not liable, and that has stood up in court. But if
the dog is known to be dangerous, and the dog is chained in the
backyard, and the backyard is fenced, and the gates are locked, and a
child crawls in the range of the dog that is chained and is injured,
the owner is not liable.
But what the Senator is saying is, if you have a gun in your house
and your house is gained access to by someone, oh, yes, if the door is
open and a child invites another child in, and that child finds a gun
and misuses it, then, of course, the owner of the gun is liable.
I don't believe that is the pit-bull argument. And I don't think it
can be, because the owner may have put the gun away, and did in this
instance.
What if the owner had it locked up but the child of the owner knew
where the key was? Now, who is liable there? A lot of definitions go on
wanting and my argument still holds, I do believe, that the victim in
this instance, the owner of the gun, who has had the gun stolen from
him, all of a sudden becomes the criminal.
The pit-bull argument cannot and does not hold in this instance, nor
should it. We understand those kinds of arguments. You can store your
gun in safety, and all of a sudden it is taken and used and you are
liable. The victim should not be the criminal.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to offer my support of the
Durbin Amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Department
Appropriations Bill. The recent tragedies in Arkansas and Pennsylvania
call our attention once again to the youth violence facing our nation:
the pointless injury and loss of life, the families that are ripped
apart, the classmates who witness the horror or lose a friend, and the
communities consumed in fear. No one can calculate the direct and
indirect costs flowing from any one of the 14 times every day in which
a child dies
[[Page S8745]]
from a gunshot wound. National response to this death toll has been
minimal, and little has changed in our approach to regulating guns
since 1973. Although no one can replace what was lost, we can at least
take steps to prevent future tragedies.
But as we know from harsh experience, you can't arrest your way out
of these problems. We must be equally credible on enforcement and
prevention to have an impact. And we have to keep guns out of the reach
of our children. We need to keep children away from guns. And it means
adoption of the Durbin amendment, which requires adults to lock up
their guns. The guns used in school shootings in Arkansas and
Pennsylvania belonged to adult relatives of the children who used them.
Fifteen states already have child access prevention laws, and those
laws work.
What we are talking about here today is taking responsibility for the
safety of our children. That means all of us taking responsibility to
change the culture of violence, and taking sensible steps to keep
children safe. The Durbin amendment takes such a step and it deserves
to be enacted this year by this Congress. How much longer must we
endure the horrors of juvenile violence before we respond with measures
that we already know are effective?
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield 1 minute of the 3 remaining to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
I compliment both Senators for this legislation. I think it is common
sense. I think it is long overdue.
I most profoundly disagree with the Senator from Idaho. If the gun is
under lock and key, the owner is exempt from criminal liability. Let me
repeat that. If the gun is under lock and key, the owner is exempt from
criminal liability.
On Monday, a 4-year-old boy in Maryland was shot with his
grandfather's .22 caliber handgun. The gun was loaded. It was not
equipped with a trigger lock. The children were playing with the gun.
The gun discharged and struck the 4-year-old in the face. Fortunately,
the boy was not seriously injured and is expected to recover.
On Tuesday, unfortunately, 61 Senators voted against a common-sense
requirement to require handgun manufacturers to include childproof
trigger locks with every handgun they sell. A simply safety requirement
that would help to stop the growing number of accidental gun-related
injuries and deaths that involve children every year.
In my view, the sharp contrast between these two events is striking.
One day, a child is shot in the face because the gun he and his
playmates find does not have a trigger lock. The next day, the Senate
votes against requiring all guns to be sold with trigger locks.
What is the matter when we cannot fulfill our basic responsibility to
keep children safe from the dangers of irresponsible gun ownership?
I believe that the legislation currently before us authored by
Senators Durbin and Chafee, offers an excellent avenue for ensuring
that gun owners who allow children access to their guns are held liable
when their negligence leads to death or injury.
The bipartisan Child Firearm Access Prevention Act will keep kids
from taking guns owned by adults and, either purposely or accidentally,
killing or injuring themselves or another person.
The legislation puts the burden on the adults who own the guns to
store their guns in a safe and secure manner--with a trigger lock, a
combination lock, in a gun safe, or in a lock box.
If an adult who owns a gun chooses to store the firearm in a loaded
condition--unlocked and unsafe--and a child uses that gun to kill or
injure someone or exhibits that firearm in a public place, then that
adult can be imprisoned for 1 year and fined as much as $10,000.
The need for this legislation should be entirely obvious. I would
wager that there is not a single Senator who hasn't heard of the parade
of senseless violence that has plagued our nation's schools.
Some recent incidents include:
Barry Loukaitas, 14, February 2, 1996, Moses Lake,
Washington: Allegedly shot and killed two students and a
teacher at his school. In his confession Barry said he got
two of his guns from an unlocked cabinet in his house and one
from the family car.
Evan Ramsey, 17, February 19, 1997, Bethel, Alaska: Shot
and killed a student and a principal, and wounded two other
students, at his high school. According to police, the gun
Evan used was kept unlocked at the foot of the stairs in his
house.
Luke Woodham, 16, October 1, 1997, Pearl, Mississippi:
Allegedly stabbed his mother and then shot nine students,
killing two, at his high school.
Michael Carneal, 14, December 1, 1997, West Paducah,
Kentucky: Accused of killing three students and wounding five
students who were participating in a high school prayer
circle.
Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, March 24,
1998, Jonesboro, Arkansas: Accused of shooting to death four
girls and a teacher, and wounding ten, at his school. The
boys took the guns they used in the crime from Andrew's
grandfather who said he usually kept his guns unlocked in the
house.
Andrew Wurst, 14, April 24, 1998, Edinboro, Pennsylvania:
Shot a teacher to death at a school dance.
Jacob Davis, 18, Fayetteville, Tennessee, May 19, 1998:
Allegedly shot and killed a high school classmate.
Kipland ``Kip'' Kinkel, 15, Springfield, Oregon, May 21,
1998: Shooting spree at both home and school which left four
dead and twenty-two injured.
In all, these tragedies total 20 deaths and 48 injuries.
Other non-fatal incidents include:
A 5-year-old kindergarten student in Memphis who took a
loaded .25-caliber pistol to school because he wanted to kill
his teacher for putting him in a ``timeout'',
A police officer's 10-year-old son who was arrested when he
took an unloaded, semiautomatic pistol to school in his
bookbag,
A 15-year-old high school student who was arrested when
authorities confiscated 20 pistols, rifles, and shotguns from
his home after the boy threatened his 9th grade teacher,
And a 16-year-old boy, suspended from school for vandalism,
who was caught by authorities on campus with a .22-caliber
revolver in his front pocket.
Indeed, the scope of this problem is reaching epic proportions.
The National School Safety Center indicates that, during the 1997-
1998 school year, there were 41 school-associated violent deaths in the
United States. That's nearly a 61 percent increase from the year before
when there were 25 such incidents.
And it's no wonder the incidents of school violence are increasing. A
1998 study by the National Center for Education Statistics and the
Bureau of Justice showed that, of 10,000 students surveyed, 1,200
students knew someone who had taken a gun to school. It is amazing to
me that, given the large number of students who have taken guns to
school, there haven't been even more gun related deaths in our schools.
Since the National School Safety Center began keeping track of
school-associated violent deaths in July 1992, there have been 227
students who have died on campus. 53 of them--nearly 1 out of every 4--
were from my home state of California.
In fact, the problem of gun fire on campuses has gotten so bad that
students in some California schools practice ``duck and cover'' drills
much in the same way that students in the 1950's and 1960's practiced
taking cover during nuclear air-raid drills.
An article in the Los Angeles Times last August detailed how the
threat of gun fire has become like the new nuclear threat looming over
today's elementary, middle, and high school students.
The article reads: ``They're called drop drills, crisis drills, and
even bullet drills. In many schools, a special alarm sounds, as it
would during an actual nearby shooting. Teachers shout ``Drop!'' and
students duck under their desks or sprawl on the ground, covering their
heads. Many schools also immediately initiate a lock-down during the
drill, as they would with a shooting, sealing the campus off from the
violence outside.''
And it continues: ``The drop procedure was used by students at
Figueroa Street Elementary School in February 1996 when teacher Alfredo
Perez was hit by a stray bullet. Perez's fifth-graders ducked when the
bullet flew through the window, and then they crawled out of the room
and stayed on the floor until teachers told them they could get up.
Principal Rosemary Lucente credits the drop bill, which they practice
at least once a month, with keeping the students out of further
danger.''
And so it has come to this. Our students are forced to practice duck
and cover drills because their schools have gotten too hazardous for
them to focus on what they're there for in the first place which is to
learn.
When the situation has gotten that bad it is my view that it is our
responsibility to try and help provide some sanity in our schools and
protect children from guns.
[[Page S8746]]
We can do that by holding adults who own guns responsible if their
careless storage of dangerous firearms results in the threat of death
or injury. What's more, we must also encourage parents to spend more
time with their children, to reconnect with them, to teach them that
guns are not toys, and to teach them the difference between right and
wrong.
Opponents of this bill will argue that it won't solve all the
problems of kids with guns, that it won't stop kids from getting killed
or injured by firearms. Frankly, I don't know if that's true or not.
But I do know that one thing this legislation will do is it will force
adults to be more safe and more responsible with their guns and that
will save lives.
I support this legislation whole-heartedly and I encourage my
colleagues in the Senate to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 6 minutes 43
seconds remaining. The Senator from Illinois has 2 minutes 4 seconds
remaining.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let's talk about that tragic situation in
Jonesboro, AR. What the Senator from Illinois is proposing would not
have solved the problem in Jonesboro, AR, even though that young child
obtained his gun from a grandfather who had locked his house and the
child entered the home without permission and the gun was locked in a
case. I don't know how we legislate against that. My guess is, we do
not, not very successfully. All of a sudden grandpa becomes the
criminal, and you are going to go after grandpa at a time when his
grandchild has done that onerous act?
Now, the Senator mentioned 15 States that have similar laws and yet
the courts very seldom use them and juries very seldom give decisions
because we know the parent is in a horrible situation at the time that
kind of accident occurs. They are the victim, and they become the
criminal. We all know that underage children in our care who act as
those children do, we are every bit as much the victim.
Why don't we pass the legislation that I have proposed that
incorporates the forces of the Federal Government, the State
government, and local government, and goes after criminals who use guns
and criminal acts and bring down our crime rates and work to take the
guns out of the hands of the juveniles where the killings are really
going on in this country?
No, it isn't as dramatic; it doesn't make for the political speech in
the Chamber, but it sure makes the streets a lot safer. It doesn't take
law-abiding citizens and make them criminals. That is what this Senate
ought to be doing, and I hope the Senate will do that tonight. It is
the right and the responsible approach.
Let me, once again, briefly go through my proposal. It is patterned
after the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative that is working right
now in Philadelphia. It incorporates the Project Exile in Richmond, VA,
where a Federal prosecutor says, ``Report to me felons who are using a
gun in the commission of a crime, and I will prosecute them, and I will
put them away.'' He has, and the crime rate has plummeted. Bring those
two forces together and we make this world a safer place. And we take
guns out of the hands of juveniles.
No, we don't deal with the accident. I am not sure I know how to do
that. I don't think we can do that here. I don't think we can make
parents criminals. We have chosen not to do that in the past for a
variety of reasons. We have argued safety. We have educated safety. We
hope parents and adults will be responsible with their rights. In this
instance there is a clear division. It is an important division. Our
institutions have to recognize that juveniles in our society today are
more violent than they have ever been, and we are searching for answers
to that. We do not know all of the answers, but we do know we have a
problem. Our problem is to penalize the parent who has tried to act
responsibly? I don't think so. It is certainly our job to encourage
greater parental responsibility, and we all know that a person who owns
a gun in a law-abiding way has a responsibility for his or her right in
this society. And we encourage that. But we say a $10,000 fine and a
Federal offense and you are a criminal if somebody misuses the gun? I
hope not. I hope that is not the case.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe I have 2 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 3 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, with every right in America, there is a
responsibility, even with the second amendment right to bear arms.
Every gun owner has a responsibility to store his gun safely.
What I find interesting about the argument from the Senator from
Idaho is that when I speak to responsible gun owners across America,
the first thing they tell me is, ``Senator, I do not want any of my
guns to harm any of my children or anyone else's children or any
innocent person. I understand I have a responsibility to store them
safely.''
The Senator from Idaho is arguing that gun owners have no
responsibility and should have no responsibility under the law to store
their guns safely.
That is not a fair standard. The overwhelming majority of the
American people may support an individual's right to own a gun, but the
overwhelming majority of the American people also understand that right
carries a responsibility to protect innocent children. The fact that
there has not been an enforcement action in 15 States where the laws
are on the books should be heartening to the Senator from Idaho, and
not discouraging, because in those same States that have passed laws
just like this, the number of accidents involving firearms with
children have gone down over 20 percent.
We can save children's lives with this amendment by saying to gun
owners: ``Take this issue responsibly.'' Let us send America's kids
back to school safely, schools that are gun free and violence free, and
let the parents of those kids realize they have a responsibility, if
they are gun owners, to store their guns safely so their children
cannot get their hands on them and hurt themselves or others.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Illinois can say a good many things on
this floor, but he cannot say something I did not say and attribute it
to me. I did not say there was not a responsibility to manage and
handle your guns in a law-abiding and safe way.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the arguments made both by
the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Illinois that it is very
useful to have a Federal crackdown on those who violate the law with
guns. When I was district attorney in Philadelphia, I sought to have
the Board of Judges impose a standard rule that there be at least some
jail time for those who violate the law with guns, and was unsuccessful
in that effort.
One of the first pieces of legislation I introduced on coming to the
Senate provided for the armed career criminal bill, which mandates a
sentence of 15 years to life for a career criminal who has been found
in possession of a firearm.
I am pleased the legislation offered by the Senator from Idaho will
encompass the City of Philadelphia on a Federal crackdown.
Let me say, parenthetically, this is the first opportunity I have had
to take the Senate floor. I thank my colleagues for the standing
ovation which I received when I returned and thank them for the very
many good wishes.
I wish I had longer to talk about this issue. But I do believe the
Federal jurisdiction, with the speedy trial rules and the tougher
sentencing and the avoidance, at least in my experience, in the
Philadelphia State courts of judge shopping and plea bargaining, will
be a great boon to cracking down on those who violate the law with
guns.
Just a word or two about a couple of earlier votes. I supported the
proposition to allow counsel into the grand jury room. That is sort of
an onerous proceeding, where the prosecutor is present with the witness
and up to 23 grand jurors. It is a little anomalous, given the right to
counsel, that the witness must appear alone in the grand jury room,
which is a closed Star Chamber proceeding, but I think the orderly
administration of criminal justice will be served better if a witness'
counsel is permitted to be present.
An earlier vote, too, occurred on an effort by the Senator from
Alabama,
[[Page S8747]]
Senator Sessions, to allocate more funds to law enforcement as opposed
to rehabilitation. I supported the motion to table Senator Sessions'
amendment because I believe there ought to be more on the seamless web
for rehabilitation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The Senator from South
Carolina.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a legislative
fellow in the office of Senator Wyden of Oregon, Martin Kodis, be
permitted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent, on both the Craig amendment and
the Durbin amendment, the yeas and nays be ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to ordering the yeas and
nays en bloc at this time?
Without objection, it is in order.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, so my colleagues know where we stand--and I
certainly thank the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Idaho
for their timely discussion of what was a fairly complicated issue;
both Senator Hollings and I greatly appreciate their courtesy in moving
debate along--we are now waiting for Senator Thompson, who I understand
is on the way to the floor to offer his amendment. Then we will go to
Senator Bumpers. We will probably be skipping over the amendment by
Senator Nickles. As I understand it, he is not available until probably
9 or 9:15. So we will go to Senator Feingold after Senator Bumpers.
That is the order we are proceeding under, under the previous
unanimous consent. As soon as Senator Thompson arrives, we shall take
up his amendment.
I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3256, As Modified
(Purpose: To reinstate certain principles, criteria, and policies
relating to Federalism, and for other purposes)
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3256 and I
send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], for himself, Mr.
Lott and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 3256, as
modified.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . POLICIES RELATING TO FEDERALISM.
It is the sense of the Senate that the President should
repeal Executive Order No. 13083, issued May 14, 1998 and
should reissue Executive Order No. 12612, issued October 26,
1987, and Executive Order No. 12875, issued October 26, 1993.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment is offered to protect and
preserve federalism. If there is one concept in recent years that has
gained in credence, it is the concept of federalism. We have seen a lot
of innovation happen in this country that has started at the State and
local level. We have paid credence to it with regard to welfare reform
and other measures.
The Supreme Court, in recent years, has struck down cases based upon
the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment has been reinvigorated, and I
think we have come together as a nation in many respects in our belief
that many of our problems need to be addressed at the State and local
level, and that is what our original framers of the Constitution had in
mind. Not only is it constitutionally sound but it has worked in
practice.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Majority Leader Lott and
Assistant Leader Nickles be added as cosponsors. They have long fought
for the principles of federalism.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, in May the President issued Executive
Order 13803 which purported to set out a new definition of
``federalism.'' However, it explicitly replaced President Reagan's
Executive order on federalism and, in reality, the new order undermines
federalism.
Furthermore, it was written in secret without even any consultation
with State and local officials. Every major State and local government
group opposes this so-called federalism order, and they have asked the
President to withdraw it.
My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the President
revoke his May 14th order and help restore the proper respect for State
and local government and in our Federal system by reinstating both
President Reagan's and his own prior orders on this subject.
The Founding Fathers believed that the Federal Government had limited
powers. The tenth amendment states that the powers not delegated to the
States are reserved to the States or to the people. The public clearly
wants important decisions to be made closer to home and not dictated
from Washington, DC.
Unfortunately, President Clinton's order will undermine federalism
and promote Federal meddling into local affairs. President Clinton's
order revokes President Reagan's Executive Order 12612 which was a
clear commitment to the tenth amendment principles of a limited Federal
Government. The new Clinton order shifts the Reagan presumption against
Federal involvement in State and local matters to a presumption for
Federal intervention. President Clinton's new order also revokes his
own 1993 Executive Order 12875 which directed the Federal Government to
avoid unfunded mandates.
To add insult to injury, the White House never talked with State or
local governments while the new order was being developed. Ironically,
it was issued from England. More ironically, White House officials did
not consult with local officials on an Executive order which itself
calls for more consultation with local officials. In a recent
Washington Post article, one anonymous White House official admitted,
``This was a mistake. We screwed up.'' Mr. President, I agree.
The White House belatedly has offered to delay the order and take
comments from State and local officials, but the Clinton administration
has shown no willingness to rescind this order, as State and local
officials have requested.
State and local officials were understandably irritated that the
White House shut them out of this process. But more importantly, they
immediately saw through the rhetoric that was coming out on this matter
and saw the real purpose of the Executive order. State and local
officials know that the order is basically a Government power grab at
the Federal level that will undercut their ability to serve the public,
and that is why they are so exercised about it.
President Clinton was asked to rescind the order by the ``big
seven,'' as they are called--big seven State and local government
groups. They include the National Governors Association, the National
Conference of State Legislature, the Council of State Governments, the
National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National League of Cities, and the International City/County Management
Association.
Mr. President, this order will promote Federal intrusion into local
decisionmaking, and it shows contempt for the ability of State and
local officials to manage their own affairs. We don't want that. That
is not the message that has been coming out of this Congress. That is
not even the message that has been coming out from prior Executive
orders by this administration, as late as 1993.
Even though, as I say, it was promoted as a concept that would
enhance federalism, and it has a lot of good language in there about
the principles of federalism, when you get right down to it, it
rescinds the basic presumption that when Federal agencies look at a
[[Page S8748]]
matter, it basically presumes, unless it is very clear, that the
matters should be resolved at the State and local level. That is a
presumption that has worked very well for us, and I urge the adoption
of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the seven state and local
organizations, an article from the Washington Post, and a letter from
Governor Voinovich of Ohio be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States,
Washington, DC July 17, 1998.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing on behalf of the
nation's elected state and local government leaders to
request that you withdraw Executive Order 13083. We urge this
action to provide for meaningful consultations with state and
local officials not on E.O. 13083, but on whether any changes
ought to be considered with respect to Executive Orders 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership) and 12612
(Federalism). No state and local government official was
consulted in the drafting of E.O. 13083. In contrast, this
administration fully engaged state and local officials and
their associations in the drafting of your E.O. 12875.
While we appreciate the offer by your administration to
extend the comment period by 90 days, we feel that Executive
Order 13083 so seriously erodes federalism that we must
request its withdrawal.
Because we all have imminent meetings of our elected
leaders, we believe it especially critical for you to
consider and act upon our request to withdraw the order as
quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Governor George V. Voinovich,
Chairman National Governors' Association.
Senator Richard Finan,
Senate President, President, National Conference of State
Legislatures.
Commissioner Randy Johnson,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, President, National Association
of Counties.
Deedee Corradini,
Mayor of Salt Lake City, President, The U.S. Conference of
Mayors.
Representative Charlie Williams,
Chairman, Council of State Governments, Mississippi.
Brian O'Neill,
Council Member, City of Philadelphia President, National
League of Cities.
Gary Gwyn, City Manager,
Grand Prairie, Texas, President International City/County
Management Association.
____
[From the Washington Post, July 16, 1998]
Executive Order Urged Consulting, but Didn't; State, Local Officials
Want Federalism Say
(By David S. Broder)
Two months ago, while attending the economic summit of
industrial nations in Birmingham, England, President Clinton
signed Executive Order 13083 on federalism. After setting
forth nine conditions for when federal intervention and
preemption is justified, it required every executive agency
to ``have an effective process to permit elected officials
and other representatives of state and local governments to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
On Tuesday, two months to the day after Clinton signed the
order, the Washington representatives of the ``Big Seven''
organizations of state and local government had a stormy
meeting with Mickey Ibarra, the chief of White House
intergovernmental relations, and then drafted a letter to
Clinton demanding that he withdraw the executive order.
The reason: No state or local government official was
consulted in the drafting of the executive order, a directive
the Big Seven officials said in the draft ``calls into
question fundamental principles of federalism.''
Because the new order revokes the previous federalism
guidelines signed by former President Ronald Reagan and by
Clinton himself in 1993, the draft letter said ``we are
concerned that all references to the Tenth Amendment,
identification of new costs or burdens, preemption and
reduction of unfunded mandates are revoked. . . . We believe
the changes in the order and the manner in which they were
made raise serious questions'' about the administration's
commitment to partnership with state and local governments.
White House officials yesterday denied the order signaled
any change of policy and scrambled to appease the Big Seven,
knowing that almost all the groups will be meeting in the
next few weeks and that congressional Republicans are on the
trail of the controversy. Indeed, yesterday afternoon, Barry
J. Toiv, a White House spokesman, said administration
officials had decided to recommend to the president that he
issue another order delaying implementation of the first one
so officials would have the opportunity to meet and discuss
the issues with state and local authorities.
``We thought there were no real substantive changes . . .
but in retrospect, it wouldn't have hurt'' to review the new
language with the state and local officials, Toiv said. The
first executive order was not scheduled to go into effect
until Aug. 14.
Another Clinton aide, who did not want to be identified,
said of the lack of consultation, ``This was a mistake. We
screwed up.''
William T. Pound, executive director of the National
Conference of State Legislatures, welcomed the news of the
planned delay.
``It's a first step. A second step is--we clearly want
substantive changes,'' Pound said.
Officials said the staff work on the executive order had
been done by Sally Katzen, who supervised regulatory work at
the Office of Management and Budget until recently becoming
deputy director of the White House National Economic Council,
and by lawyers in the White House counsel's office.
After the meeting with Ibarra and White House lawyers,
Pound said, ``They gave us no good reason why this was done
without consultation. They order everyone else to consult,
but then do exactly the opposite. It's a slap in the face,
really.''
The other groups that attended the meeting were the
National Governors Association, the Council of State
Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and
the International City/County Management Association.
The long delay in the group's explosive reaction came
about, Pound said, ``because none of us knew they were going
to do this, and none of us knew they had done its. It was a
stealth executive order.
The first official to raise the alarm was Rep. David M.
McIntosh (R-Ind.), a subcommittee chairman on the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and a man who
had occupied the same OMB position as Katzen during the
Reagan administration. He wrote Clinton saying that in
revoking the previous orders, ``you stripped the most basic
protection accorded the states, the preparation of a Federal
Assessment,'' which required agencies to analyze the burdens
any new regulation imposes on state and local governments.
Instead of requiring federal agencies to ``refrain to the
maximum extent possible from establishing uniform national
standards for programs,'' as the previous orders did,
McIntosh wrote, ``your order requires no restraint or
deference to the states.''
In a July 1 letter of reply, White House counsel Charles
F.C. Ruff said the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, passed in
1995, requires the same kind of assessments the old orders
did. But McIntosh said yesterday the administration does not
practice what it preaches, pointing to the recent
administration directive--that states said was done without
adequate consultation--that states must pay for Viagra
prescriptions for Medicaid patients no matter what the cost.
____
George V. Voinovich,
Office of the Governor
Columbus, OH, July 22, 1998.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Governmental Affairs Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thompson: I am writing in strong support of
your amendment to repeal President Clinton's Executive Order
13083 (Federalism).
Executive Order 13083 undermines and replaces previous
Executive Orders 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership) and 12612 (Federalism), which recognized and
guaranteed the division of governmental responsibilities
embodied in the Constitution.
Executive Order 13083 was promulgated without any
consultation with state and local elected officials. I
strongly oppose Executive Order 13083 because it
fundamentally contradicts the 10th Amendment to the
Constitution and the basic principles of federalism.
Previously, the leaders of the seven bipartisan
organizations representing state and local elected officials
wrote to the President stating, ``Executive Order 13083 so
seriously erodes federalism that we must request its
withdrawal.'' I appreciate your efforts to repeal this
unfortunate attempt to justify and broaden federal preemption
of state and local governments.
Thank you again for your leadership on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
George V. Voinovich,
Governor.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am still nonplused as to the
particular content of those Executive orders. I say nonplused. I know
the President,
[[Page S8749]]
and if there is one group he really yields to, it is local and State
governments, having been a Governor, having come to office as a new,
whatever they call this thing--leadership, Democrat, or whatever else.
He hadn't been necessarily on the side of the Federal Government but on
the side of State and local governments.
I understand the misgivings of the Senator from Tennessee, and I
understand what he said, that the Governors have asked and yet,
apparently, the White House has declined. That is why I am nonplused,
because I would like to know a little bit more about it, and I am
checking right now those Executive orders and with members of our
Governmental Affairs Committee, which does have jurisdiction on this
particular matter.
In short, in other words, Executive Order 12612 and Executive Order
12875, the Senator from Tennessee says they change a basic presumption
from federalism--local and State levels to be employed and approached,
before we take over at the Federal level--with which I agree. I happen
to think that the President agrees, too. That is why I want a little
time to check this out.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be delighted to yield.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest it might be acceptable to the Senator from
Tennessee, because the Senator from South Carolina does have concerns
that haven't been addressed and he has to get information, maybe we can
set this amendment aside and move on to the Bumpers amendment. We are
going to have votes at 9:30. Prior to the 9:30 period, if the Senator
from South Carolina feels he needs to come back for further debate, we
can go to it at that time.
Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will yield, I will be most happy to
proceed in that direction. I suggest perhaps I consult with the Senator
from South Carolina. I have the Executive orders here.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate that. I am sort of ready to go along with
what the Senator from Tennessee said. Let me look at those Executive
orders.
Mr. THOMPSON. Very well.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3257
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 3257.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to ask for
the yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest at this time we turn to the amendment from
Senator Bumpers. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized on his
amendment, that there be 40 minutes, equally divided, on the Bumpers
amendment, and that at the conclusion of that, that we turn back to the
Thompson amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator be willing to add a requirement that
no second-degree amendments be in order? I do not anticipate any. I am
just thinking we could save some time.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, the unanimous consent agreement
did not preclude second-degrees. At this time I am not in a position to
preclude second-degrees. I do not expect one. I am not aware of one,
but I am not in a position to agree to that.
Mr. BUMPERS. I was thinking, in exchange for a time agreement I
thought we could agree that there will be no second-degree amendments.
Is that not the case?
Mr. GREGG. That was not my understanding.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments
be in order on the Bumpers amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that there also be no second-
degrees on the McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3262
(Purpose: To require a report by the Judicial Conference of the United
States concerning whether the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
should be amended to provide for the presence of witness' counsel in
the grand jury room)
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in order to
expedite the passage of this bill, that an amendment that has been
cleared on both sides and offered by Senator Hatch and me--that we
dispose of that now before I offer the other amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and
Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment No. 3262.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place add the following:
``SEC. . REPORT BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.
``(a) Not later than September 1, 1999, the Judicial
Conference of the United States shall prepare and submit to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a
report evaluating whether an amendment to Rule 6 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permitting the presence
in the grand jury room of counsel for a witness who is
testifying before the grand jury would further the interests
of justice and law enforcement.
(b) In preparing the report referred to in paragraph (a) of
this section the Judicial Conference shall consider the views
of the Department of Justice, the organized Bar, the academic
legal community, and other interested parties.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require the Judicial
Conference to submit recommendations to the Congress in
accordance with the Rules Enabling Act, nor prohibit the
Conference from doing so.
Mr. BUMPERS. This is the amendment that Senator Hatch and I agreed to
this morning which would modify the grand jury amendment that I lost.
This morning, Senator Hatch and I agreed to a plan that recommended
that the issue be submitted to the Judicial Conference for study and a
report back to Congress.
I have talked to the floor managers who have agreed to it.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3262) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3263
(Purpose: To make it illegal, in most cases, to tape a phone
conversation without the consent of all parties)
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an
amendment numbered 3263.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place add the following:
Sec. --. Subsection 2(d) of Section 2511 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``2(d)(i) Except as prohibited by subsection (ii), it shall
not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting
under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
communication where such person is a party to
[[Page S8750]]
the communication or where one of the parties to the
communication has give prior consent to such interception
unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of
committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
``(ii) It shall be unlawful under this chapter for a person
not acting under color of law to intercept a telephone
communication unless
``(A) all parties to the communication have given prior
consent to such interception, unless such communication is
intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or
toritous act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the
United States; or
``(B) such person is an employer, or the officer or agent
of an employer, engaged in lawful electronic monitoring of
its employees' communication made in the course of the
employees' duties; or
``(C) such person is a party to the communication and the
communication conveys threats of physical harm, harassment or
intimidation.''
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I hope that we can probably yield time
back on this amendment. Senator Hollings is a cosponsor of the bill
which this amendment is based on, as are several other Senators. It is
a very simple amendment.
I first brought this issue to the Senate's attention in 1984 when it
was determined that Charles Wick, who at that time was head of the U.S.
Information Agency, had been tape recording conversations with just
about everybody he talked to, including President Reagan and President
Carter, without their knowledge or consent.
He revealed that he had recorded over 80 conversations--Cabinet
members, Presidents, everybody. They did not even know it. I do not
mind telling you, while I knew that that was legal, I was deeply
offended by it. And I am still offended by it. This is an area, that is
so often the case, where the States are way ahead of the Senate.
Recently, Attorney General Janet Reno testified before our
Appropriations Committee, and I asked her, ``General Reno, I have a
bill pending in the Congress that would make it a crime to tape record
conversations where only one party knew it was being tape recorded;
namely, the person doing the recording, and the other person didn't
know it. How do you feel about that, General Reno?''
``Well,'' she said, ``you know, that came up in the Florida State
legislature back in the early 1970s. And we passed a law in Florida
that made it a crime to tape record telephone conversations where only
one party knew about it.'' And I said, ``Well, let me ask you this:
What were you doing at the time?'' I guess she was district attorney or
whatever they describe that position in Dade County, FL. And finally I
said, ``Well, General Reno, how did you feel about the Florida
legislation?'' She said, ``I favored it.'' Well, I favor it, too.
And Charles Wick is not the first, and he certainly will not be the
last, to have ever recorded telephone conversations without telling
people.
I have introduced this legislation three times--1984, 1993 and 1998.
I will never understand--as those of us who lose never seem to--how, on
God's green Earth, anybody would vote against prohibiting and outlawing
such an outrageous invasion of people's privacy.
Sometimes I am sitting in my office and talking on the telephone to
people back home that are wanting me to support legislation, and
sometimes I am sort of hanging foot loose and fancy free, saying things
that I would not say publicly. And do not be offended; that applies to
every single Member of this body. Every one of them have done it.
Sometimes I say things, and later on I get to thinking, ``You know
what? If that guy was tape recording that''--he had a perfect right
to--``I wouldn't have to know about it.'' And you know something else?
Approximately fifteen States have done exactly what Florida did; they
have outlawed this.
The Congress is the last one to ever get the word. On that grand jury
amendment I offered this morning, 28 States allow a witness' attorney
in a grand jury room. And Congress is still dithering and ringing its
hands and saying--``Well, I don't know. We need to study it.'' And here
we are with one of the most egregious abuses known-- and we continue to
tolerate it.
What if you called from Maryland to Virginia? Let's just assume the
Governor of Maryland calls the Governor of Virginia. Now, the Governor
of Maryland assumes that he is protected because Maryland has a law
against recording a telephone conversation when both parties are not
privy to it. But the Governor in Virginia can tape-record the
conversation and he hasn't violated Maryland law because he isn't in
Maryland, he is in Virginia, where it is legal to tape-record such
conversations. If for no other reason, we should have a Federal law to
make the matter consistent.
Now, in 1984, when I joined with Senator Metzenbaum on a floor
amendment on this subject, I listened to the arguments over and over
again that this would impede law enforcement. I want to tell you, so
there will be no misunderstanding about this, I don't want any Senator
coming on this floor and asking me, ``How about law enforcement?'' I
have exempted intelligence gathering; CIA, DEA, everybody else is
exempt; I have exempted the FBI, every sheriff, every police
department. I have exempted anybody who even professes to know anything
about law enforcement or intelligence gathering. I have exempted
telemarketers, whose bosses have a right to monitor their conversations
to see how effectively they are doing on the telephone.
We have made this provision as palatable as we can possibly make it,
and we have done it in a sensible way. Colleagues, you will never get a
chance to vote for an amendment that has been thought out any better
than this one has. It has now been 14 years since I first gave the
Senate an opportunity to pass such an amendment as this. As I say, it
is very narrowly tailored.
All I could do, if I wanted to use up the entire 40 minutes, is to
stand here and repeat over and over again how offended I am at the
thought of somebody tape-recording a conversation with me and not
telling me about it, and the first thing you know, I see it on the
front page of the Washington Post.
This amendment has nothing to do with Linda Tripp. This is not a
partisan, political amendment. I am telling you, I introduced a bill on
this subject in the Senate in 1984, and I introduced a similar bill in
1993, and I am offering it to this body in 1998. Linda Tripp played no
part. You make up your own mind about that case, whatever it may be. I
am just telling you, as a general principle and as a citizen of the
Nation that values the privacy of its citizens above all, please
support this amendment and let's put this one to rest once and for all.
I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the call of the
quorum be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to make one other point that was
brought to my attention by the floor managers which I failed to mention
a moment ago. That is that my amendment also provides an exemption for
anybody, male or female, who is threatened by a stalker. They would be
exempt if they tape-recorded a conversation.
I wanted to make that clear so everybody would understand that is
also covered as an exemption under this amendment.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. COATS). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we have been in a quorum call. Who is the
time being charged against under the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have had 2 quorum calls in place. One was
charged against Senator Gregg who asked it be charged against his time,
and the other was charged against the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. So under the order, a quorum is charged against whoever
asked for the quorum call?
[[Page S8751]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That's correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. I won't be asking for a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time will be charged equally.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the time being charged equally now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest that for the next 5 minutes the
time be charged to my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next 5 minutes of time will be allocated
to the time of the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. BUMPERS. How much time do the opponents of the amendment have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14 minutes
49 seconds. The Senator from Arkansas has 2 minutes 16 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from New
Hampshire that the 5 minutes allotted to him have now expired.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the next 5 minutes also be
allocated to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that
all time be yielded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUMPERS. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time
is yielded.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we will now move on to the Feingold
amendment. For Members' notice, the next item in order will be Senator
Feingold's amendment dealing with the cable issue. I presume he will be
here at any time to start that. Those Members wishing to speak on that
amendment should be on the floor as I assume there will also be a time
limit on this amendment. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that debate
on the Feingold amendment be limited to 40 minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the Senator propounding a unanimous consent
agreement with regard to my amendment?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just asked that there be a time limit of
40 minutes equally divided on the amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Does that include the understanding that there will be
no second-degree amendment?
Mr. GREGG. At this time I can't agree with that. I am not aware of a
second-degree amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object, momentarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The consent order has already been agreed to.
The Senator would have to ask unanimous consent.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
previous order be vitiated pending a few moments to talk with the
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Amendment No. 3264
(Purpose: To require a report from the Federal Communications
Commission with respect to cable television rates)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) proposes an
amendment numbered 3264.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 135, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 620. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) Since the adoption by the Federal Communication
Commission of the so-called ``Going Forward Rules'' to relax
regulation of cable television rates in 1994, cable
television rates have increased by 6.3 percent per year.
Since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-104), such rates have increased by
approximately 8.2 percent per year.
(2) The rate of increase in cable television rates has
exceeded the rate of increase in inflation by more than 3
times since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. The increase in such rates is faster than when such
rates were not regulated between 1986 and 1992. Such rates
are rising 50 percent faster than the Commission predicted
when it adopted the so-called ``Going Forward Rules''.
(3) In 1996, many United States cities experienced
increases in cable television rates that exceeded 20 percent.
Overall, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable
television rates increased at an annual pace of 10.4 percent
in 1996, compared with 3.5 percent for all consumer goods.
(4) The Nation's largest cable television company boosted
its rates approximately 13.5 percent in 1996. In Denver
alone, it raised rates by 19 percent in the summer of 1996,
then another 8 percent in June 1997. The Nation's second
largest cable television company increased its average rates
12 percent in the New York City area in 1996.
(5) The cable television industry continues to hold the
dominant position in the market for multichannel video
programming distribution (MVPD) with 87 percent of MVPD
subscribers receiving service from their local franchised
cable television operator.
(6) Certain factors place alternatives to cable television
at a competitive disadvantage. For example, direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) service is widely available and constitutes
the most significant alternative to cable television.
However, barriers to both the entry and expansion of DBS
include--
(A) the lack of availability of local broadcast signals;
(B) up front equipment and installation costs; and
(C) the need to purchase additional equipment to receive
service on additional television sets.
(7) Telephone company entry into the video programming
distribution business has been limited.
(8) With the increased concentration of cable television
systems at the national level, the percentage of cable
television subscribers served by the 4 largest cable
television companies rose to 61.4 percent in 1996.
(9) Recent agreements in the cable television industry have
given TCI and Time Warner/Turner Broadcasting ownership of
cable television systems serving approximately one-half of
the Nation's cable television subscribers.
(10) Financial analysts report that cable television
industry revenue for 1995 was $24,898,000,000 and grew 8.9
percent to $27,120,000,000 in 1996. For 1996, revenue per
subscriber grew 5.6 percent to reach $431.85 per subscriber.
Analysts estimate 1997 year-end-total revenue for the
industry was approximately $30,000,000,000, an increase of
9.9 percent from 1996 year-end revenue.
(b) Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission
shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the
assessment of the Commission whether or not the findings
under subsection (a) are consistent with the Commission's
fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-385) and the Telecommunications Act of 1996
to promote competition in the cable television industry and
ensure reasonable rates for cable television services.
(2) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that
the findings under subsection (a) are consistent with the
fulfillment of the responsibilities referred to in that
paragraph, the report shall include a detailed justification
of that determination.
(3) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that
the findings under subsection (a) are not consistent with the
fulfillment of the responsibilities referred to in that
paragraph, the report shall include a statement of the
actions to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the
responsibilities.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is prompted
by the continuous rise in cable rates across this country over the past
few years. You will remember when Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, we were promised that competition would
bring lower cable rates for consumers. Well, it hasn't happened. In
fact, rates have gone up--alot--in many communities around the country.
About two-thirds of the households in this country now rely on cable
for their television programming. More
[[Page S8752]]
and more, cable is part of the monthly budget for the average consumer.
It is not a frill or a luxury. We rely on cable for information and for
entertainment. And instead of the cost going down because so many
people now use the service, the cost just keeps rising.
In my home state of Wisconsin, the cable company in the Madison area
raised its rates by 9% in June. That's on top of a 7% increase just a
year ago, and an 18.8% increase in 1996. According to the Federal
Communications Commission, average cable rates across the country rose
8.5% from July 1996 to July 1997, three to four times faster than the
rate of inflation.
Now, Mr. President, I voted against the Telecommunications Act in
part because I was concerned that it would not really promote
competition in the cable industry. And look what has happened. The top
two cable companies now have over 50% of the market in this country,
and the top four cable companies have over 60% of the market.
And the biggest problem, of course, is that despite the promises of
those who promoted the new telecommunications law, there is no
competition at all in the vast majority of cable markets. In all but a
handful of communities in this country, consumers still have no choice
in buying cable service. Alternatives to cable, such as satellite
services, are not readily available to most consumers, or they are too
expensive to offer much competition. The number of areas where
consumers have a choice between cable operators is very small indeed.
Only five million homes out of the 94 million that are capable of
receiving cable programming can now choose between two cable operators.
Now here's a shocking statistic from the FCC's most recent annual
study of competition in the video programming market: Cable rates have
gone up more slowly in areas where there is competition!
Mr. President, in a truly competitive market, the cable companies
would try to keep their rates as low as possible to retain their
customers. Companies could charge higher rates based on new investment
in facilities or programming only if they could convince their
customers to accept those increases rather than take their business
elsewhere to a competitor in the same town.
Just think about it. You get a notice that your cable bill or a bill
for any other crucial service is going to go up significantly. What is
the first thing you would do? The first thing you would do in a
competitive situation is check out the competitor's rate, of course.
But without competition, cable companies are able to increase rates
with very little fear of losing their customers. Most people will
endure a pretty big increase before they decide to give up their cable
service. But even a minor increase might prompt a call to the
competitor down the street, if only such a competitor actually existed.
The FCC has made it very clear that notwithstanding the fact that its
authority to regulate cable rates does not expire until March 1999, it
does not intend to take any action this year to hold down cable rates.
I am concerned that when the power expires next year we will see even
greater rate increases than we have seen since the Act passed in 1996.
And those have already been dramatic increases.
Earlier this year, I wrote to the Chairman of the FCC, asking him to
give serious consideration to a request that had been filed by
Consumers Union to freeze cable rates until the FCC could investigate
the reasons for the recent increases and also determine whether current
cable TV rates are reasonable.
In response, FCC's Chairman William Kennard indicated that he
believes a rate freeze would be unfair to cable companies that have
acted responsibly, and that it would hurt small independent cable
operators. With all due respect, I don't think this is an adequate
response. The FCC has essentially said that it does not know why cable
rates are going up. If that is the case, then it has no idea whether
cable companies are acting responsibly or not. And it certainly is in
no position to ensure that cable rates are reasonable for consumers.
Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act has already deregulated the
small operators who serve rural communities. So that is not
particularly relevant or a justification for not examining what is
happening with these cable companies.
At the same time, Mr. Kennard told me that the FCC ``continues to
aggressively enforce its cable rate regulations to ensure that cable
rates are reasonable under the law.''
I'm not sure what the FCC means by aggressive enforcement, but I
don't see it, and certainly consumers whose rates have risen at three
times the rate of inflation are not seeing the aggressive enforcement
either.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Chairman
Kennard and his response be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1998.
Hon. William Kennard, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennard: I was very disappointed to hear of
your decision, conveyed in remarks to the Washington Post
last Thursday, that the FCC will take no action this year to
hold down cable TV rates. Abdicating the FCC's responsibility
in this area is a serious mistake. I urge you to reconsider
your position.
Cable television rates across the country have risen by
more than 5 times the inflation rate over the past year. In
my own state of Wisconsin, the cable franchise operator in
Madison recently announced a rate hike of 9 percent that will
take effect in June. That follows a 7% increase just a year
ago, and an 18.8 percent increase in 1996. Increases of this
size are unconscionable, notwithstanding the cable companies
dubious argument that they are justified by investment in new
equipment and by increased programming costs.
In a truly competitive market, the cable companies would
try to keep their rates as low as possible to maintain their
customer base. New investment in improved facilities or
programming could be reflected in increased rates only
insofar as consumers are willing to accept those increases
rather than take their business elsewhere. Real competition
is still only found in only a handful of communities. In that
environment, the cable companies are able to increase rates
without fear of losing market share. Only the FCC can step in
and demand that rate increases be justified.
Your frank admission to the Washington Post that the FCC
does not know why cable rates are going up is disturbing. If
that is the case, how can the agency fulfill its statutory
obligation to assure that the rates for basic cable service
are reasonable and do not exceed the rates that would be
charged if there were real competition in the market? Even
though the FCC's authority to regulate cable rates does not
expire until March 31, 1999, is the Commission now just
taking the cable companies' word for it that rate increases
are justified?
Despite the promises of those who supported the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, competition has not yet
arrived in the cable industry. Until it does, or until the
FCC's statutory authority expires, the FCC has an obligation
to protect consumers from the kind of price gouging that is
now going on in the cable industry. I urge you to reconsider
your decision to advance the date of complete deregulation in
the cable industry by almost a year. Instead, the Commission
should give serious consideration to the pending petition to
freeze cable rates. Anything less is an abdication of the
Commission's statutory responsibility and an abandonment of
the consumers that the agency is supposed to serve.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold,
United States Senator.
____
Federal Communications
Commission,
Washington, DC, July 8, 1998.
Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feingold: Thank you for your letter concerning
the recent article in The Washington Post discussing the
regulation of cable television rates and the sunset of the
Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate the
rates charged for cable programming services. I appreciate
learning your views on cable regulation and welcome your
perspective on this issue.
The Commission is committed to protecting consumers from
unreasonable cable television rates and to promoting the
development of strong competition in the marketplace for
multichannel video programming. Like you, I am concerned
about the recent trend in cable television rates. In many
communities, cable rates are increasing at a rapid pace. In
some cases, cable rates are going up much faster than the
general rate of inflation.
Please be assured that the Commission continues to
aggressively enforce its cable rate regulations to ensure
that cable rates are reasonable under the law. Indeed, since
the adoption of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, the Commission has received more
than 17,000 cable programming services tier rate complaints
and ordered a total of $84 million
[[Page S8753]]
in refunds to more than 58 million cable subscribers. In
addition, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
modified the rate complaint procedures, the Commission has
resolved more than 670 rate complaints and order total
refunds of more than $13 million to 9.4 million subscribers.
While I have indicated that I believe some of the
Commission's cable rate regulations may need to be
reevaluated, I am concerned that we do not have sufficient
information nor adequate time to develop and adopt revised
regulations before the Commission's authority to regulate the
rates charged for cable programming services terminates on
March 31, 1999. I believe we need to attain a better
understanding of the behavior of cable rates before we
undertake any steps to change our rules. Moreover, at this
time, with the sunset of cable programming services
regulations less that one year away. I am not persuaded that
a major reformation of our rules would be the most productive
use of the Commission's limited resources. This should not be
interpreted to mean that the Commission does not intend to
vigorously enforce its current rate regulations.
At the same time, I am not convinced that a freeze of cable
television rates is appropriate and in the public interest. A
broad rate freeze would arbitrarily penalize cable television
system operators who have acted responsibly. A rate freeze
also could undermine the important capital investment that
the cable industry must make to modernize its networks and
bring new services and choices to consumers. I am also
concerned that a freeze may have an adverse and
disproportionate effect on small independent cable operators
which would jeopardize the provision of new services to small
towns and communities across the country.
As pointed out in the Washington Post article, the
Commission can play an important role in collecting and
analyzing the information you and other policymakers will
need to determine whether cable rate regulation should be
extended beyond March 31, 1999. To begin this effort, I
recently directed the Cable Services Bureau to undertake a
review of a number of issues related to cable television rate
increases, including the sources of programming cost
increases. We are interested in learning more about
programming costs and the revenues cable operators generate
from sources other than monthly subscription charges, such as
advertising, commission, and program launch fees. The review
also will help us determine if the relationships that have
developed between cable system operators and programmers
affect the prices charged for programming as well as the
availability of the program services to competitive
multichannel video programming distributors. As part of this
review, the Bureau recently asked several large cable
television companies to complete a questionnaire to
supplement the information they provided to the Commission
for the 1997 Cable Price Survey. I expect the Bureau to
complete its work this summer and to report its findings to
the Commission soon thereafter.
Because competition is the optimum way to discipline cable
television rates, the Commission also continues its work to
promote increased competition in the marketplace for
multichannel video programming. For example, the Commission's
program access rules have been credited as an important
factor in the development of both the direct broadcast
satellite and the multichannel multipoint distribution
industries. Moreover, the Commission has adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that is designed to strengthen our
program access rules and enhance the competitive position of
alternative multichannel video providers.
Similarly, the rules the Commission adopted to implement
section 207 (Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception Devices)
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have helped to bring
new choices to consumers and promote competition in the video
distribution market. In addition, the Commission recently
issued its cable inside wiring rules designed to facilitate
competition among video service providers in apartment
buildings and other multiple dwelling units.
As important as the Commission's initiatives may be, in
some cases, enhanced competitive opportunities in the
multichannel video programming distribution market may
ultimately depend more upon changes in the law than on
additional actions by this Commission. For example, some
direct broadcast satellite providers contend that their
service had limited consumer appeal because they are
generally prohibited by the Satellite Home Viewer Act from
providing local television broadcast signals to consumers.
These same provider also may be placed at a competitive
disadvantage because the current compulsory license regime
requires direct broadcast satellite providers to pay
substantially higher copyright fees than cable operators pay
for the same programming. As Congress considers potential
reforms in these and related areas, parity among the various
multichannel video programming distributors should be a
primary goal.
I appreciate hearing from you on these important issues and
hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me on
these and other communications matters of concern.
Sincerely,
William E. Kennard,
Chairman.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is designed
to tell the FCC that this situation is unacceptable. It makes findings
to which I have alluded here--that cable rates are rising and there is
no competition in the cable market--and asks the FCC to report back to
us within 30 days as to whether it believes that these findings are
consistent with the FCC having fulfilled its responsibilities under
federal law to promote competition and ensure that cable rates are
reasonable.
I do not believe that the FCC will be able to tell us in the face of
these findings that it has fulfilled its responsibilities. The
amendment therefore requires that the FCC inform us of the steps it
intends to take to ensure that those responsibilities are fulfilled.
The Telecommunications Act was enacted in early 1996. For over two
years, the American people have watched with alarm as cable rates have
gone in exactly the wrong direction. It is time for the Congress to
tell the FCC that is not what was supposed to happen, and that the
Commission has to do something to change it. I urge my colleagues to
vote for this amendment. It, of course, will not singlehandedly solve
the problem, but it should move the Commission, and I hope cable rates,
in the right direction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two newspaper articles
concerning rising cable rates and the FCC's decision not to take
action, one from USA Today, and one from the Washington Post, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the USA TODAY, Mar. 16, 1998]
Cable's Cash Cow Operators Pad Channel List To Pad Bills
(By David Lieberman)
NEW YORK--For the third year in a row, the nation's 65
million cable subscribers are getting hit with an average 8%
hike in their monthly bills.
That's an increase of four times the inflation rate for
what has become a staple of the American media diet--channels
such as CNN, MTV, Nickelodeon and ESPN.
The typical family now pays more than $31 a month for
standard cable fare, up from $28.83 last year. And some
households pay nearly twice that amount once the cost of
premium channels, such as Showtime and HBO, and services like
pay-per-view are added.
Cable operators justify the rate hikes, citing higher
programming costs, among other things. But what most
consumers don't know--and what the cable industry usually
doesn't tell you in their bill stuffers--is that the lion's
share of the extra money they're charging you for expanded
basic cable pays for new services that few consumers want.
Operators, eager to improve cash flow, are using lax
federal rules to raise rates by adding channels that few
customers want and that some times cost companies nothing.
They're charging consumers for expensive equipment that most
can't use yet. And they're making customers subsidize
construction of interactive phone and video services that
won't be available to most for years. Once they are, some
services--such as high-speed Internet--will be so costly that
they'll appeal only to affluent videophiles and technophiles.
Cable operators still think their current rates are a good
deal and that future services will make cable even more
appealing. ``The rate increase that we put in has, by and
large, been accepted because it's usually been in the context
of a system that is upgrading and providing more services,''
Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin says.
But consumers--unwilling to give up what has become for
them must-have TV and weary of the government's failure to
rein in cable rates--are quietly seething.
``It's never going to change,'' says cable subscriber Dory
DeAngelo, 59, a local historian in Kansas City, Mo. ``I
looked into a satellite dish, but I'd still need cable to get
the local channels . . . A lot of people are very tired of
this.''
a good deal for cable
When city officials were asked last fall which problems are
getting worse in their communities, 72% mentioned cable
rates, up from 62% in the 1996 and 47% in 1995. It was the
most frequently mentioned growing problem in the annual
survey conducted by the National League of Cities.
Members of Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) have soured on rate regulation. Economists
say current federal rules let companies charge as much as
they want. Consumers Union telecommunications expert Gene
Kimmelman calls the regulations ``worthless.''
During the past two years, medium and large systems with no
local competitors have added about six channels, to an
average of 51, the FCC says. That wasn't necessarily because
most subscribers wanted them. It was because federal rate
rules gave cable companies a great deal. They could charge
consumers the full cost of carrying up to six new channels--
plus tack on a profit of 20 cents per subscriber per month
for each channel. Forever.
[[Page S8754]]
The FCC found the average cost per channel rose from 57
cents to 60 cents from 1995 to 1997 at the noncompetitive
medium and large systems.
``Loading channels on is a nice thing from their
perspective,'' says Larry Irving, President Clinton's chief
telecommunications adviser. ``But do I get what I'm asking
for? With cable, I get to write a check whether or not I want
them.''
Even without the 20-cent profit, cable companies have
incentives to add channels and raise rates:
Several channels--including Fox News, Animal Planet and
Home & Garden TV--paid cable companies to get on the dial.
Others--including MSNBC, TV Food Network and BET on Jazz--
give local systems three minutes of ad time to sell each
hour, instead of the usual two minutes.
profiting twice
The arrangement is especially sweet for most large opeators
because they also own, or invest in, cable programming.
For example, Time Warner owns CNN, TNT and Cartoon Network.
Tele-Communications Inc. has stakes in Discovery, Fox Sports
and Odyssey. MediaOne, Comcast, Cox and Cablevision Systems
also have major investments in cable channels.
``It creates an odd paradigm,'' says Bruce Leichtman of The
Yankee Group, a research and consulting firm. ``It's kind of
a shifting from one pocket to the next.''
Operators say they're giving the public what it wants by
adding services such as Animal Planet, MSNBC, FX, ESPN2 and
ESPNews.
``Every one of those channels gets a good rating,'' Comcast
President Brian Roberts says.
But FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani, for one, is concerned
that cable operators will continue to add unwanted
programming just to rake in more money from subscribers.
``This may not have been a significant problem in a 30- or
40-channel universe,'' she said recently. ``But in a 70-, 80-
or 100-channel universe, these unwanted channels can have a
dramatic effect.''
future shock
Operators are getting more flexibility to add channels as
they upgrade equipment. Yet state-of-the-art digital cable
boxes--which most companies may eventually offer--also could
deliver huge profits. Systems plan to sell a new tier of
channels, including lots of premium services and pay-per-
view, that consumers who have those boxes could order.
But in a coup for the cable industry, the law allows
operators to pass the costs of those units on to all
subscribers--not just the people who have them installed in
their homes. A system with 10 million subscribers that bought
100,000 boxes for $400 apiece could raise everyone's rates by
33 cents a month, according to an example prepared by Paine
Webber.
Fees add up quickly. The typical subscriber pays about 67
cents a month in 1998 to compensate operators who buy
upgraded boxes. That will rise to $1.47 in 1999, $2.59 in
2000 and $3.04 in 2001, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
estimates.
The arrangement benefits the few customers who get the
latest equipment but does nothing for others--including the
nearly 50% of today's subscribers who don't use any decoder
box at all.
Cable operators, however, are thrilled. An estimated 37
million subscribers will pay $7.2 billion for digital
programming in 2005.
What's more, the digital services could slow the growth of
satellite services such as DirecTv and Echostar. Their
ability to offer up to 175 channels has been a big selling
point with the 6.6 million satellite subscribers.
If you build it . . .
The average cable customer is paying other fees, too. An
estimated $1.75 per month goes to help operators upgrade
their systems and offer a host of other interactive
services--including high-speed Internet access and telephone
services.
The major operators, Morgan Stanley forecasts, will spend
about $46.7 billion between 1996 and 2004 to replace old
wires with high-capacity fiber-optic cables and buy
sophisticated technologies capable of handling two-way
digital communications.
``I raise the rates so that we can fulfill the promise of
this network to be digitally capable by the year 2000,'' Time
Warner's President Richard Parsons says. ``Most of the money
we get goes right back into the system in terms of
upgrades.''
Operators say consumers will benefit from cable's
investment in local telephone service. That will introduce
competition, possibly lowering prices. Some systems, for
example, plan package deals for customers who buy cable and
phone service. ``Doesn't everybody have a telephone?'' says
Cablevision Systems CEO James Dolan, whose company is far
ahead of most operators in preparing for telephony. ``We're
going to offer those discounts to everybody.''
Yet critics say it's unfair to ask all subscribers to help
pay for upgrades largely designed to help operators enter new
businesses--not to improve existing cable service. And lots
of today's subscribers won't want the new products. For
example, only about 5% of all adults say they are willing to
buy high-speed Internet service at the expected price of
about $40 a month, according to a survey by The Yankee Group.
And it will take years before most subscribers get a cable-
provided dial tone. Only about 3.4 million will subscribe to
a cable system's telephone service by 2002, Montgomery
Securities estimates.
That projection might be optimistic at a time when
technology and the economy are changing so fast. AT&T
recently observed that wireless services may become potent
competitors to local phone providers. ``Companies say, `We're
building for the future,' '' Harvard Business School
Associate Professor William Emmons says. ``Well, that's a
little dicey. What if they're building huge systems that will
be obsolete? Or what if nobody wants them?''
cable's edge
For now, cable companies assume that lots of people--
particularly those who are well-to-do--will want the new
array of services. Although all subscribers, rich and poor
alike, are paying for the upgrades, the most advanced systems
tend to be in affluent communities, including Orange County
and Fremont, Calif.; Long Island, N.Y.; Arlington Heights,
Ill.; and West Hartford, Conn.
The cable industry also believes that it has a big lead
over other businesses--including phone companies--in
delivering advanced video and communications services.
``The surprise to most has been how slow the competition is
developing,'' former Continental Cablevision CEO Amos
Hostetter says. ``All that talk about (phone companies)
getting into the video business has been hollow.''
That's one reason most Wall Street analysts say basic cable
rates will rise--albeit at a more moderate pace--even after
operators are through making big expenditures for their
upgrades. They anticipate that operating cash flow for most
companies will grow an average of nearly 13% a year over the
next five years, vs. about 7% growth now.
The assumption contributed to the 87% appreciation in cable
stocks in 1997, a year when the Standard & Poor's 500 grew
31%. ``The market decided that government policies were a
failure, and competition presents no risk to cable now and in
the foreseeable future,'' Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Tom
Wolzien says.
That's good for cable, but it isn't the way things were
supposed to turn out when the federal government in 1992
tried to crack down on soaring cable prices and then pulled
back in an attempt to encourage competition.
``There are going to be people paying for things they don't
want,'' says Michael Katz, a professor of economics at the
University of California at Berkeley and a key architect of
the cable rules as the FCC's chief economist in 1994 and
1995. ``It's one of the unintended consequences of
regulation.''
____
[From the Washington Post, May 15, 1998]
FCC Chief Declines To Curb Cable Prices; Kennard To Await Deregulation
in March
(By Paul Farhi)
Consumers looking for relief from rising cable TV bills
won't be getting it any time soon from federal regulators.
Though he declared earlier this year that ``cable rates are
rising too fast,'' the head of the Federal Communications
Commission said yesterday that his agency won't step in to
freeze or roll back cable prices before a congressionally
ordered deregulation of cable prices kicks in next March.
FCC Chairman William E. Kennard says his agency will
continue to study the problem, with an eye toward influencing
debate in Congress. Cable prices have been rising at more
than five times the rate of inflation.
``We're running out of time'' to enact new regulations,
Kennard said. Besides, he added, ``it doesn't make a whole
lot of sense for us to try and create a whole new regulatory
regime only to have [deregulation] in March of 1999.''
In December and January, Kennard had raised the possibility
of putting new controls on the rates.
Kennard's statements yesterday, made in an interview with
The Washington Post, amount to a major victory for the cable
industry, which has been fighting efforts at tougher
regulation for months. It is also a political victory for
Republicans in Congress, who have pressed the FCC to avoid
more regulation.
``This is good to hear,'' said Torie Clarke, spokeswoman
for the National Cable Television Association in Washington.
``It means the FCC is paying attention to what the industry
is doing, and that it won't get into micromanagement and
regulation that will stall everything.''
Added Clarke, ``We're spending a lot of time and effort
trying hard to deliver on our promise to customers. We're
fulfilling a lot of those promises, and we think the
government should stay out of our business.''
But consumer advocates were seething. ``The FCC has reached
a new low,'' said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers
Union's Washington office. ``The agency . . . won't lift a
finger to stop spiraling cable rates. This is irresponsible.
They're thumbing their noses at the American public.''
Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America
asked the FCC in September to freeze rates, but the
commission has not yet acted on that petition.
Cable TV prices rose an average of 7.9 percent in the 12-
month period that ended March 31, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. That is more than five times the general
inflation rate of 1.4 percent during the same period.
In the early 1990s, with price hikes running at only three
times inflation, a Congress controlled by Democrats enacted a
law designed to bring cable prices back to a ``reasonable''
level.
[[Page S8755]]
The FCC subsequently wrote regulations that succeeded in
restraining--and in some cases reducing--the average monthly
bill. But the FCC liberalized its rules in 1995, after the
cable industry complained that the price controls were
smothering innovation. There followed another price spiral.
In 1996, the Republican-dominated Congress agreed to phase
out most of the price rules by early 1999.
Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (R-La.), who chairs the House
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, accused the FCC of
``ignoring'' vigorous enforcement of its price rules. But
Tauzin and other Republicans have repeatedly inveighed
against tougher regulations, such as a rate freeze or an
extension of the current rate rules, saying incentives to
help other companies be more competitive with cable are
preferable.
Only a handful of the nation's 11,000 cable systems have a
direct competitor, despite years of efforts to ignite
competition by phone, cable, satellite and other TV
providers. Earlier this week, Joel I. Klein, the Justice
Department's top antitrust enforcer, said the cable industry
held ``a significant, durable monopoly'' over subscription TV
services.
Kennard said he isn't exactly sure why rates are rising so
fast and has directed his agency to gather information from
the cable industry about the potential causes. Without
drawing conclusions, he said the problem probably has several
facets, including the rising cost of producing programs. He
added that the regulations themselves may be to blame because
they gave the industry too much latitude to raise prices.
``We don't have a firm comprehensive analytic study as to
why rates are going up,'' said Kennard. ``We hope to have a
definitive answer'' in time to effect debate in Congress next
year about possibly extending the current rules.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has proposed an extension of
the regulations past March, and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)
has proposed an immediate freeze.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the concern
expressed by consumers about rising cable rates, and share the desire
of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] to better
understanding the reasons for this trend. While further attention to
this matter is warranted, I am not persuaded that the amendment before
us will substantially further that worthy goal.
The amendment is intended to compel the FCC to tell us how it plans
to address cable rates. But the FCC is already required to report on
competition in the cable industry at the end of this year. The 1992
Cable Act requires the FCC to conduct an annual study on the status of
competition in the cable industry, and our focus should be on ensuring
that that study sheds new light on this issue.
The FCC has done little about cable rates, and the agency's track
record raises doubt that yet another study by that agency, the very one
that the Senator from Wisconsin faults for inaction, will add to public
understanding of this matter. In addition, the amendment requires a
report within 30 days, which is woefully inadequate to achieve any real
information about an issue of this scope.
There are initiatives under way which should add to the policy
debate. The senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I have asked the
independent General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the causes
of increasing cable rates. It is my expectation that this review will
provide new evidence about steps we need to take to help control cable
rate increases.
In addition, as the distinguished Ranking Member of both the Commerce
Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State [Mr. Hollings]
has said, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on cable
rates next week. As noted by the Senator from South Carolina, the
Senate need not prejudge that hearing and the findings of the committee
of jurisdiction with a premature amendment.
Indeed, the Commerce Committee is fully capable of ensuring that the
existing statutory requirement to study this issue is fulfilled in a
manner that answers the concerns raised by the Senator from Wisconsin
and other members of the Senate. I encourage my colleagues on that
committee to vigorously exercise their oversight responsibility in this
area.
Mr. President, this amendment, while well-intentioned, is not the
answer to our constituents' frustration about their cable rates.
Hopefully, the FCC study currently underway and required by year's end,
and the GAO review, will shed new light on this issue.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on the Feingold amendment be completed at 8 o'clock, the
time between now and 8 o'clock be divided between Senator Feingold and
Members or a Member in opposition, and that no second-degree amendments
to the Feingold amendment be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on this particular amendment, I talked
previously with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. I thought it
was in conformance with the actions of the committee with respect to
the cable rates. When we passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we
mandated that cable rates would not increase, under that particular
act, until March of 1999. Thereafter, of course, rates did increase in
accordance with the 1992 act.
The 1992 act allowed increases with respect to additional channels
and additional services and costs incurred in expanding and in
competing. That, generally speaking, is as I understood it with the
cable companies. Because we have had complaints I, myself, looked at it
earlier this year. The FCC has been monitoring it. We discussed this
with Chairman Kennard and the other Commissioners as they came on in
their confirmation hearings. They have been monitoring it.
As I understand, the distinguished chairman of our Commerce
Committee, Senator McCain of Arizona, is headed to the floor. Because I
have been engaged in other matters, I didn't even realize we had a
hearing scheduled for Tuesday of next week on this same thing, to hear
from the Commissioners on what has occurred. So I would not favor this
particular resolution. It is not just a matter of 30 days, it sort of
preempts the committee in its action with respect to listening to the
Commission and finding out.
I know, good and well, we are all familiar with the 1996
Telecommunications Act provision against increase in rates through
March of 1999. Of course, then we relate back in all of these
percentages. It sounds, in the resolution of the distinguished Senator
from Wisconsin itself, that all you need to do is look at the
percentages and they are in excess of the inflation rate and everything
else. The inflation rate is not the question. It is the question of the
services, the channels, and the programming itself, and the costs of
expanding and competing.
I think perhaps this would have a disruptive effect on that
particular trend at this time. The committee has yet to have heard from
the Commission itself and from those engaged in this particular
business.
So I just comment that the chairman of the committee and the chairman
of the subcommittee, Senator Burns of Montana, are on their way, as I
understand it, to the floor. I didn't want to just waste this time and
let it go past on the premise: Wait a minute, in 30 days----
Incidentally, the Federal Communications Commission is just like a
tenth-round boxer. They have more mergers, more rulings, and everything
else like that, trying to implement all the petitions that they have
before them. You could not find fault if they could not find out in 30
days, 60 days, or 90 days.
So I do not think this is well taken, with respect to what the
Congress has asked the FCC to do. They have had one backup of time,
trying to make findings here, after their particular investigations.
Mind you me, if there are 60,000 lawyers registered to practice in the
District of Columbia, 59,000 are communications lawyers. They have more
appeals and petitions and reviews and everything else of that kind. So
the work at the FCC is not necessarily the most prompt, or what we
would wish to have, but it has to be understood. The committee itself
is working.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
[[Page S8756]]
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the ranking
member, the Senator from South Carolina, about the amendment. I simply
want to point out that, in fact, this 30-day period is not 30 days from
today that the FCC would have to complete this report, it is 30 days
from the time of enactment of this bill, if the amendment were
successful, and that is obviously some weeks, if not months, down the
road, to the point where the President would actually sign it.
All we are asking here is that a report be issued, not that actions
be taken to change the cable rates during this period, but that the
Commission actually give us a sense of whether they agree with the
findings we have in this report or not and what they intend to do about
the problem. I don't think that is an unreasonable request for a 30-day
period, or even realistically what it is more likely to be, which is a
60-day to 90-day period.
Just to illustrate why we are concerned, why we think it
is appropriate that Congress agree to this amendment and make this
statement, it is because, in fact, the studies the FCC is doing now I
don't think are getting done in a timely manner to answer the questions
that have to be answered.
For example, Chairman Kennard recognized that there was a problem
with regard to its annual assessment of competition in the video-
programming market when he said in his statement:
Less than 15 months away from the sunset of most cable rate
regulation, it is clear that broad-based, widespread
competition to the cable industry has not developed and is
not imminent.
He also noted that perhaps the Commission ought to do something to
address the problem. He said:
When confronted with allegations of price gouging, cable
operators reflexively point to additional programming costs.
The Commission's own rules and policies may be a source of
this problem. We need to examine whether there are targeted
adjustments that should be made to our rate rules. For
example, our rules allow programming cost increases to be
passed on to subscribers. But is this right?
The Chairman went on to say that the FCC was going to look at the
problem of programming costs, and that is the study that has been
referred to. He said about this:
I am therefore directing the Cable Services Bureau to
commence a focused inquiry into programming costs to
determine the sources of these increases, the variance in
costs among various distributors, whether existing
relationships impact the prices charged, and if programmers
restrict consumer choice. This inquiry will require the
cooperation and forthrightness of the industry.
I don't know if the FCC got the cooperation of the industry. What I
do know, and what is in response to the comments of the Senator from
South Carolina, is that it is now July and there is still no report or
result from that inquiry.
I also know, as I have indicated before, that rates have continued to
go up, with many increases taking effect at midyear. I also know that
in May the Chairman told the world that the FCC was not going to take
any further action to address rising cable rates.
So, this amendment is not duplicative of what is going on at the FCC.
It has a deadline and a requirement the FCC outline a specific action
plan to address the problem of the lack of competition in the cable
industry.
Based upon the track record that I have just described with respect
to the narrower issue that there was supposed to be a study on, it is
not getting done. I think we need to follow up on previous
congressional directives and have the entire Senate and the other body
direct that a more specific study and plan of action result within the
timeframe that this amendment calls for.
Mr. President, I think this is a reasonable amendment. It is not too
much to ask this agency to take a look at the dramatic increases,
whether they are reasonable and what they intend to do about it.
I urge my colleagues to back the amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will simply note for my colleagues that
we are making pretty good progress through these amendments that have
been lined up. We lined up seven amendments to do before 9:30. We are
making excellent progress. If there are Members who have other
amendments, it is possible we can work them in. If they can come down
to the floor and discuss them, that will be helpful. We are going to
stay on the bill until it gets done, if I have my option. The sooner we
can wrap up these amendments, the better.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withdraw that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to the amendments pending,
I know the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, the Senator from Oregon,
Senator Wyden--I think that one can be worked out or I think it perhaps
may have already been worked out--Senator Leahy from Vermont, Senator
Dorgan from North Dakota, and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts have
amendments, if they are within the view and sound of the action on the
floor, please be alerted. We want to bring up those amendments. I am
asking the staff to contact them.
Mr. President, with respect to this particular study, there is an
action required here, as I read it. In other words, it is not just a
study, but a report. The purpose is to require a report from the
Federal Communications Commission, but the report really is a
resolution requiring action, because the very last paragraph, Mr.
President, reads as follows:
(3) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that
the findings under subsection (a) are not consistent with the
fulfillment of the responsibilities referred to in that
paragraph, the report shall include a statement of the
actions to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the
responsibilities.
I think that is just a little too mandatory; an unfunded mandate, I
think we call that here in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I always enjoy debating with the Senator
from South Carolina. I have to differ, though, with the
characterization of the words that are in this amendment. It says:
. . . the report shall include a statement of the actions
to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the
responsibilities.
If the Commission determines it doesn't need to take any action, this
doesn't require them to do anything. There is no mandate at all. We
just want to know what they are planning to do. That is all this calls
for, a statement of the actions to be undertaken by the Commission.
There is simply nothing mandatory about that language at all. We are
just asking for a statement of the ideas they have about what to do
about the increases in cable rates, if anything.
I differ with the Senator from South Carolina that there is no
language in here that asks for anything other than a report as to what
the Commission may plan to do in the future about the problem of cable
rates.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
previous consent agreement dealing with disposition of this bill after
final passage.
I ask unanimous consent that S. 2260, as passed, be held at the desk
and not engrossed, and that after Senate passage of H.R. 4276, the
House companion measure, that the vote on S. 2260 be vitiated and S.
2260 be indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be
[[Page S8757]]
yielded back on the Feingold amendment and all debate on that amendment
be concluded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the information of our Membership, we
are waiting for two Members who have amendments on the list to go
before 9:30: One dealing with gaming, Senator Kyl; and one dealing with
defenders, Senator Nickles. As soon as they arrive we will begin those
amendments and begin debate on those amendments.
As I mentioned earlier, if there is a Member who wishes to bring
forward an amendment at this time, it appears we have some time to do
that. We will welcome their attendance on the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3265
(Purpose: To amend section 505 of the Incentive Grants for Local
Delinquency Prevention Programs Act relating to the illegal possession
of firearms by juveniles)
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer a bipartisan amendment that has
been authored by Senator Smith of my State and myself and a number of
other Senators.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Is the Senator willing to enter into a time agreement on this
amendment?
Mr. WYDEN. I certainly am. The chairman of the subcommittee has been
very gracious. I do not anticipate going more than 15 minutes myself,
and I think Senator Smith will be coming shortly. I know he would
probably want 15 minutes or less, as well.
Mr. GREGG. I ask that all debate on this amendment be completed by
8:25.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN], for himself and Mr.
Smith of Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 3265.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
Sec. 121. Section 505 of the Incentive Grants for Local
Delinquency Prevention Programs Act (42 U.S.C. 5784) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) court supervised initiatives that address the illegal
possession of firearms by juveniles.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``demonstrate ability in'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``have in effect'' after
``(1)'';
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``have developed'' after ``(2)''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``are actively'' after ``(3)''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) have in effect a policy or practice that requires
State and local law enforcement agencies to detain for not
less than 24 hours any juvenile who unlawfully possesses a
firearm in a school, upon a finding by a judicial officer
that the juvenile may be a danger to himself or herself, or
to the community.''.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, Senator Smith and I, having
visited with our constituents at home and in Springfield, OR, after the
terrible tragedy at Thurston High School, believe it is absolutely
critical that concrete steps be taken between now and the beginning of
the school year to increase the safety for our young people in schools
across the land.
We believe this legislation, which has now been agreed to by both the
majority and the minority, can be the first concrete step that will be
taken to ensure that this fall our young people and their families can
have an added measure of safety when they attend our Nation's schools.
We believe that when a young person brings a gun to school, that ought
to set off a five-alarm warning that there are problems for our
society.
Our colleagues on several occasions have mentioned today that in a
number of States it has been documented that in several hundred
instances a year young people bring a gun to school, disciplinary
action is taken, but then it is essentially at the discretion of law
enforcement officials and others as to what additional steps will be
taken.
Law enforcement officials across our State and across the country
have made it very clear that they don't believe it is appropriate to
put that discretion in their hands. They would like to make sure that
government sets out a policy that would stipulate that when a young
person brings a gun to school, that that young person will be detained
for an adequate period of time to have a mental health assessment, to
have law enforcement officials involved, to have health policymakers
participate in what action should then be taken to best promote safety
in our society. If my home State of Oregon had this policy in effect at
the time of the tragedy at Thurston High School, Kip Kinkel, who is
alleged to have perpetrated these crimes, would have been before a
judge and held, and, in my view, unquestionably, would have been
detained rather than sent home, where he allegedly killed his parents
and then came back, literally, within a relatively short time, and shot
and injured more than 20 young people at Thurston High School in
Springfield.
What our legislation does is ensure that States that have put in
place a policy of detaining a student caught with bringing a gun--that
States with that policy would be accorded a priority for title V
funding, the prevention and delinquency funding program, under this
legislation. That way, we would ensure that, on an ongoing basis, every
State in our country would have an incentive to ensure that when young
people bring guns to school, as was done in the case of the Springfield
tragedy, rather than simply leave to fate what happens next, there
would be a finding of what was the most appropriate step to take to
ensure the safety of the community.
Mr. President, I think we all agree that our schools ought to be
places of learning, not of tragedy and violence. One lesson that has
been learned from the tragic shootings in Oregon and Arkansas and other
States is that clearly there is something wrong today with the policies
for dealing with young people and guns. The policies today aren't
working. Young people are falling through the cracks, and some of them
are shooting other children. Bringing a gun to school ought to be a
warning signal, an early sign, that there is a serious potential threat
for our society. When that act takes place, it is important to get the
student out of the classroom, off the streets, and in front of a
professional who can make a determination of how much of a threat that
student is to the community.
I think most legislators would agree we don't have all the answers,
but we do know that keeping an angry student with a gun out of the
classroom and off the schoolyard ought to be part of the solution. That
is why the amendment that I sponsor today, with Senator Gordon Smith of
my home State, focuses on two tracks. First, Senator Smith and I seek
to remove the threat of violence from our schools as soon as it is
identified. Second, we help our communities find the resources they
need to identify and serve at-risk students so it is possible to
prevent a potential health and safety problem from becoming the sort of
tragedy that was seen at Thurston High School.
This amendment provides concrete incentives to States to immediately
remove any student who brings a gun to school and to get that student
before a judge and other qualified professionals. If the judge
determines that student is a threat to the community or to the
individual themselves, the State must hold that student for a period of
time that would allow for an appropriate placement that protects our
society.
If a State has in place this sort of policy to protect the community,
families, and students, our legislation will give that State priority
when it comes to funding juvenile justice grants. That
[[Page S8758]]
means they will be in a position to devote more resources to make sure
that at-risk students don't follow that path of crime and delinquency,
and it will be possible with these grants to target high-risk young
people for aggressive and early intervention so these young people can
be reached with appropriate treatment before they fall through the
cracks.
What has been learned in Springfield and the other communities across
this country is that expelling a student for bringing a gun to school
may adequately punish the student's behavior, but it is not enough to
protect the community and our society.
It is important to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken at
that time--at that time when the student is apprehended by school
officials, so that that student has every opportunity to work through
potential problems they may be having at home, or with their peers, and
our society can find a balance between preventing these crimes from
occurring and punishing them when they actually take place.
There isn't a Member of this U.S. Senate who is not deeply concerned
about this set of incidents across our country--literally across our
Nation--where young people have been taken from us by school violence.
In Springfield, OR, where Senator Smith and I visited with the
President--who deserves great credit, in my view, for supporting our
bipartisan legislation--the community promised Senator Smith and I that
they wanted to let the violence end here.
It is our hope that this legislation will give States the incentive
they need to enact tough detention statutes to ensure that what
happened in Thurston doesn't happen across this country. My friend and
colleague, Senator Smith, is here and I want to yield the floor in just
a moment. I want to thank him for the bipartisan effort that has been
made on this legislation and on so many other issues that have been
important to the people of Oregon. The people of Oregon and the people
of our country do not see these as bipartisan issues. There is not a
Democratic approach to preventing school violence and a Republican
approach to preventing school violence. I tell our colleagues that the
approach Senator Smith and I bring before the U.S. Senate tonight has
been supported by those who oppose gun control and those who are for
gun control because they see this as commonsense Government that will
be good for our students and our families.
I will close by saying that when the Senate acts tonight, this can be
the first concrete step that actually protects students and families
when school starts this fall. So we are very grateful to our colleagues
for helping us, including our friends Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg,
and Senator Leahy, who is not on the floor, and Senator Hatch has been
so helpful. Senator Sessions has added an innovative approach with
respect to establishing a court supervisory initiative to addressing
unlawful juvenile gun use. This is a bipartisan step forward in making
our schools safe across this land.
I yield the floor at this time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Oregon, Mr.
Smith, is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to publicly thank my
colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue. He and I
recently faced a tragedy in our State that, frankly, left us speechless
and groping for a way to respond to an unspeakable tragedy--that of a
young person, troubled, from a good family, but in possession of
weapons and willing to use them on his parents and his fellow students.
In the face of that kind of violence--a young man who would violate
four gun control laws to do what he did--Senator Wyden and I, frankly,
struggled to find out how we can respond to this, how we can, as public
servants, lay down a new marker, provide a new barrier for stopping
this kind of violence. Also, how can we do it in a way that doesn't
impose the Federal will upon the States, but provides a carrot, and not
a club, for them to enact laws that would have captured this young man
and prevented a horrible tragedy from being visited upon our State and
the city of Springfield.
We are not alone in this. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania
have also suffered these kinds of tragedies. So it is a growing
national concern. The reason I commend this legislation so strongly to
my colleagues is because it is, in fact, bipartisan because it does
enjoy the support of gun control advocates and antigun control
defenders. As my colleague described, what this does is simply put in
place a new safety net, so that if a young person does bring a gun to
school, they will be detained--not to be just released to their
parent's custody, but actually to undergo an evaluation in terms of
their psychological health and their safety to the community at large.
It is unfortunate that this has to occur, but it has to occur
because, at the end of the day, no other communities should suffer this
consequence again. So I commend my colleague for his leadership. I also
want to thank Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
and Senator Sessions, for their input into this amendment; it was
considerable. We worked it out with them. I think we have, in the end,
an amendment that doesn't fix the situation entirely, but it goes a
long way toward accomplishing that very thing.
I thank all my colleagues for indulging us. I ask for their support.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3265) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now in order to go to Senator Kyl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Amendment No. 3266
(Purpose: To prohibit Internet gambling)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr.
Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 3266.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Amendment No. 3267 to Amendment No. 3266
(Purpose: To provide an exception for ``fantasy'' sports games and
contests)
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] proposes an amendment
numbered 3267 to amendment No. 3266.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, strike lines 9 through 12, and insert the
following:
``(iii) a contract of indemnity or guarantee;
``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance;
or
``(v) participation in a game or contest, otherwise lawful
under applicable Federal or State law--
``(I) that, by its terms or rules, is not dependent on the
outcome of any single sporting event, any series or sporting
events, any tournament, or the individual performance of 1 or
more athletes or teams in a single sporting event;
``(II) in which the outcome is determined by accumulated
statistical results of games or contests involving the
performances of amateur or professional athletes or teams;
and
``(III) in which the winner or winners may receive a prize
or award;
(otherwise know as a `fantasy sport league' or a `rotisserie
league') if such participation is without charge to the
participant or any charge to a participant is limited to a
reasonable administrative fee.
[[Page S8759]]
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment
does and indicate the degree of support that exists for it. Before I do
that, let me say that this amendment passed out of the Judiciary
Committee with one dissenting vote several months ago. It had been our
intention to bring the amendment to the floor as a separate,
freestanding bill, but because there was not floor time available to do
that, we have had to resort to the amendment process under this bill. I
regret that we have to do that, but that is the only way we would get
this important piece of legislation before the full Senate.
Frankly, Mr. President, it has been good because, during the interim,
we have been able to work with parties who had concerns about the bill,
and I think, for the most part, we have worked the concerns out. I know
that one matter remains to be dealt with later. But except for that, we
have been able to improve on the bill since it passed out of the
Judiciary Committee.
As a result of that, I report to my colleagues that some of the
groups and organizations that support this legislation--to give you an
idea of the breadth of support we have, it came up because of the
Attorneys General of the United States; all 50 attorneys general from
our States approve of this and support this legislation and, frankly,
they are the ones that asked the Judiciary Committee to move forward
with the legislation.
Jim Doyle, the Democrat attorney general from Wisconsin, testified
two times before our committee strongly in support of this legislation.
One of the things he said was--I will quote it; I will find the quote.
But, in effect, what he said was ordinarily attorneys general don't
come to the Federal Government and ask for statutes to be federalized;
they like their own jurisdiction. But in this case they had to come
before the Congress. The individual attorneys general simply cannot
enforce their own State prohibitions. Why is that so? Because, if the
State of South Carolina, for example, has made a public determination,
as it has done, that this kind of gambling is illegal and ought to be
illegal, and a neighboring State--let's say North Carolina--should
allow people to broadcast into South Carolina these virtual casino
games that people can now find on the Internet, or let's say that comes
even from outside the country, which is where these actually emanate
from for the most part, then the people of South Carolina cannot be
protected even though their State policy is that their people not be
subjected to this kind of gambling. That is why all 50 State attorneys
general got together and came to us, and said, ``Would you please help
us solve this problem?''
We have to be able to have a Federal law that is enforceable through
the Federal courts as well as the State courts to prohibit this kind of
activity. That was why we introduced the legislation and moved forward
with it. But what we soon found was that the support for the
legislation was much broader than that. You might expect that Louis
Freeh, Director of the FBI, has expressed strong support for it.
But we have also had strong support coming from amateur and
professional sports organizations. You can understand why, because the
integrity of sports depends upon people knowing that the outcome of any
sporting event is not determined by someone gaming the system.
Unfortunately, we have seen these kinds of stories about point
shaving and the like. I will give you an example from my own State of
Arizona where a student got deeply into debt. He played basketball and
ended up pleading guilty to shaving points and trying to throw games in
order to pay off his gambling debt. Neither amateur nor professional
athletics can stand that kind of attack on the integrity of sports, and
as a result they came to us.
We have strong support for this legislation from the NCAA, the
Amateur Athletic Association, from the National Football League, the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League,
the National Basketball Association, major league baseball, and a lot
of different organizations that understand how insidious gambling can
be when it is conducted in a medium such as the Internet, and as a
result they strongly support this legislation.
We also like to say until he moved on that, this legislation is
supported all the way from Ralph Reed to Ralph Nader. Ralph Reed has
moved on, but the Christian Coalition still supports the legislation;
as does Ralph Nader, the Public Citizen organization which he
represents, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the
National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Focus on the Family,
Family Research Council, and many other organizations.
The reason I wanted to mention this at the very outset is simply to
illustrate the fact that this legislation has broad, widespread support
from a variety of organizations and interests around the country.
In the meantime, from the time it passed out of the Judiciary
Committee, we have been able to work with the so-called horse industry
and the pari-mutuel betting to assuage concerns that they had
originally expressed.
We have also worked with the Internet providers who will be an
integral part of the enforcement of this legislation. We have a letter
from the main Internet providers indicating that they have no objection
to this legislation passing in the form that it has passed.
Mr. President, I have kind of given you an idea of the kind of
support that we have for it.
It is opposed, frankly, by two groups. One you will hear from--at
least one Indian tribe. And perhaps some other Indians would like to
have a carve-out; they would like to be excepted from this. Second,
naturally the gambling interests offshore who stand to make billions of
dollars from this illegal activity do not like it. So that is who is
against it.
Mr. President, I said this ``illegal activity,'' and I did that with
a reason. The activity that we are largely prohibiting tonight is
already illegal. The Wire Act, so-called, Telephone and Wire Act of
1961, makes it illegal to conduct sports gambling over the telephone,
or a wire. So much of what is being prohibited in this legislation is
already illegal.
For those people who say, ``Well, we would like to be able to conduct
this activity,'' their beef is not with our bill. Their beef is with
existing law. One of these days wires are not going to be the means of
electronic transmission. It is going to be fiber-optic cable or
microwave transmission through satellites. We are not at all sure that
when that happens that the Telephone and Wire Act will be able to be
used by prosecutors in their prosecutions.
Just a couple of months ago, the district attorney for the district
of New York indicted 14 people for conducting this kind of illegal
activity under the Telephone and Wire Act. But, Mr. President, that
might not be possible in the future. That is why we want to update the
Telephone and Wire Act.
In addition to that, the second thing that this bill does is to
ensure that, whether it is sports betting or not, the activity is
illegal on the Internet because what has cropped up in recent months is
something called the ``virtual casino.'' It looks a lot like a casino
that you would go to that is perfectly legitimate such as Las Vegas or
Atlantic City. It is on the Internet, and it comes outside of the
country, because, of course, it is not illegal outside the United
States--at least in some countries. But that is being, in effect, sent
to American citizens in our country.
The attorneys general of Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, and other
States have no way to stop it under existing law. Our bill ensures that
kind of ``virtual casino'' over the Internet is illegal, and that it is
enforced through not only the usual means of enforcement but also with
the ability of the prosecutors to go to the court and after a finding
that this activity is being conducted over the Internet, to enjoin its
further conduct by bringing in the Internet service provider, in most
cases, and asking the Internet service provider to cut off the service,
to pull the plug on the service from that particular web site. In some
cases it will be very easy to do. In other cases, it is more
complicated. We provided for that in the legislation.
As I said, the Internet service providers--at least some of the
largest groups, and I can provide the names if anyone is interested--
are satisfied that the language that we have worked out in the bill for
this purpose is at least not objectionable to them.
[[Page S8760]]
Let me indicate that this is a relatively new phenomenon, but it is
pretty clear that we need to stop it now because it is quickly
becoming, or will become, a multibillion-dollar activity.
A recent ``Nightline'' piece, which was devoted to Internet gambling,
reported that there are now an estimated 140 gambling sites online. Two
years ago, Internet gambling was a $60 million business. Last year it
grew to $700 million, and some believe that by the year 2000 the figure
will be $10 billion.
Mr. President, if we don't stop this activity now, the money that is
generated by this kind of illegal activity is going to, I am afraid,
become so influential in our political process that we will never get
it stopped. That is why we have to act this year.
I might add, Mr. President--and I am so delighted to have the
expertise and the support of the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan--
that one of the reasons why the legitimate gaming organizations and
activities in our country are also in support of this legislation is
because they understand. They don't want gambling to get a bad name. A
lot of money is made, and a lot of people are employed in the gaming
industry in these States. They are highly regulated.
When you go to a gaming activity in Las Vegas, you know that you are
going to be treated fairly. If you win, you will get the money. You
know exactly what the odds are. And there is a regulation commission
that ensures that the rules are abided by. But that is not the case on
the Internet.
Here is the problem.
Young children are getting really good at logging onto the Internet.
They can log on in the morning. You have to put down a deposit of $100
or $500--whatever it might be. You do that with a credit card,
frequently. And this child, in the privacy of the home, without any
supervision, can simply gamble away whatever fortune the family had
tied up in that particular credit card with no supervision.
The kind of gaming that we have legalized in this country is the kind
of thing where you have to go to that site. You have to engage in the
activity there. It is highly regulated.
One of the reasons this kind of activity is so dangerous is because
there is nobody there to check the activity. It occurs in the privacy
of your own home with nobody there to say, ``Wait a minute. Haven't you
done this long enough? Haven't you lost enough money?''
Dr. Howard Schaeffer of the Harvard Center for Addictive Studies
predicts that within 10 years youth gambling will be more a problem to
society than drug use. And the youth of our society are the most at
risk for conducting Internet gambling. First of all, they are the most
adept at using the Internet. Secondly, they are in college and school,
and this is where a lot of the computers are that our kids start on
today. And on every major campus today there is organized gambling
activity, according to law enforcement officials. Sports is the
preferred subject of the gambling.
So it doesn't take any imagination to appreciate that our Nation's
children are at risk. And there is much more risk in this Internet
gambling activity than in any of the other kinds of legalized gaming,
highly regulated gaming, that is authorized in our country today.
I won't go into all of the details about bankruptcies and suicide and
that kind of thing except just to cite a couple of things here that
ought to cause us pause. We know that about 5 percent of the people who
gamble will become addicted. It is an addiction. Of those, about 80
percent will contemplate suicide, and about 17 percent of those will
commit suicide. Bankruptcies are huge and growing. As a matter of fact,
Ted Koppel noted that in his ``Nightline'' program, that last year
1,333,000 American consumers filed for bankruptcy, thereby eliminating
about $40 billion in debt. And he talked about the percentage of that
which is attributable to gambling, going into some of the statistics
about a large percentage of that--in fact, something like 60 percent of
people will get gambling debts that they can't pay.
In fact, up to 90 percent of pathological gamblers commit crimes to
pay off their wagering debts. That is the testimony before our
committee. So suicides, bankruptcies, crimes committed to pay off
debts, and the effect, of course, on the families.
What does this have to do with our bill? This is the kind of activity
that, by definition, is not regulated and is susceptible to addiction
because there is nobody there. There is no inhibition in your own home;
you just log on and you go do it. Of course, these virtual casinos are
really good-looking things when you look at them on the screen. You can
pull them up tonight, as a matter of fact.
So, as I say, what we have done in the Judiciary Committee is to
focus on this specific kind of activity as (A) needing to be updated
because wire may no longer be the method of transmission of data and
(B) because of these virtual casinos offshore.
Let me describe a couple of the problems that we have dealt with in
the legislation. One of the concerns was that the service providers
would have difficulty in stopping the activity. Remember, what we have
done here is to say that this activity is illegal, just like the Wire
Act does. Theoretically, you could even prosecute the bettor, although
that has never been done, and I don't anticipate it being done.
What we are after here are the people running these gambling
operations. The U.S. attorney in New York has indicted some people,
some of whom were in the United States. So they have actually acquired
personal jurisdiction over those people. They might be able to
prosecute them, fine them, and send them to jail. But for the most
part, these activities are going to be abroad, because the activity is
illegal in all 50 States. As a result, you are not going to be able to
get personal jurisdiction over the offender.
How do we, therefore, stop the activity? That is where the service
providers come in. And after, as I say, a finding of illegality has
occurred, they will be brought in to appear before the court and be
asked to pull the plug on a service that they are providing or, through
them, is being provided to people on the net here in the United States.
As I said, in the case of a direct provider, it is a little more
technical than this but almost as easy as pulling the plug, because
each of these sites has an identifier, an identifying number for
billing purposes. Of course, you know that and you can simply cut off
that particular service. In other cases, it will be more complicated
than that.
So what we have done is to provide a complex series of protections
for the Internet provider to ensure, for example, that if they are
asked to participate in this law enforcement activity, first of all,
there won't be any injunction issue against them if it is not
technically feasible; and, secondly, that they can demonstrate, if it
is the case, it is not economically feasible for them. Then the
injunction could not issue. This isn't a matter of what they are
permitted to argue; these are actually conditions for the imposition of
the injunction.
I want to make it perfectly clear to my colleagues, up until a few
days ago, you may have been contacted by various Internet providers,
people like America Online, for example, or U.S. West. Their
representatives, who are all over this town, may have told you that
there were certain problems with this language. But they are among the
organizations that have bought off on the language that I have
painstakingly negotiated with them to ensure that, while they are
helping law enforcement, we are not imposing an impossible burden on
them. They are not going to have to do something that is not
technically feasible, and they are not going to have to face
unreasonable costs in complying with law enforcement.
I know some people say they are part of the problem because they are
actually transmitting this illegal information. But I don't think it is
fair to ask them to monitor this activity or to stop it unless law
enforcement deems it sufficiently serious to stop. And that is why we
have only provided for them to be involved in this process in that
eventuality. I think that is very, very fair.
A second group that we have had discussions with is the virtual
casino networks and operators. I know that Senator Bryan is going to
talk to that because that is a part of his amendment. I must say that I
totally support the amendment of Senator Bryan to add the protections
in this legislation to
[[Page S8761]]
those who are providing the games involving, for example, baseball
where you get together with other people and you create your own
baseball team and you then are judged by how well those teams and
players do in the future. Sometimes there are prizes awarded, and
sometimes there are not. But in any case, you usually pay a fee to do
that, and if you win, you can win the prize.
Now, the people who operate these kinds of activities on the Internet
have variously claimed that it is not gambling or that no prizes are
awarded. And if that is the case, then they have nothing to worry about
under this legislation because both of those are requirements for it to
be considered gambling. We also make it clear, if they charge
administrative fees rather than collecting money to pay off bets, they
would be exempt.
I indicated before that we had solved the problems of the horse-
racing industry. We essentially said with respect to that industry that
this legislation does nothing to take away from any of the activity
that they can do today, and, in fact, given the fact they are going to
be using computers in their operation, and also in their advertising in
the future, we make sure that activity is not prohibited. So, as I
said, they are supportive of the legislation.
I want to make it clear to anybody who has heard from anybody with
respect to first amendment rights that the first amendment is totally
protected here. All advertising is permitted. Any kind of advertising
of legal activity is absolutely legal, and it would not even be
constitutional for us to try to prohibit it. We have not done that.
That leads me, Mr. President, to the last point which has to do with
the treatment of the Native Americans. Now, under the IGRA, the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, Native Americans are permitted to enter into
compacts with States to conduct the same kind of gambling or gaming
that is legal in those States. They can't do any more than what is
legal in the States, but they can compact to do that which is legal. We
have provided in this legislation an explicit recognition of the Indian
tribes to conduct that kind of activity on their reservations. We have
also made it clear that they can engage in the kind of pooling
arrangements that many of them will engage in and that that would not
be illegal.
So everything that is done by every tribe except one, which may be
violating the law today and that you will hear more about here--
everything that is currently being done and can be done legally is
treated as legal in this legislation and would be permitted to
continue.
To the extent that the tribes were also concerned about enforcement
by States attorneys general, we have made it clear that the States
attorneys general are not to enforce this law against Indian tribes;
that the only time a State attorney general could be involved is if the
tribe itself compacted for that, so the tribe would have had to have
agreed to it in the first instance.
So we have satisfied all of the concerns of the tribes except one,
and what you will hear is that they want to be able to do anything that
is so-called legal or lawful under IGRA.
But the problem with that is this. This legislation, just like the
Wire Act that is still the law today, makes it illegal to conduct these
kinds of activities. So since the Wire Act exists, a tribe could not
conduct this activity claiming it to be legal under IGRA, because IGRA
says you cannot do it if you do not have a compact, and you cannot have
a compact unless it is legal.
So, because this legislation and the Telephone and Wire Act both make
it illegal to conduct this kind of activity, or continue to make it
illegal, then, by definition, it would not be possible for a tribe to
conduct this activity.
What I am concerned about is that trying to add any other language
that suggests that, if it is lawful under IGRA it would still be OK,
would very much confuse and complicate the issue and raise a question
about what the basic intent of this legislation is. And, at worst, it
would actually permit the Native Americans or Indian tribes who wish to
do so, to do something that nobody else in the country would be able to
do, that would be illegal for every other American. What we have done
is to treat the Native Americans fairly, to treat them like everybody
else--no better, no worse. It would be, I think, a grave injustice to
everyone else to allow a special exception for the Indians that nobody
else in the country would have.
Mr. President, I will have some more to say about a couple of the
details of what we do, especially if there are questions, and also to
further talk about the kind of testimony that was presented to the
Judiciary Committee in support of this legislation. As you might
imagine, there was a wide variety of testimony provided by law
enforcement officials, people familiar with gaming and with addiction,
people who understood the Internet and wanted to advise us about that.
Frankly, we just had a lot of great testimony that supports this.
I will just close with this one comment that I think helps to make
the point. I mentioned the attorney general from Wisconsin--I was going
to quote this before--James Doyle. He is the head of the Attorneys
General Association. He said:
Gambling on the Internet is a very dumb bet because it is
unregulated. Odds can be easily manipulated and there is no
guarantee that fair payouts will occur. Internet gambling
threatens to disrupt the system. It crosses State or national
borders with little or no regulatory control. Federal
authorities must take the lead in this area.
I close where I began. For State attorneys general to urge the
Federal Government to take Federal jurisdiction over something like
this is almost unprecedented. They wouldn't do it if they didn't feel
that the problem societally justified it and, from a law enforcement
standpoint, that it was the only way to ensure that this illegal
activity could not be continued.
So, as a result of that, we have adopted this legislation out of the
committee and brought it to the floor under this mechanism because, as
I said, it is really the only way we could bring it to the floor. I
urge my colleagues to support the legislation and to support the
amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to preface my comment, before
I say anything specific about the legislation, commending the Senator
from Arizona for his untiring and unflagging efforts, trying to perfect
an amendment which I am pleased to cosponsor. The junior Senator from
Arizona has spent the better part of this past year working with
various groups, specifically the States' attorneys general who are the
prime movers in this amendment. I believe the amendment which he has
offered, and the underlying amendment which I have offered as a second-
degree amendment, accomplishes the purposes that we intend.
This amendment is supported by a wide spectrum of interest. I am
aware that within this Chamber there is a broad diversity of
perspectives and viewpoints on gaming. Some States, such as my own,
have adopted for decades open and regulated casino gaming. Other
States, such as the States of Utah and Hawaii, by their public policy
pronouncements through their legislative actions, permit no gaming at
all. But I think it is indicative of the broad spectrum of support that
this Internet gaming prohibition amendment enjoys, that from Ralph Reed
to Ralph Nader, all of the groups that may represent the spectrum in
between, have joined with Senator Kyl and me in supporting this
amendment: The Christian Coalition, the National Association of
Attorneys General, from public citizen to the National Football League,
and other groups as well.
Let me cite, if I may, a couple of reasons for that. The National
Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League, the
National Hockey League, Baseball, Office of the Commissioner, National
Basketball Association, major league soccer, are in strong support of
the Internet gaming prohibition amendment that we are debating this
evening. In a letter received by my office on March 25:
We are writing to urge you to support the passage of S.
474, [that is in effect the amendment that we have before us]
the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act of 1998. As amateur and
professional sports organizations, we believe that S. 474
would strengthen existing enforcement tools to combat a
growing national problem--illegal sports gambling conducted
over the Internet.
[[Page S8762]]
I ask unanimous consent the letter I have identified be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
March 25, 1998.
Hon. Richard Bryan,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bryan: We are writing to urge you to support
the passage of S. 474, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
of 1998. As amateur and professional sports organizations, we
believe S. 474 would strengthen existing enforcement tools to
combat a growing national problem--illegal sports gambling
conducted over the Internet.
Sports gambling tarnishes the integrity of athletic
competition. It taints the way fans view sports contests. It
creates suspicion and cynicism about game and performance
outcomes and degrades players in the eyes of fans. The
amateur and professional sports organizations have long
understood this problem and have aggressively policed the
relationship between gambling and sports.
Congress has also long recognized that gambling has no
place in amateur and professional sports. For example, under
the Interstate Wire Act of 1961 (18 U.S.C. 1084), it is a
federal crime to use wire communication facilities in
interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of sports
gambling. Faced with efforts to establish sports lotteries
and other forms of legalized sports betting in the late
1980s, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports
Protection Act (28 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) in 1992, prohibiting
any further legalization of sports betting by states or other
governmental entities.
Despite existing federal and state laws prohibiting
gambling on professional and college sports, sports gambling
over the Internet has become a serious--and growing--national
problem. Many Internet gambling operations originate from
offshore locations outside the U.S. The number of offshore
Internet gambling websites has grown from two in 1996 to over
70 today. It is estimated that Internet sites will book over
$600 million in sports bets in 1998, up from $60 million just
two years ago. These websites not only permit offshore
gambling operations to solicit and take bets from the United
States in defiance of Federal and state law but also enable
gamblers and would-be gamblers in the U.S. to place illegal
sports wagers over the Internet from the privacy of their own
home or office.
S. 474 would strengthen the tools currently available to
enforce existing federal and state laws prohibiting sports
gambling. If enacted, this legislation would make it more
difficult for Internet gambling operators as well as the
individuals who gamble to evade the law. S. 474 would extend
criminal penalties to include individuals who gamble on the
Internet, not just those who operate Internet gambling sites.
Most importantly, S. 474 would provide law enforcement
officials with an effective and much-needed civil enforcement
mechanism to keep the Internet or any other interactive
computer service from being used to place, receive or
otherwise make a sports bet or wager.
S. 474 makes it clear that a new communications medium, the
Internet, cannot be used to circumvent existing federal and
state laws that prohibit sports gambling in this country. We
strongly urge you to vote in favor of S. 474 when it is
considered on the Senate floor.
Sincerely,
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
National Football League.
National Hockey League.
Baseball, Office of the Commissioner.
National Basketball Association.
Major League Soccer.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, the National Association of
Attorneys General have been the prime mover of this legislation. The
distinguished occupant of the Chair has served as an attorney general
from his State and, indeed, headed the National Association of
Attorneys General. As the distinguished occupant of the Chair and
others know, States' attorneys general do not frequently come to the
Congress of the United States and ask for legislation unless they are
of the opinion that State action is insufficient and incapable of
addressing the problem. That is the view of the National Association of
Attorneys General in urging Senator Kyl and me and others to move
forward with the legislation that bears the S. 474 designation, and
which, in essence, is the amendment we are debating on the floor this
evening.
The attorneys general make a very important point. They say, in part,
in a letter which was sent to me on March 20 of this year, and signed
by a number of States' attorneys general that:
The potential problems cautioned by the availability of
games worldwide through the Internet are exacerbated because
of the current inability of Internet technology to address
many of the policy considerations that have caused states to
create such widely disparate legal and regulatory schemes.
Then they go on to say in this letter:
Additionally, there is currently no [I want to emphasize
``no'' effective technological means to verify the physical
location of players and proprietors in order to ensure the
participants and businesses are operating under the laws of
the individual jurisdictions where they are physically
located.
That is the view of the Nation's attorneys general as they have come
to the Congress and asked us to support this legislation.
Again, I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me dated March
20, 1998, from the National Association of Attorneys General, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Association of
Attorneys General,
Washington, DC, March 20, 1998.
Hon. Richard H. Bryan,
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bryan:
As the members of the Internet Working Group of the
National Association of Attorneys General, we write to
express our support for S. 474, the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act. As introduced by Senator Kyl in March of
1997, the bill closely modeled the changes in federal law
suggested by a resolution adopted by the National Association
of Attorneys General in June, 1996. Although the bill has
undergone several substantive changes prior to reaching the
Senate floor, it continues to be the most appropriate measure
to address the growing problem of gambling via the Internet.
Gambling laws and regulations have more state-to-state
variety than almost any other area of law. Each state's
gambling policy is carefully crafted to meet its own moral,
law enforcement, consumer protection and revenue concerns.
Most states believe they have crafted the perfect
combinations of law and policy to address their own
populations' needs. The Internet threatens to disrupt this.
As recently noted by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, ``[The State] has a powerful interest
in enforcing its anti-gambling laws which would be
substantially undermined if defendant could evade enforcement
through Internet gambling.''
The threat of technology provides the only exception to the
preeminent role of the states to regulate gambling and
control gambling policy formulation. Today, the federal
government's only role in gambling policy formulation relates
to specific instances where technology threatens to disrupt
the individual states' carefully balanced policy choices in
this area. For example, the Interstate Horseracing Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1301 et seq., addresses the use of wires and
satellites to facilitate the combination of parimutuel
wagering on horse races and prevent different pools from
endangering the integrity of the horse racing industry. The
Lottery Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1301 et seq., allows states to
limit import of out-of-state lottery tickets via mail and
other forms of transportation. The Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1171 et seq., places limits on the interstate
transportation of slot machines, using our national
transportation infrastructure, allowing states to make their
own determinations on whether they will allow those machines
in their states. Finally, the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1081
et seq., prohibits the use of the wires to transmit wagering
information.
The proposed Internet Gambling Prohibition Act would
provide the same appropriate degree of federal involvement
for the Internet. The Internet represents the latest form of
technology that threatens to disrupt state policies: almost
anything that can be done on a computer, like gambling, can
be done via the Internet anyplace in the world where a
connection is available. A wide variety of card, dice and
other games of chance can be entertainingly simulated on a
computer screen via the Internet. In addition, traditional
forms of horse and race betting are well-suited to
computerized participation. All of these activities can be
conducted on a computer, and the Internet allows this conduct
to be made available worldwide and across state lines,
regardless of any state's carefully crafted and explicitly
stated gaming policy, laws and regulations.
The potential problems caused by the availability of games
worldwide through the Internet are exacerbated because of the
current inability of Internet technology to address many of
the same policy considerations that have caused the states to
create such widely disparate legal and regulatory schemes.
These crucial policy concerns include general moral attitudes
towards gambling, basic issues of game integrity, effective
customer dispute resolution procedures, underage gambling,
cash controls to hinder money laundering and other criminal
activity, as well as efforts to recognize and treat problem
gamblers. Additionally, there is currently no effective
technological means to verify the physical location of
players and proprietors in order to ensure that participants
and businesses are operating under the laws of the individual
jurisdictions where they are physically located.
The proposed Internet Gaming Prohibition Act, in its
current form, continues to address the important policy
concerns we first expressed in the summer of 1996. We urge
your
[[Page S8763]]
continued efforts in making this bill the law of the land.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Co-Chair,
NAAG Internet Working Group, Hubert H. Humphrey, III,
Attorney General of Minnesota, Co-Chair, NAAG Internet
Working Group, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of
California, Co-Chair, NAAG Internet Working Group,
Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, Dennis
C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York, Heidi Heitkamp,
Attorney General of North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery,
Attorney General of Ohio, Hardy Myers, Attorney General
of Oregon, Mike Fisher, Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of
Rhode Island, John Knox Walkup, Attorney General of
Tennessee, William Sorrell, Attorney General of
Vermont, William U. Hill, Attorney General of Wyoming,
Christine O. Gregoier, Attorney General of Washington,
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think my colleague has done an
extraordinarily good job and given a very clear explanation of what we
are seeking to create in this amendment. This simply represents an
update to reflect the change of technology. Under current law, it is
illegal to wager over mail and telephone communications. We simply
intend, by this amendment, to bring current technology into compliance
with the technology that was covered previously by this prohibition.
Internet gambling is spreading exponentially. It approaches nearly $1
billion of annual revenue; 140 web sites currently operate on the
Internet. It will be, as my colleague from Arizona indicated in his
comments, a multibillion-dollar industry by the turn of the century.
Why have the States' attorneys general approached us and asked us to
enact this legislation? What vice exists with respect to Internet
gambling that does not exist with respect to regulated gaming in the
various forms the States have chosen to adopt?
First of all is access. Whether one favors gaming or one has a strong
religious or moral view opposed to gaming, I believe that all would
acknowledge that gaming ought to be an adult recreational activity--
underscoring the word ``adult.'' When one accesses the Internet and the
various web sites that are currently on the Internet, there is no
means--no means to enforce the age of that individual who is accessing
the Internet. We all know from our children and grandchildren that
today's youngsters enjoy a proficiency and sophistication, if you will,
in terms of their ability to surf the net, to understand the world of
computers. It is very easy--very easy for very young children to gain
access to the Internet and thereby to participate in Internet gambling.
I repeat, whether one supports the open casino style of gaming that
Nevada has legalized for more than six decades, or takes the more
restrictive view that the policymakers of the States of Hawaii and Utah
have adopted, and that is to permit none, no one can justify access to
a gaming experience to young children who may be 12, 13, or 14 years of
age. And there is no way to enforce limited access to the Internet and
to limit it to only those who are adults.
Second, let me make the point that in those States that have chosen
to adopt, and those tribes that have adopted forms of gaming pursuant
to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, there is or ought to be mechanisms
in place that make sure that the individuals who are licensed to
operate those games have been carefully screened for both integrity, in
terms of their records, and suitability. Nobody is permitted, in the
State of Nevada, for example, to operate a gaming activity unless he or
she, or its corporate officers, have been carefully screened by the
State Gaming Control Board and ultimately approved by the State Gaming
Commission.
When you participate in a gaming experience in States that permit
some form of gaming, it is regulated. You know the individual operators
of the game. In the world of cyberspace, you know not with whom you are
communicating. Nobody, Mr. President--I repeat, nobody--has screened
those individuals in terms of background, who they are, in terms of
their track record, their integrity or their suitability. You are, in
effect, participating in a gaming experience in which you do not know
who the people are who are running that particular web site.
No. 3: the actual virtual gaming experience itself. Every gaming
device that is made available in my own State for customers to
participate in has been approved by the Nevada Gaming Control Board and
the Gaming Commission to make sure that the device provides a
reasonable and fair opportunity for the player to win, so that the game
is not rigged, so that under no circumstances could the player win.
None of us is naive enough not to recognize that the odds clearly favor
the house. That is not my point. But the game of chance is an honest
one. Participants, players, have an opportunity to win, and, indeed,
many of them do.
In the world of cyberspace, no one, but no one, has regulated that
particular device that is being offered. There is no way for the player
to know whether that virtual game is rigged in such a way that it is
impossible for him or her to win under any circumstance.
Finally, assuming for the sake of argument that one does participate
and does win, how do you know whether anybody is going to be around
when you come to collect the money?
Mr. President, the Internet and the e-mail system is filled with
dozens and dozens of people who have had experiences that highlight the
point I am seeking to make this evening. I will not impose upon the
patience of this Chamber to cite all of them, but a couple of them, I
think, are illustrative and make the point.
This is in a communication dated April 1 of this year by an
individual who had participated in Internet gambling. I quote from his
letter:
I tried both of the above online casinos, and I'm beginning
to notice a strange trend. When I played the games offline
just for practice, the odds seemed to conform, but when I
played online for real money, the win-loss ratio seemed very
disproportionate compared to what they were when I was
playing offline. Of course, I may have been just very unlucky
playing online, but I'm strongly suspicious. I suspect that
the odds for real play and the practice are quite different.
I think these guys cheat somehow, and I've given up on them
and online gambling altogether. Of course, I can't prove that
they cheat. Who can?
Mr. President, the point being, there is no regulator who, first of
all, makes a determination as to who ought to have a web site for
gaming activity, no regulator to determine whether or not the game of
chance itself is a fair and honest one, and no regulator to make sure
that, indeed, if the player prevails, he or she is able to collect.
Let me cite one other which I think is illustrative, and this is a
letter dated April 30 of this year. The writer goes on to observe:
This is what you find at the bottom of the barrel--
Referring to the individual letter writer's experience on the
Internet with his or her gambling experience.
Presumably from New Hampshire, these guys set up an online
bingo site that went belly up in a hurry. The most popular
theory is that they had fewer players than anticipated and
couldn't afford to pay off the winners, so they pulled off a
disappearing act that would turn David Copperfield green with
envy.
That is the point that I am seeking to make.
The point needs to be made that Internet gambling is a bad bet. It is
an unregulated activity in which children have access to the gaming
experience, and it is not an enterprise that is subject to regulation.
That is why the States' attorneys general have asked us to impose this.
Let me simply say that I believe that the prohibition needs to be
across the board. My amendment makes one exception--and perhaps some of
my colleagues have participated--and that is in the so-called fantasy
sports leagues or educational games that operate over the Internet.
Some have estimated that nearly 1 million Americans participate in
fantasy or rotisserie sports teams on the Internet ranging from
baseball to golf to auto racing.
The second-degree amendment which I have offered to the first-degree
amendment of the Senator from Arizona will simply indicate that that
kind of activity which exists will not be prohibited under the
provisions of this legislation.
Finally, let me say that Internet gambling currently is in violation
of the law. States' attorneys general and U.S. attorneys are trying to
combat it, but, Mr. President, they need our help,
[[Page S8764]]
and the enforcement tool or mechanism that they need is in the
legislation offered by the junior Senator from Arizona and the Senator
from Nevada. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this,
irrespective of their own personal views toward gaming itself.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-
degree amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3267) was agreed to.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 3268 to Amendment No. 3266
(Purpose: To clarify that Indian gaming is subject to Federal
jurisdiction)
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr. Inouye
and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 3268 to
amendment No. 3266.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, I want to see what is in
this amendment. Do you mind?
Mr. CRAIG. Not at all. I am about ready to explain it, but you can
have it read if you wish.
Mr. FORD. I won't object, but I want to be sure about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3 of the amendment, strike lines 9 through 12 and
insert the following before line 13:
``(iii) a contract of indemnity or guarantee;
``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance;
``(v) lawful gaming conducted pursuant to the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.); or''.
Beginning on page 13 of the amendment, strike line 4 and
all that follows through page 14, line 25, and insert the
following:
(2) Proceedings.--
(A) Institution by federal government.--
(i) In general.--The United States may institute
proceedings under this paragraph. Upon application of the
United States, the district court may enter a temporary
restraining order or an injunction against any person to
prevent a violation of section 1085 of title 18, United
States Code, as added by this section, if the court
determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing,
that there is a substantial probability that such violation
has occurred or will occur.
(ii) Indian lands.--With respect to a violation of section
1085 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this
section, that is alleged to have occurred, or may occur, in
whole or in part, on Indian lands (as defined in section 4 of
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the
United States shall have the authority to enforce that
section.
(B) Institution by state attorney general.--The attorney
general of a State (or other appropriate State official) in
which a violation of section 1085 of title 18, United States
Code, as added by this section, is alleged to have occurred,
or may occur, after providing written notice to the United
States, may institute proceedings under this paragraph. Upon
application of the attorney general (or other appropriate
State official) of the affected State, the district court may
enter a temporary restraining order or an injunction against
any person to prevent a violation of section 1085 of title
18, United States Code, as added by this section, if the
court determines, after notice and an opportunity for a
hearing, that there is a substantial probability that such
violation has occurred or will occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand on the floor this evening in
support of the concept of the Kyl bill, and I support the second-degree
amendment that the Senator from Nevada has just successfully placed on
it.
I believe that unregulated Internet gaming is and can be dangerous.
It must be monitored closely and restricted to adults.
To date, the only form of gaming regulated at the Federal level is
Indian gaming. I am not a big fan of most Indian gaming. We have
struggled with it in my State for some time. However, through the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, known as IGRA, Congress established clear
and precise laws governing all forms of Indian gaming.
Authority to regulate Indian gaming was given by Congress to the
National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. In addition, developments
in Indian gaming are followed closely by the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs and its counterparts in the House. In fact, it is my
understanding that the committee has held a series of hearings this
year on examining the possible changes in IGRA.
Mr. CRAIG. What I want to point out is that there is an established
procedure in dealing with laws which impact Indian gaming.
Mr. President, the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and changes IGRA
without the input of the Indian Affairs Committee or the National
Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. The Kyl bill does this in a number
of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming
operations, overrides and nullifies existing State tribunal pacts,
makes illegal some forms of Indian gaming determined by the courts to
be authorized under IGRA.
Those who would support the bill claim that it does not impact IGRA.
I cannot agree with that argument. If it, in fact, sought no change in
IGRA, why do they then oppose the amendment that would guarantee no
change? Because that is exactly what my amendment does. The truth of
the matter is that the bill severely limits authority granted IGRA.
The Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. Let me repeat: The
Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. And that would be argued
by the Federal courts. The amendment would only protect a gaming
enterprise if it were already legal under IGRA. The amendment would
only protect a gaming enterprise that was already sanctioned by a
State-tribal compact, the very kind of thing that this Congress set up
in the law that created IGRA.
The amendment would not allow for any form of new Indian gaming. The
reason these issues are important--and the Senator from Arizona was
exactly right when he spoke in general terms about the possibilities of
my amendment, speaking specifically to one Indian tribe. That Indian
tribe happens to be in my State, and they have established what is
known as the National Indian Lottery.
They have withstood three separate Federal court tests and have
argued that they are legal, and the courts have so ruled. Yet, the
Internet Gaming Prohibition Act that Senator Kyl has just offered
amends section 1084 of the so-called Federal Wire Act to include
lotteries. Only by his act would they become illegal.
By the current law, and by the current regulatory process, they are
legal; and they have been found that. This tribe has been sued. They
have taken their issue to court and have successfully won. Lotteries
are defined as class III gaming and are governed by the terms of the
tribal-State compacts, the rules and the regulations, the National
Indian Gaming Commission. Idaho's case is no different. And that is
certainly the case that I argue here tonight.
In 1992, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe signed a compact with the State of
Idaho which specifically provided for the conduct of these National
Indian Lottery games. Article 621 of the compact authorizes the tribe
to conduct lotteries, so-called State lotteries to the compact, defined
in article 419, to include a variety of things.
The compact was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in February
1993, and, therefore, noticed in the Federal Registry. Since that time
it has fallen under regulation. What the Senator from Arizona is doing
tonight--and I agree with him--is making illegal that which is
unregulated, and provides either an outright prohibition or establishes
regulatory effort.
Now, he has exempt a variety of things, exempt very powerful gaming
organizations. So I do not think the Senator can argue tonight that
there have not been some exemptions. He says he is after the offshore
kind of Internet activity. I agree with him. The kind I am trying to
protect is onshore, legal and regulated by IGRA and the National Indian
Gaming Commission. I could not stand here tonight and argue for an
unregulated activity. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to be
honest. We expect them to be
[[Page S8765]]
controlled and only to be made available to adults. That is exactly
what is happening here and why I argue it.
All of the regulations that this Congress has put in place is adhered
to by the National Indian Lottery. It is regulated, as I said, at the
Federal level. It is regulated at the State level. It is regulated at
the separate governmental or tribal level. And that is the way it
should be. It is audited regularly by Arthur Andersen. It is protected
so that only adults can participate in it. And that is constantly
scanned.
My amendment would simply say that these kinds of activities--legally
sought--would be regulated under the current regulatory process,
because it is Indian gaming; and we have established the IGRA and the
National Indian Gaming Commission for that purpose. The amendment of
the Senator from Arizona would deny that right and place, by its
adoption, this as an illegal activity where the Federal courts have
ruled that under current process it is legal.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to lend my support to the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig,
for several reasons.
The Internet presents opportunities for education, business, and
governance that were unthinkable until recently. Concepts such as
``distance learning'', and ``e-commerce'' are tied to this new and
little understood technology.
As a Congress and as a nation, we must come to grips with this
technology in a way that encourages development and at the same time
provides protection from abuses for our most vulnerable citizens.
So let me start out by saying that I have a healthy respect for the
Internet and the possibilities it holds.
Like Senator Kyl, however, I am troubled by unregulated gambling and
other objectionable material or services being offered on the Internet,
particularly when young children and other vulnerable people are
involved.
Nonetheless, as chairman of the committee on Indian affairs, I must
point out that there are several objectionable provisions in the bill
before us, not the least of which is that S. 474 amends the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act in significant ways, without the benefit of
committee deliberations, or the input of the many affected tribes.
I firmly believe that any legislation aimed at Internet gambling
should be ``technology-neutral'' and not tied to or focused on a
specific technology.
Given the creativity and genius of computer and high-tech
individuals, such as framework would quickly become obsolete--and
require new legislation.
For instance, there are 30 Indian tribes operating games like
``Megabingo'' and ``satellite bingo''; dozens of tribes that operate
parimutuel betting and other games that are authorized by and regulated
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
The IGRA provides that bingo games that rely on or use electronic or
technological aids, are legal and are explicitly permitted by the IGRA.
In addition to the jurisdictional issues raised, S. 474 would
criminalize certain games that are legally played as class II games
under the IGRA.
When the IGRA was enacted in 1988, the position of this Congress was
to ``provide maximum flexibility'' to tribes in terms of technology or
in terms of conducting multi-state operations through the use of such
technology.
The Congress' intent included the use of technological aids for bingo
and similar games ``on or off of Indian lands.'' The bill before us
should provide a categorical exception for these and similar games.
The bill defines ``person'' as including ``other governments'' which
may be construed to include tribal governments. Together with section
4, which authorizes state attorneys general and other state officials
to bring enforcement actions against Indian tribes for violations that
occur on Indian lands, this provision will alter the law regarding
jurisdiction in ways that I strongly oppose.
This bill is a serious change in federal Indian law not seen since
the enactment of ``P.L. 280'' in 1953, which conferred state
jurisdiction over Indian lands without tribal consent.
Section 4 is also in direct conflict with the IGRA, which provides
the United States with enforcement authority over Indian gaming
activities.
The civil enforcement remedy granted to the states in S. 474 is
unnecessary and unwarranted. Current law provides that class II gaming
is regulated by the tribes and the federal government; and class III
gaming is regulated pursuant to tribal-state compacts. Contrary to the
assertions of many, the Indian gaming industry is subject to many
layers of regulation.
Federal law already establishes enforcement remedies under the IGRA.
These very jurisdictional issues arose when Congress considered the
IGRA.
In 1987, the Supreme Court decided the Cabazon case which says that
Indian tribes have the right to conduct gaming on Indian lands largely
unhindered by state interference. With S. 474, we are re-opening an
issue that has been settled for years.
Tribes and states can and often do resolve these issues in
negotiations. Tribal-State compacts, and P.L. 280, only allow state
enforcement activities with the consent of the affected tribes.
The IGRA established the mechanisms for tribes and states to
negotiate and come to agreement on these matters and some tribes and
states have freely entered negotiations to resolve these matters--in
the form of state-tribal compacts.
Third, this bill amends the IGRA by requiring that any persons who
place or receive the wagers involved be ``physically located'' on
Indian lands.
As my friend from Idaho knows, there is ongoing litigation to
determine the meaning of the term ``on Indian lands'' contained in the
IGRA.
One question that is inherent in this debate over S. 474 is
determining where the ``transactions'' that will be prohibited will
take place?
Recognizing the complexities of Internet commerce and the tax issue,
the nation's Governors recently agreed that an enlightened policy
requires more information and deferred a decision regarding a
``national Internet sales tax policy''.
The notion that with this or any other bill, the United States can
stop the flow of electronic gambling on American modems and computers
is just not realistic.
For instance, the Caribbean nations of Antigua and Barbados actively
promote what they call their ``on-line casinos'' to players both on the
islands and to anyone off the islands with a computer.
So one consequence of this bill if enacted will be the elimination of
American-based Internet gaming providers to the benefit of off-shore
gaming operators like our friends in the Caribbean. Will this Congress
ever stop pursuing policies that send American jobs overseas?
Last, let me say a few things about the ``Craig amendment'' which I
believe will eliminate the conflicts between S. 474 and the Indian
gaming act and will appropriately provide that those games that are
currently authorized and regulated under the IGRA would remain outside
the purview of this legislation.
I am in favor of tribes and others being treated similarly as far as
Internet gaming goes, and feel very strongly that tribes should not be
singled out either for special treatment or for special scrutiny as far
as the Indian Gaming Regulatory act goes.
As Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I know full well the
controversy that surrounds gaming activities. I also know that the
Indian gaming act represents a complex and delicate balance of
competing interests--including state and tribal interests.
The tribes are seeking nothing more than what is already sanctioned
under federal law in the form of the IGRA. As is the case with the
Coeur d'Alene tribe, there is now pending federal litigation that the
Congress ought not upset in the form of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Craig amendment to
provide equity and fairness to this Internet gaming legislation.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my colleague,
Senator Kyl, addresses a serious problem in our society, and I support
most of its provisions.
I agree that we should protect children from having the opportunity
to gamble on the Internet.
I agree that we should regulate gambling in a responsible manner.
[[Page S8766]]
I agree that we should take steps to protect the integrity of our
amateur and professional sports.
The amendment offered by Senator Kyl will address these problems,
which have accompanied the rise of Internet gambling. The problem with
the amendment is that it does not address these problems in a manner
that treats Native Americans fairly.
To address this situation, I am cosponsoring the amendment offered by
Senator Craig. This measure will exempt from the Kyl amendment those
Indian gaming activities regulated and sanctioned by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, thereby retaining the current jurisdictional structure
established under IGRA for Indian gaming, a structure that involves the
federal courts and the National Indian Gaming Commission.
Mr. President, it would not be fair to Indian tribes to enact the
restrictions of the internet gambling prohibition amendment offered by
Senator Kyl without retaining the regulatory structure of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act as Senator Craig suggests. If Congress wants to
modify the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, it should do so only after
serious review that includes the input of those parties affected
directly by that change--in this case, the tribes and tribal gaming
enterprises.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Craig amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kyl
Amendment, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. I am an original
cosponsor of S. 474, on which this amendment is based.
This amendment takes important steps to address the dangerous,
billion-dollar-a-year threat to our communities and our laws of
Internet gambling.
The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and
Government Information, on which I serve as Ranking Member, held
hearings on the subject of Internet gambling in March of last year. At
that time, I joined Senator Kyl in introducing S. 474, on which this
amendment is based. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by
voice vote in October of last year.
Since that time, this proposal has been carefully fine-tuned to
address concerns raised by various groups.
This proposal enjoys the support of a wide range of groups, including
law enforcement, family and consumer advocates, and professional and
amateur athletics.
Most importantly, FBI Director Louis Freeh, at a Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing, when asked if the FBI supports the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act, Prohibition Act, replied, ``Yes, I think it's a very
effective change. We certainly support it.''
Similarly, the National Association of Attorneys General explained
why such legislation is important in letters to the Senate Judiciary
Committee and to the full Senate. The State Attorneys General wrote:
[M]ore than any other area of the law, gambling has
traditionally been regulated on a state-by-state basis, with
little uniformity and minimal federal oversight.
The availability of gambling on the Internet, however, threatens to
disrupt each state's careful balancing of its own public welfare and
fiscal concerns, by making gambling available across state and national
boundaries, with little or no regulatory control.
This amendment brings our laws on gambling up to date with advances
in technology. It ensures that the new medium of the Internet will not
prove to be the latest frontier of illegal gambling.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act, and I am proud to support this amendment, to provide
law enforcement with the tools it needs to keep the Internet free of
the scourge of illegal gambling.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator
from Arizona. And I want to, specifically, because it does address a
serious growing problem of the utilization of the Internet to provide
unregulated gaming activities, but also because there is a broader
issue at stake here that I think we need to consider. We will not be
voting on it this evening, but it is very much a part of this and it
needs to be addressed.
First of all, the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona is a
good one because we clearly are dealing here with a new dimension in
gaming, a new means by which gaming is provided to millions of
Americans that is not accessible in the same way as it was before.
In 1961 Congress, wisely, I believe, passed the Wire Act. The Wire
Act was designed to prohibit the utilization of telephone facilities to
receive bets or send gambling information.
I do not have the regulative history in front of me, but I am almost
certain Congress did that because it did not want the invasive nature
of telephone lines and telephone access, which run into virtually every
house in America, to be a means by which Americans could utilize that
form of communication to enter into gambling. It did so because I am
sure, if you went back and read the record, it understood the social
cost, the consequences of gaming, and it wanted gaming to be a
restricted activity.
Of course, the advent of the Internet as a communications medium was
not anticipated by Congress or even envisioned by Congress at that
time, so therefore this Wire Act does not cover that. The Senator's
amendment extends pretty much the provisions of the Wire Act to the
Internet. I think for that reason, it is legitimate in terms of
updating it to comply the law to changes in technology.
The fact that it is supported by the FBI, with strong testimony from
the FBI Director, the National Association of Attorneys General--as I
understand, all the attorneys general have supported this from each
State. Professional, amateur sports groups, including the National
Football League, the NCAA, the NHL, NBA, Major League Soccer, Major
League Baseball, for obvious reasons, are strongly in endorsement of
this.
But then one of the most adverse collections of public interest
groups and consumer advocates that have come together on an issue that
I have seen for a long, long time--maybe ever--ranging from Ralph
Nader's Public Citizen to the Christian Coalition, the National
Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Focus on the Family, Family
Research Council, have all endorsed the Kyl language which prohibits
the Internet gambling. Now, they have not just specifically done so
because it only addresses Internet gambling. They have done so because
Internet gambling is simply a piece of a much larger program that is
having, in my opinion, a dramatically adverse and negative effect on
our culture. They see the Kyl amendment as one way of addressing a
broader question.
Ultimately, I think, we as Congress, we as representatives of the
people, will have to come to grips as to what the impact of gambling is
as it proliferates throughout our States and as access to gambling
becomes more and more available to our citizens--and not just our adult
citizens, but to our young people.
There is a growing concern about pathological aspects of gambling.
For decades, our Nation has studied and Congress has struggled with how
we deal with drug and alcohol addictions, but the rapid expansion of
gambling is injecting a new narcotic into our Nation's bloodstream. The
problem of pathological gambling is on the rise. The National Council
on Problem Gambling places the number of Americans with serious gaming
problems at around 5 percent. Most studies confirm that estimate.
However, as gambling becomes more pervasive and as gambling becomes
more accessible, this number is increasing dramatically. Some say it
has doubled; some say it might have tripled.
As with other addictive behaviors, gambling not only affects the
individual who does the gaming but it affects their families, it
affects their careers, virtually every aspect of their lives.
Separation, divorce, spousal and child abuse, neglect, substance abuse,
and suicide have all been linked as side effects of problem gambling.
Studies of high school students which have recently been undertaken
have indicated that gambling is spreading into our high schools and
spreading into minors' use in dramatic ways. Of course, nothing is more
accessible to gaming than the Internet. If you want to bypass the
normal restrictions and regulations that are placed on gaming--and
those have been loosened dramatically--the quickest and easiest and
[[Page S8767]]
most effective way to do so is through the Internet.
I think Senator Kyl's amendment is particularly relevant at this
particular time to address a part of the gaming problem and the
gambling problem that exists in America. It does so in a way that can
be utilized to at least make it more difficult, significantly more
difficult, for minors to utilize the Internet as a means of gaming.
Knowing what the pathological results and the consequences are, as we
see a proliferation of individuals entering into gambling, we know that
the raw number of individuals who are affected by problem gaming is
going to increase dramatically.
I will just say one more word about the second-degree amendment
before the Senate. I think the second-degree amendment creates a huge
loophole. In a sense, it creates a monopoly. It creates a monopoly for
one entity to use the Internet to provide gambling access and therefore
totally undermines the intent of the Kyl amendment.
I understand that there is a statute outlining procedures by which
these decisions are made. Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the
amendment of the Senator from Arizona which addresses the broader
issue. If we allow a significant exception for one entity, that one
entity, obviously, will take advantage of that loophole and we will
accomplish virtually nothing that the Senator is attempting to
accomplish.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the second-degree amendment and
support the underlying amendment by the Senator from Arizona which
addresses, as I said, only a part, but a very significant part, of the
problem, and particularly because it addresses the infusion and the
explosion of gambling that is entering the lives of our children and is
becoming accessible to them in ever easier ways, and particularly
through the Internet.
I urge my colleagues as we move toward a vote here to support the
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Craig's
second-degree amendment to the amendment proposed by Senator Kyl.
Mr. President, I am privileged to represent the State of Hawaii
together with Senator Akaka. The State of Hawaii is one of two States--
Utah being the other--where all forms of gaming, gambling, are
prohibited. To play bingo in Hawaii would be a crime. I support
Hawaii's position.
There have been countless attempts made to introduce gaming into our
islands, but in each case I am happy to report that the political
leaders of Hawaii have opposed it and we have prevailed. So it may
sound strange to some of my colleagues to see me standing here
supporting the second-degree amendment of Senator Craig.
Eleven years ago, there was a very important decision rendered by the
Supreme Court of the United States, the so-called Cabazon case. The
decision in the Cabazon case was a most important one, because it once
again declared clearly that Indian nations were sovereign. Our
Constitution declares that Indian nations are sovereign. The laws of
our land and the laws that we have passed in this Chamber have
consistently indicated that Indian country is sovereign, whether we
like it or not.
The Cabazon decision was a simple one. It said if a State does not
prohibit gaming, then it cannot prohibit gaming in Indian reservations.
California did not prohibit gaming. Therefore, the Cabazon Tribe had
the authority to do that.
Immediately, many of us in this Chamber saw the potential for utter
chaos in the United States if all of the Indian reservations rose as
one to claim their right under Cabazon to conduct gaming in the various
States. There would be no regulation, no supervision. Therefore, we
took it upon ourselves to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and we
did so not by consultation but by advice and by the recommendation of
how the law should read, from the States, the Governors, and the AGs of
the States, who told us how they wanted this law to be passed.
The law that is now regulating Indian gaming is the creature of the
States. We took away a bit of Indian sovereignty to bring this about
because, as we all know, the sovereignty of Indian country results in a
trust relationship between our Government and an Indian government; it
is not a relationship between Indian government and State government.
This Kyl amendment has an ambiguity because, on one hand, it says the
Feds will implement the law in Indian country, but there is another
provision that says the State government will enforce the provisions of
this amendment in Indian country.
What we have tried to do here is to simply carry out the intent of
the amendment as set forth by Senator Kyl.
I was very encouraged by the statement made in Senator Kyl's recent
``Dear Colleague'' letter in which he stated his amendment ``will
neither explicitly or implicitly amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act.''
Mr. President, Senator Craig's amendment is a very simple one. It
would simply accomplish what Senator Kyl has indicated as being his
intention. The amendment will accomplish two objectives: First, make
clear that gaming, which is lawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act, would not be rendered unlawful by the Kyl amendment. Secondly, the
amendment would conform the enforcement of Federal laws on Indian lands
to the Federal regulatory scheme that has been in place for over 100
years; namely, that the United States is, and will continue to be,
responsible for the enforcement of Federal criminal laws on Indian
lands.
The Craig amendment is necessary because the Kyl amendment will
otherwise shift the responsibility for the enforcement of this new
Federal criminal statute to the States. Mr. President, I don't think
that was the intention on the part of Senator Kyl.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree
amendment submitted by Senator Craig, because that will assure that
there is no unintentional effect of our action on the provisions of the
Kyl amendment on the lawful conduct of gaming on Indian lands.
Mr. President, if I had my way, I would recommend that gaming be
outlawed. With the Craig amendment, I will be supporting the Kyl
amendment to make certain that Internet gaming is not made wild and
widespread throughout this whole Nation and world. I urge my colleagues
to look upon the Craig amendment with seriousness. We do believe in
what our Constitution says and what the Supreme Court decision has so
declared.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been informed that the second degree
I sent to the desk needs a correction. I ask unanimous consent that
amendment No. 3268 be corrected as ordered in drafting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object. I am a little bit concerned that the hour of 9:30 is
approaching and we haven't had time to fully discuss the amendment the
Senator from Idaho has offered, the second-degree amendment. This is a
very significant amendment. If it passes, I will vote against the
amendment Senator Kyl and I have cosponsored.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, I recognize there is a
considerable need for more debate on this. I don't plan to vote on this
issue at 9:30. After we finish the votes in order, we will come back to
the Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig, and go forward from there.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think that would be all right.
Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could you
have a unanimous consent that we return to this immediately after the
vote on the last amendment? Would that be suitable?
Mr. GREGG. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that, upon completion of the
final vote in the series of votes beginning at 9:30, we return to the
Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to ask
the Senator from Idaho a question. Is that a technical correction or a
substantial change? In other words, we need to know what it is that we
are talking about if the Senator has submitted a correction.
[[Page S8768]]
Mr. CRAIG. It is a technical correction. The intent of the amendment
is as originally presented to you.
Mr. KYL. We need to have a copy of that, obviously. I will not
object.
Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to provide that. I made the mistake of
amending the Bryan amendment and, as a result, now I have amended your
amendment, as amended. That is the appropriate way to do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to associate
myself, as we say, with the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii. I am
probably only the second person who is going to rise today who opposes
gambling. My State has decided to go that route. I have taken an
unpopular position in my State. Fortunately, I am not Governor, I am a
Senator, and everybody knows we don't pay attention to Senators back in
the State--at least in my case.
I do support the Craig amendment on the grounds stated by the Senator
from Hawaii. It seems to me that what the Craig amendment does is
exactly what the Senator from Hawaii has stated, which is that it makes
it clear that the intention stated by my friend from Arizona is in fact
met, that it does not in fact directly, or indirectly, by inference or
otherwise, amend IGRA.
It seems to me that, on a larger principle, we are always all too
ready, in the 25 years I have been here, to say we believe in the
sovereignty of the Indian nations. And we are very ready, whenever they
do anything we don't like, to conclude that we in fact do not recognize
and should not recognize their sovereignty. Further, we add insult to
injury and the only time we treat them as sovereign nations is when we
are handing out money, when we have programs. One of the exceptions in
the crime bill is that Indian nations can apply for police officers
directly, just like the State of Delaware, or the town of Wilmington,
or the county of Columbus could do so.
So I find it somewhat interesting when, in fact, we find it in our
interest--meaning we are not going to spend money--to recognize the
sovereignty of Indian nations--we are ready to do that. But when Indian
nations want to do something that somehow is viewed as impinging upon
another interest in a State in which the Indian nation happens to be
located, we are all ready to say, no, no, no, let's hold up.
I will not take any more time, in light of the hour. We are about to
vote. I agree fully with the Senator from Hawaii. I share his view
about gambling generally, and I share his view about the Craig
amendment specifically.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to make something very clear since the
Senator from Delaware is still on the floor.
The Senator from Idaho has proposed an amendment that is a poison
pill. I want to make it very clear that if by some chance it should
pass, I will urge all of my colleagues to vote against my bill, because
what it will do is create a monopoly. Indian tribes will be the only
people in the country that will be permitted to engage in Internet
gambling. Offshore casinos, virtual casinos, and Indian tribes would be
able to do it; no other citizen would be allowed to do it. This is not
a violation of IGRA. We do not provide for State enforcement unless an
Indian tribe has already agreed by compact to do that.
So I want to make it clear. I will read to you two sentences from a
letter from the National Association of Attorneys General. I want the
Senator from Delaware to listen to these words and to appreciate that
this activity is illegal; it will be illegal for all Americans, and I
think the last thing we want to do is create a situation in which one
group of Americans can do this and nobody else can. This is a letter to
Acting Chairman Deer and Commissioners Foley and Hogen of the National
Indian Gaming Commission with respect to this issue:
We are writing to you to express our strong opposition to
and legal analysis regarding the use of the Internet for the
purpose of engaging in gaming activity allegedly under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). The undersigned
have concluded that such gaming is not authorized by IGRA.
That is signed by all of the attorneys general, including the
attorneys general of Hawaii and Idaho and, as I said, all of the other
attorneys general.
I have practiced law for 20 years. I am very familiar with the law in
this area. I am not misreading the law. With all due respect to our
colleagues from Idaho and Hawaii--and I love them both, and they are
great and fine Senators--on this matter, in my opinion, they are simply
not correct. The effect of their amendment is so bad, as I said, it is
a poison pill. It is so bad that I would have to urge all of my
colleagues to vote against this amendment that Senator Bryan and I have
proposed.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
Amendment No. 3257
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is that the hour of 9:30
having arrived, under the previous order the pending question is the
amendment numbered 3257 offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr.
McCain. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
completion of the McCain amendment that votes on further amendments
that are in this stacked group be limited to 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COATS. Reserving the right to object, I don't intend to object. I
ask the manager of the bill if he could give us some indication of what
his intention is this evening relative to the schedule. How many votes
will we have? After this series of votes, it is my understanding that
we are going to return to the Kyl amendment for further debate. Does
that mean further votes this evening?
Mr. GREGG. It is my expectation that what will occur is we will have
maybe a minimum of five votes during this sequence, and potentially
six. At the completion of that, we will go back to the Kyl amendment,
as amended, by Craig. We will debate that until it is in a position to
be voted on. Then we will vote on it. Then we will go on to the next
amendment on this bill, and we will vote on that.
Mr. COATS. Is it the Senator's intention that we will stay on this
bill this evening until this bill is completed?
Mr. GREGG. It is my hope--I know it is the hope of the ranking
member--that we can work out a unanimous consent to be more
accommodating to our colleagues. But that unanimous consent has not
been agreed to. Our hope would be to get a unanimous consent where all
the pending amendments to the bill, of which we have agreements on the
list, to be debated tonight and then voted tomorrow. However, as of now
there are objections to that unanimous consent. As long as there are
objections, it is my intention to proceed on with votes.
Mr. COATS. So we will be here until at least 11 p.m. voting, and
maybe not even be voting yet on the Kyl-Craig amendment.
Mr. GREGG. My expectation is that we will be voting until 11 p.m. on
this sequence, and further debate on Kyl-Craig, which I presume will
take another hour, and we will be voting on that, unless we can get
agreement on unanimous consent requests, which the Senator from South
Carolina and I have asked both our colleagues to support us on, which
would be to allow debate on all pending amendments, of which we have a
list, tonight with votes to occur stacked tomorrow morning.
Mr. COATS. Absent that, my last point, as a consequence we will
continue this evening?
Mr. GREGG. That is correct. That is my intention.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I withdraw any objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has all time been yielded?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be
yielded on the McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Arizona. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
[[Page S8769]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hutchinson
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
NAYS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3257) was rejected.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now on amendment No.
3261, offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 3256
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the Thompson amendment, No. 3256,
be agreed to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3256) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the Senators are trying to get some
idea of how this will go from here on. I have been working with Senator
Daschle.
Mr. President, we have four more votes in this stacked sequence,
which will take us a good portion of the next hour. We are trying to
work an agreement whereby we would then, at the conclusion of this
series of votes, go back to the Kyl amendment and have the debate on
that concluded tonight, with a vote occurring at 9 in the morning. Then
we would get an agreement that all other amendments and final passage
occur by noon tomorrow.
I think that is reasonable. Senator Daschle is working with me to see
if we can get everybody to agree to that. We are trying to find a way
to give you some reasonable night tonight and get this to a conclusion.
I do not want to prejudge amendments that are being offered, but I
really think we have reached a point where we need to get a conclusion.
If we do not put an end to it, it will go on and on and on, on this
bill. The alternative is to go back to Kyl and vote on that and to have
other votes. I still have the luxury of going to the Executive
Calendar, if all else fails, and have some votes on that.
We need cooperation so Senators can make progress so the rest of us
can get a decent night's sleep and so we can complete this bill
tomorrow. I am not going to ask that right now, to give both of us time
to work with those who have amendments, but I think that is a very
reasonable arrangement, so I hope all of our colleagues will help us by
talking to other colleagues who might have amendments, and I hope we
can get this worked out by the next vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Amendment No. 3261, as Modified
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, they are being
asked to vote in just a couple of minutes on what I think is an
extremely important amendment. We move the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction
Initiative, that is now a demonstration project in Philadelphia,
nationwide over a period of 5 years. With the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, working with counties, States and local law
enforcement agencies, to provide information on the illegal activity of
firearms in communities, to create adult, juvenile and youth illegal
firearm activities, identify them and control them, to make firearm
violations Federal violations prosecutable and move it in that
direction.
Mr. President, if this Senate wants to move against youth violence
with the misuse of firearms, this is a major initiative and a major
step in that direction. I hope my colleagues will work with us as we
expand this from 17 demonstration projects to 50 to 75 to 150 across
the Nation in high-crime areas going directly at juveniles and the
misuse of firearms and prosecuting felons who use firearms in the
commission of a crime, which is already a Federal violation of law, but
now goes unprosecuted.
I hope my colleagues can join with me in supporting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator
from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I started in opposition to this amendment,
but I now rise in support of this amendment. I think the Senator from
Idaho is right. I think we should adopt this amendment with an
overwhelming margin, and I believe he was right yesterday during the
course of the debate when he said:
A general firearm safety rule that must be applied to all
conditions is that a firearm should be stored so that it is
not accessible to untrained and unauthorized people.
The Senator went on to say:
Proper storage of firearms is the responsibility of every
gun owner.
The next amendment after we adopt the Craig amendment will give us a
chance to adopt a children's access prevention law which says to every
gun owner in America, you have the right to bear arms; you have the
responsibility to store them safely. I urge all my colleagues to vote
with Senator Craig and then support the Durbin-Chafee amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in light of the Senator's statement, I ask
unanimous consent that the yeas and nays on this amendment be vitiated
and that the amendment be agreed to my unanimous consent.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Craig
amendment No. 3261, as modified.
The amendment (No. 3261), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3260
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the amendment by
the Senator from Illinois No. 3260. Who yields time?
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield a minute to my
colleague and cosponsor, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. I urge my
colleagues to understand that 15 States have enacted these laws to
protect children. We all read about these horrible situations in
Jonesboro, in Springfield, in Pearl, MS. Let us not just lament this
situation, let us do something about it.
Gun owners understand their responsibility. That is why the NRA
supported this law in its enactment in five different States. We can do
this tonight to save children's lives.
I yield my remaining time to my colleague from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate. Senators will take their
conversations off the floor of the Senate.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is clearly recognized that if you own a
pit bull and it is recognized as dangerous, you better control that pit
bull. And if that pit bull slips away and injures, severely mauls a
child, you are liable. So it is with guns. If you leave a gun lying
[[Page S8770]]
around that a juvenile gets to and that juvenile causes severe damage
with that gun either to himself or to another individual, then you are
to be liable, likewise.
If you are liable for a pit bull, you certainly ought to be liable
for a dangerous weapon like a rifle or a handgun that is left lying
around. If you keep it under lock and key, that is a different matter,
you are not liable. I urge everyone to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators, don't be fooled
by this amendment. For the first time, we take the victim, the person
who has had his or her firearm stolen, and we make them the criminal.
For the first time, we say you can become a Federal criminal without
ever being involved in the crime. That is what this amendment does.
Don't fall for the analogy of the pit bull. If the pit bull is
chained in the backyard, and there is a fence around the yard, and the
yard is locked and somebody gets in that yard and inside the circle of
the pit bull and is injured, it is not the owner's fault. That is the
law.
I hope you can join with me in opposing this. Don't make the victim
the criminal. Don't say that the person should become a Federal
criminal who is not even associated with the crime.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 3260, offered by the Senator from
Illinois, Mr. Durbin. The yeas and nays have been ordered on this
question. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--31
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3260) was agreed
to.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3263
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the Bumpers
amendment numbered 3263, with 2 minutes equally divided.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if you vote no on this amendment, you
should be prepared to go home and say to your constituents that you
really don't believe in privacy. When we have a law in this country
that allows people to tape-record a conversation with you and only they
know it is being taped and you don't and that is quite legal, we no
longer have any privacy in this country. How do you explain that to
your constituents?
This bill would make it a criminal offense, as Janet Reno said she
favored in Florida, as 15 States have already adopted. We
overwhelmingly passed a law to make it a criminal offense to intercept
a cellular phone call. What I am trying to do is to extend that to the
old archaic rule--think of this, think of this. You can be talking to a
person who is your best friend; he or she can be tape-recording that
conversation and publish it on the front page of the New York Times or
the Washington Post, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
I have exempted law enforcement; I have exempted intelligence
agencies; I have exempted everybody who has to make telephone calls in
their business; I have exempted people who are threatened or stalked.
Please, let's correct this once and for all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, usually I have some empathy for what my
colleague is saying, but this amendment requires both parties to
consent before phone calls are being taped. This hasn't been debated
before the Judiciary Committee and involves all kinds of ramifications.
It is setting a Federal standard where one is not needed, because
many States now allow taping by one party. It is brought up only after
the Linda Tripp situation.
I frankly think it is the wrong thing to do. We are willing to look
at this, but we are willing to look into this on the Judiciary
Committee, and we certainly will do it. But I think it is the wrong
thing to do right now. I don't believe we should federalize this at
this point.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I offered this amendment in 1984 when
Charles Wick, head of the United States Information Agency, said that
he had taped 84 phone calls, including Reagan, Cabinet Members,
President Carter. I offered it then, and I got 41 votes. I offered it
again in 1993. Linda Tripp has nothing to do with this.
This is plain decency. It is constitutional. It is an invasion of
your privacy for somebody to record a conversation of you and you not
know it.
It is offensive in the extreme.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.
The way to do this is not to federalize it. Let's at least not impose
something on the States without full committee hearings before the
Judiciary Committee and find out what should be done.
I am not necessarily saying I am rejecting what the Senator said, but
I have to reject it under these circumstances. I hope we will reject
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I remind the Members, this is a 10-minute
vote, and the faster we can get it done, the faster we can get out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as
follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Conrad
Coverdell
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
[[Page S8771]]
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 3263) was rejected.
Motion to Table Motion to Reconsider
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the motion to reconsider debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is not debatable.
Mr. BUMPERS. Has a motion to table been made, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to reconsider.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed
to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent
request now. If we can get this worked out, then we will have one
remaining vote tonight.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
Unanimous Consent Request
Mr. LOTT. If we can get this unanimous consent agreement worked out,
then there will be one remaining vote tonight and then the first
recorded vote will be about 9:20, I believe, in the morning. Then we
will go on to other issues with time limits, and we will probably have
another series of stacked votes on over in the morning after
consultation with the managers, if that would be all right.
I ask unanimous consent that following the next vote, the Senate
resume the pending Craig amendment to the Kyl amendment and a vote
occur on or in relation to the Craig amendment at 9:15 on Thursday,
with 10 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to the vote.
I further ask that following the vote in relation to the Craig
amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Kyl amendment,
as amended. I further ask, following the Kyl amendment, the following
amendments be the only amendments to be offered to the pending
legislation other than the managers' amendment, with no second-degree
amendments in order, and limited to the times, where specified, all to
be equally divided.
The list is as follows: A Nickles amendment regarding defense
attorneys, 10 minutes; a Bingaman amendment regarding trademark and
Indian tribes, 20 minutes; a Bumpers amendment regarding immigrant
investor program, 20 minutes; a Kerrey of Nebraska amendment regarding
copper, 40 minutes; a Kerry of Massachusetts amendment regarding
Vietnam, 20 minutes; a Wellstone amendment regarding abuse of immigrant
spouses, 30 minutes; a Hatch amendment regarding gun prosecutions, 20
minutes; a Grams amendment regarding criminal court, 10 minutes; a
Grams amendment regarding U.S. nationals, 10 minutes; a Grams amendment
regarding budget certification, U.N., 10 minutes; a Smith of Oregon
amendment regarding guest workers, 10 minutes.
I further ask that following the debate on the above-listed
amendments, the Senate proceed to vote in a stacked sequence, with 2
minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to each vote, and
following those stacked votes, Senator Gregg be recognized to offer the
managers' amendment, and following its disposition, all other
provisions of the previous consent agreement with respect to the
passage vote then occur.
Before the Chair puts this to a question, I thank Senator Daschle for
his cooperation in getting reasonable time agreements here. I think
maybe some of these amendments would actually require less time than
has been identified. But we are trying to make sure that all Senators
have the time that they need.
Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from California had made a
request that she be on that list, as had the Senator from New Jersey.
The Senator from California had asked for a half-hour on her amendment.
She is continuing to negotiate with the managers. The Senator from New
Jersey had asked for an amendment, 10 minutes as well.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, if we could get 20
minutes on the guest worker, with the possibility of a second-degree
amendment and 30 minutes evenly divided on the second-degree amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I hear additional amendments which
would require second-degree amendments beginning to evolve here. The
alternative is, we go ahead and keep voting tonight. We have had plenty
of debate here. I would like to find a way that we can get this
completed at a reasonable hour tomorrow.
Does the Senator from California have something worked out that I
could include in this request?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. If I could have a half-hour.
Mr. LOTT. The problem with all of these is that if we have them
offered, then second degrees would be requested by others. So if we
can't get this agreed to, then I think we will just have to go on with
this vote and keep going tonight.
Now, we can work during this vote and see if we can work it out. But
it is 30 minutes for first degree, 30 minutes for a second degree, and
there is no end to it. We have tried to work up a reasonable agreement
here.
I would like for Senators to work during this vote. We cannot tell
you this is the last vote now. So you are not going to be able to vote
and leave unless we can get something worked out very quickly.
Any other reservations we need to be made aware of here?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as they say, reserving the right to object,
I don't think there is a problem; we may be able to work it out. But
you mentioned two amendments Senator Grams of Minnesota has regarding
the United Nations. If we can't work out the second one relating to
U.N. arms, I would want a second-degree amendment, or else I would
object.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let's proceed to vote.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request has been withdrawn.
[[Page S8772]]
Amendment No. 3264
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Wisconsin. There is 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment simply states what we all
know to be true, and that is that cable rates across the country have
risen steadily since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And there is
virtually no competition in the industry. The amendment instructs the
FCC to report to us whether this situation is consistent with the FCC's
responsibilities, which it still has until March of 1999, to make sure
that cable TV rates are reasonable. If not, the amendment asks the FCC
to give us an action plan; in other words, what is it going to do to
carry out its duties?
This is an amendment designed to hold the FCC accountable. We gave it
a mission to promote competition and ensure that the rates are
reasonable. The American people deserve to know why the agency has not
succeeded. The amendment is supported by the Consumers Union and will
be a signal whether this body is content to see cable rates rise as
high as three to four times the rate of inflation, as has happened
during the past year.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this simple amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The time of the Senator has
expired. Who yields time?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds and give the other
30 seconds to the Senator from Montana.
This is not the time or place to take such action which would
represent the beginning of cable reregulation. Mr. President, I hope my
good friend from Wisconsin will withdraw the amendment and testify
before the Commerce Committee next Tuesday, where we are examining the
issue of cable rates. This is not the place to have this kind of
amendment, which has such profound effects. It requires separate
legislation. I understand his problem, but this is not the solution.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am concerned that the Feingold amendment
is an inappropriate attempt to continue excessive government regulation
of the cable industry. I believe that additional reports on the
industry by the Federal Communications Commission would be an
unnecessary waster of taxpayer money. Furthermore, any efforts to deal
with cable rates should be dealt with in the upcoming hearing we have
scheduled before the Commerce Committee this Tuesday.
The Cable Bureau is largely a product of the 1992 Cable Act. I
opposed that Act because I believed it was overly regulatory and heavy
handed. I believe that my concerns were proven to be correct. However,
in 1996, Congress responded to some of the excesses of the 1992 Act and
to the growing competitiveness of the marketplace by adopting several
Cable Act reform provisions as part of the Telecommunications Act.
The aim of the Telecommunications Act as it related to cable services
was to provide increased choices at lower cost by opening up
historically monopolistic, regulated markets to new entrants. In
return, cable operators would be allowed to enter new communications
markets such as telephone and information services. As we move beyond
traditional models of monopolies and excessive regulation to a climate
of open competition, exciting new educational and commercial
opportunities are beginning to appear.
I am also very concerned about the recent spate of increases in cable
rates. However, the answer to increasing rates is not found in ever-
increasing government regulation but in providing for increased
consumer choice. Rather than engaging in micromanaging the rate-
structure of the cable systems, government should create a level
playing field where new entrants can compete effectively with incumbent
providers.
It was for this reason that I must oppose further misguided efforts
to engage the government in regulating cable rates.
Mr. President, this issue has been studied to death. When this
Congress decided to deregulate the cable industry, it was to expand
services and enhance services of the cable industry. That has happened.
If you look at the services and the expanded television coverage that
we have now on cable as compared to as near as 5 years ago, you would
see a big difference in the services that you receive today.
There is a hearing on next Tuesday. We invite the Senator from
Wisconsin to testify. This is no place to deal with this situation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the
motion to table. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
The result was announced, yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
NAYS--36
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Mack
boys and girls club capital flagship club
Mr. HATCH. I would like to engage the distinguished manager of the
bill, Senator Gregg, in a colloquy.
Mr. GREGG. I would be pleased to respond to the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee on a matter that I know is of great importance to
him.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the floor manager and subcommittee chairman.
I was pleased that the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary
appropriations bill as reported to the Senate included an increase of
$20,000,000 over current levels for the Boys and Girls Clubs, bringing
total funding for this outstanding organization to $40,000,000 in
fiscal year 1999.
As the chairman knows, I support additional funding in his bill to
allow the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Washington and the national
organization to establish a state-of-the-art national capital flagship
Boys and Girls Club facility in Washington, DC, near the Capitol.
Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the Senator's deep interest in this
meritorious project and for his longstanding support of the Boys and
Girls Clubs.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
Although there is no clarifying language contained in the Senate
committee report regarding how the additional $20,000,000 over last
year's level would be utilized by the Boys and Girls Clubs, I would
hope that the committee's intent was that a significant portion of
those additional Boys and Girls Clubs appropriations would be used to
cover the cost of establishing the national capital flagship club
facility in the Nation's Capital at a site to be selected by the Boys
and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington in consultation with the national
organization.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator and chairman of the Judiciary Committee is
absolutely correct. The additional
[[Page S8773]]
$20,000,000 provided in our bill for the Boys and Girls Clubs was in
part to cover the cost of the proposed national capital flagship club
facility in Washington and for other purposes. It is my understanding
that at least $6,000,000 will be require for the site, design and
construction of the proposed flagship facility and that amount would be
covered by these additional funds.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for
that clarification and I deeply appreciate his strong support for the
national capital flagship club facility in Washington. The flagship
club will be run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington in
concert with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and will provide a
prototype, technology-based club facility to help troubled youth both
here and around the nation.
Mr. GREGG. I look forward to working with the Senator to make sure
that this flagship project is fully funded and that the Office of
Justice programs carries out this project effectively, beginning in
fiscal year 1999.
FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE 2000 CENSUS
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the bi-
partisan leaders of the appropriations subcommittee, Chairman Gregg and
Senator Hollings, for providing adequate funding to allow the Census
Bureau's census 2000 plan to proceed. The funding will permit the
census professionals to continue their plan to guarantee that everyone
in every city and rural area will be counted.
I ask that when this Appropriations bill goes to conference with the
House that the Senate conferees stand united against any effort to
reduce the decennial census funding level or micro-manage the
professional census gathering process.
I am very concerned about the critical 2000 census, because I believe
Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings will face a difficult conference
with the House. Contrary to the Senate plan, the House funds the Census
Bureau for only six months, crippling the bureau and denying the census
professionals the tools they believe will help them conduct the most
accurate 2000 census possible.
The House leadership has also challenged the Census Bureau sampling
plan in federal court, asserting it violates the United States
Constitution. The federal court should proceed with their review, but
the Census Bureau professionals need to proceed with their plan, which
represents the best efforts of census professionals and academics to
measure the population.
Before we look forward to conference, I would like to briefly look
back and put the current sampling dispute in its historical context.
Regrettably, the public debate over the 2000 census has been dominated
by the use of sampling, a simple, statistical method proposed by the
Census Bureau to count the historically ``difficult to count''
populations of the nation's urban and rural poor. The Bureau's sampling
plan was developed in direct response to the unprecedented census error
rates in 1990, the first census in US history to be both more costly
and less accurate than the census that preceded it.
Why is an accurate census important for the nation? The decennial
census is the basis for distributing funds throughout the country for
more than one hundred federal programs.
Is the local police force eligible for federal grants for
cops on the beat or drug education programs? Check the
census, which sets eligibility for Byrne grants, DARE funds
or community policing grants.
How about education funds for schools? The census
determines title one or title two education grants.
How about funds for homelessness, mass transit or other
transportation funds? Again, the census determines state and
local government eligibility for Social Services block grant
money, highway and mass transit grants.
What about health care for low-income families? Again, the
census helps set state Medicaid reimbursement levels.
The census is instrumental for the effective administration of
government at all levels, providing the basis for distributing billions
of dollars throughout the country through hundreds of programs. The
nation cannot afford the error rates and inaccuracy experienced in the
1990 census.
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
concluded the 1990 census failed to count about 15 million Americans,
while an additional 11 million Americans were double-counted. The
California population was undercounted by more than 2.7%, representing
20% of the nation's net undercount.
If we squander this opportunity for reform and the 2000 census proves
to be equally inaccurate as its 1990 predecessor, between 5 and 6
million individuals, would be ``missed.'' If we do not reform our
census plan, 1 to 1.2 million Californians, 3% of the state's
population, will fail to be counted. If the census misses 1 million
people in California, about 300,000 children will not be counted,
depressing state education funding and seriously compromising education
in the state.
Mr. President, concerns for undercounting the United States
population are as old as the nation itself. Thomas Jefferson,
transmitting the first census to President Washington, commented, ``we
know in fact that the omissions have been very great.'' However, the
Census Bureau sampling plan, which enjoys the support of the National
Academy of Sciences, academics and census professionals, is a reasoned
response to the unprecedented error rates of the 1990 census. Congress
cannot make the same mistake again.
The Census Bureau plan needs to go forward. It's time to allow the
census professionals to implement their best plan to improve on the
1990 undercount and deliver the most accurate 2000 census possible.
I thank the chairman, Senator Gregg, and ranking Democrat, Senator
Hollings, for their efforts and extend my continuing support.
iraq war crimes tribunal
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues, Chairman
Gregg and Senator Hollings, for including in this legislation $5
million to cover initial costs of establishing a War Crimes Tribunal
for prosecution of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi government officials
for crimes committed during the Gulf War and afterward.
I sought these funds in a letter to Chairman Gregg dated April 24,
1998, because I believe it is critical that we have the prosecutorial
infrastructure in place to deal with Iraqi war crimes. I also noted in
my letter that every effort must be made to obtain contributions from
our allies and other U.N. member countries for this vital effort.
I look forward to working with my colleagues as this bill moves
forward to ensure that these funds are retained in Conference.
OECD
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues
attention to the excellent work being done by an important
international organization--the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). Since 1961, when it was founded, the OECD has
worked to open up and help develop the world economy, not only for its
member states but also for those nations outside the OECD area.
We live in an era when the term global economy is redundant. There is
one economy, and it is global. And one of the things we need as a
nation to keep us competitive is accurate, up-to-date information. We
also need a forum in which to work with other nations equally committed
to economic openness to achieve the highest sustainable growth and
standard of living. That is what the OECD is all about: helping its
member nations achieve a better standard of living and higher
sustainable growth rate by providing a forum for the exchange of
information and policy prescriptions.
While the OECD has 29 member nations, its reach is global. For
example, for a number of years, the OECD had in place the Center for
Cooperation with the Economies in Transition (CCET). The CCET was
initiated by the U.S. as a result of an amendment I introduced to the
SEED Act. My colleagues will recall the SEED Act was designed to help
the economies of Central and Eastern Europe build market economies.
Well the work of the CCET was so successful, that three nations from
that region--Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic--have become
members of the OECD.
Now, the OECD has revised its approach to helping non-member nations
to reach beyond the CEE nations. For example, the OECD does a lot work
with Russia. It is also closely following the Chinese economy. It has
been part
[[Page S8774]]
of the team of international organizations and governments who have
been working on what to do about the economic crisis in Asia.
The OECD's work is not limited to handling macroeconomic issues. It
works on a number of other key economic areas. The Convention to combat
Bribery and Corruption is an example of an important OECD initiative.
It is also taking the lead on helping governments can best respond to
the rapidly changing world of electronic commerce. It is involved with
issues relating to regulatory reform, corporate governance, and
sustainable development to name a few.
But perhaps what really distinguishes the OECD from other
international organizations is its internal reform efforts. The OECD
has undertaken on its own, a significant reform effort. Specifically,
it has pledged to cut its overall spending by 10% during the three year
period beginning in 1996. It is well on its way toward reaching this.
So far that has meant a loss of 180 staff, more than 10% of its total.
It is my understanding that the subcommittee has decided to use a
formula to cut the budgets of international organizations that have
administrative costs above 15%. But the data it is using is based on a
1997 State Department study that only goes up to 1995. The OECD has
told me that it has brought down administrative costs to about 12.4% of
its budget.
I agree with the committee's goal of trying to get international
organizations to make necessary reforms and reductions. The era of big
government ought to be over not only at home but with international
organizations as well. The OECD is a good story. It has reformed on its
own. My fear is that if despite all its efforts to enact cuts, the
Congress calls for further arbitrary cuts of the OECD based on data
that is not up-to-date, then it will undermine the reformers in the
organization who share our goal of getting international organizations
to be ``leaner and meaner.''
I, therefore, urge the committee and the Administration to fully fund
the OECD at the request level made by the Administration. Let's show
that we are willing to reward and encourage organizations like the OECD
that make real reforms.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
unanimous consent agreement
Mr. LOTT. Again, Mr. President, I thank Members for the cooperation
we have been receiving. We have worked out time agreements on which I
believe we can get a unanimous consent agreement. Let me read the whole
thing once again. We have made changes.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the pending Craig
amendment to the Kyl amendment and that a vote occur on, or in relation
to, the Craig amendment at 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, with 10 minutes for
closing remarks, to be equally divided. I further ask unanimous consent
that following the vote in relation to the Craig amendment, the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment, as amended, with 2
minutes equally divided prior to the vote.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the Kyl amendment, the
following amendments be the only remaining amendments to be offered to
the pending legislation, other than the managers' amendments, with no
second-degree amendments in order, unless specified, and limited to the
times where specified, all to be equally divided.
The list is as follows: Senator Nickless amendment regarding defense
attorneys, 10 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 20 minutes; Senator Bumpers,
20 minutes; Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, 40 minutes; Senator Kerry of
Massachusetts, 20 minutes; Senator Wellstone amendment for 30 minutes;
Senator Hatch amendment, 20 minutes; the first Grams amendment for 10
minutes regarding criminal courts; a second Grams amendment regarding
U.S. nationals for 10 minutes, with a possible second-degree amendment
by Senator Biden with 10 minutes; a Senator Grams amendment regarding
budget certification for 10 minutes; Senator Smith of Oregon amendment
regarding guest workers with 20 minutes, with a second-degree amendment
for 20 minutes by Senator Kennedy. We are still hoping they can work
this out. If this matter is not resolved, we will have an amendment by
Senator Daschle on this subject for 10 minutes, and an amendment by
Senator Lott for 10 minutes. Also, a Torricelli amendment regarding
nonpoint source, 20 minutes; a Lieberman amendment regarding Asian
financial crisis, 20 minutes; and a Lautenberg amendment regarding
police cars, 20 minutes.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the
above-listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote in a stacked
sequence, with 2 minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to each
vote, and following those stacked votes Senator Gregg be recognized to
offer the managers' amendment, and following its disposition, all other
provisions of the previous consent agreement with respect to the
passage vote then occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. In light of this agreement, then, thanks again for the
cooperation of all Senators. There will be no further votes tonight.
The next vote will occur at approximately 9:15 a.m. in the morning,
perhaps slipping a minute or two to 9:20 on Thursday, and then a series
of votes to be announced at a specified time later in the morning on
Thursday.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Amendment No. 3268
Mr. GREGG. As I understand it, under the previous order we are now to
return to the Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig, for debate with the
votes to occur tomorrow morning. I ask unanimous consent that the
debate on this amendment, for this evening's purposes, be limited to 20
minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
Mr. KYL. Ten minutes per side is fine for me. Five minutes per side
is fine with me.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 minutes, 5 minutes
on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think many of us have spoken tonight to
the issue of Internet gaming and our opposition to it; most assuredly,
our opposition to unregulated offshore Internet gaming. The Senator
from Arizona has brought forth an amendment that controls that, in
fact, prohibits that. But it also prohibits something else that we in
the Congress and law, by agreements, treaties with American Indians,
have said is separate, should be, and should be regulated. And we have
said Indian gaming should be regulated. And it is. But the Senator from
Arizona has made the exception as it relates to any Indian gaming on
the Internet. I am saying, that is an intrusion that should not be
allowed.
Regulate? Absolutely. Control? Absolutely. Build and maintain a
tribal-State compact? Absolutely. We have wrestled with this issue over
the years. When I was in the House, I worked with a Congresswoman from
Nevada. We were outruled by the courts. The Senator from Hawaii has
clearly spoken to the issue of the courts.
What I am saying is that I sense there is a clear and important
division. Through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress
established a clear and precise law governing all forms of Indian
gaming. And I think it is important that I repeat that--all forms of
Indian gaming. Authority to regulate Indian gaming was given by
Congress to the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission.
I believe the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and IGRA. I do not
believe we can ignore that as a Congress. The Kyl bill does this in a
number of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming
operations, and overrides and nullifies existing State-tribal compacts.
My amendment simply sets the issue of Indian gaming aside as it
pertains to that. But it recognizes, as I think we all should, that
Indian gaming via the Internet ought to be regulated and it ought to be
controlled. And that is exactly what is happening today.
So I hope that for any of my colleagues who might be listening this
[[Page S8775]]
late into the evening, that we could revisit this for a short time
tomorrow, because the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act by Senator Kyl
goes in and amends section 1084 of the Federal Wire Act to include
lotteries. It is excluded there today. Decisions have been rendered on
behalf of Indians as it relates to this in Federal courts. We think
this is the appropriate decision, and it exempts them currently. And
they are regulated now.
This is not an unregulated activity that I advocate by this
amendment. It is a fully regulated activity under Federal law, under
the Indian gaming laws as controlled by the National Indian Gaming
Commission. That is the appropriate intent of this amendment.
I retain the balance of my time.
Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I yield from the time 1 minute.
I wish that I had 1 hour. This could be the most important thing we
debate in this session of Congress. Yes, there is Indian gambling. Yes,
there is some limited gambling on the Internet. The wording in this
amendment can change the national flow. This can provide for a national
lottery by an Internet monopoly--an Internet monopoly. This could
eliminate the grocery store sales in each person's State that allows a
lottery at the present time, because it would be much easier to pick it
up on the Internet.
There is a good reason why gambling is limited to on premises for the
most part. That is so you can enforce the age requirements. That is so
you can check on the different kinds of gaming that there are, so you
can check on the dollar limits that there are, so you can audit the
process. The Internet is not something you can audit. This will not be
a protection for any of the States.
Some of our States have had a referendum on whether we want any kind
of local gambling, whether we want any kind of State gambling. And it
has lost 2 to 1. We do not want gambling in Wyoming. But there is no
protection against gambling in Wyoming. There is no protection on age
in Wyoming. So kids can take parents' credit cards, get into this
national lottery and violate State law.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to make very clear what is at issue
here. If you oppose kids gambling on the Internet, then you are with
Senator Kyl and the Senator from Nevada. We think that is a disastrous
policy for American families. Your 10-year-old child can dial up a site
on the web and gamble without you knowing it and without any ability to
control it. So the Kyl-Bryan amendment opposes Internet gambling in
America for everyone.
Now, if that policy makes sense to you, and I think it makes sense
for American families, then you have to oppose the amendment offered by
the Senator from Idaho who says, in effect, Internet gambling should be
prohibited for everyone except Indian tribes.
Now, what logic is that that a child in Utah, which is prohibited
from all forms of gaming, would be able to surf the web, access the
Indian gaming site in Idaho, and be able to participate over the
Internet. That makes no sense at all. I think most families, if they
were tuned into the debate tonight, would say Kyl and Bryan are
correct, we don't want our kids on the Internet, and we believe it
ought to be prohibited.
Senator Craig's amendment would emasculate that by saying the Indian
tribes have an exception. No compact in America, none entered into by
any Governor, any State or Indian tribe, authorizes Internet gambling.
None. And no court in America, State or Federal, has ever held that
Indian tribes are entitled to gamble on the Internet at such web sites.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a few moments ago you talked about this
destroying lottery systems. The national Indian lottery is up and
operating today, and State lotteries are not falling by the wayside. In
fact, they are stronger than ever in their level of participation. They
are as tightly regulated as is this national lottery. That is the
reality with which we talk about this, tightly regulated control.
Do I advocate 10-year-olds using this? I do not, and they cannot.
There is a screening process. They would be in violation of it. They
would have to go through all of the procedures of an adult. Yes, I
guess if they stole their parent's credit card in the first instance it
might work; in the second, it would not. Any winnings would be repealed
and they might be in violation of the law.
So you can talk about scare tactics, if you will. The reality is we
have a national Indian lottery today that is deemed legal on the
Internet. The amendment by Senator Kyl attempts to make it illegal.
That is the reality with which we are dealing. I suggest that any
effort to talk about great fears and scare tactics just doesn't fit
because it is tightly, tightly controlled.
What the Senator from Arizona talks about, about offshore, I agree
with an unlimited approach in an unregulated way. That is what is
important. That is what my amendment does. We should allow Indian
gaming to be regulated under Federal law as it currently is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond, then, to my friend from
Idaho. First, let me begin by saying that the Presiding Officer, when
he spoke a few minutes ago, I think hit the nail right on the head. The
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wyoming, pointed out that it didn't
really matter who conducts the activity on the Internet. Whether it is
an Indian tribe or an offshore virtual casino, the result is the same
for the people of the State which has established the public policy of
protecting its people from such activity. You can't do it. You can't
protect your citizens.
The State of Wyoming has made that decision, and yet if the Indians
were allowed an exemption under this bill, they would be permitted to
run Internet gambling operations, they could reach every citizen in
every State and every young person in every State, as the Presiding
Officer pointed out.
No one is allowed to do that today. No one would be allowed to do
that under the legislation, but under the Craig amendment, a special
exception would be made for the Indians. The Senator from Idaho argues
that it is legal for the tribes to do that. In this he is simply wrong.
Again, let me quote from a letter from all 50 attorneys general,
including the attorney general of Idaho, on this exact point. They are
writing to the National Indian Gaming Commission.
We are writing to you to express our strong opposition to
and legal analysis regarding the use of the Internet for the
purpose of engaging in gaming activity allegedly under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998. The undersigned have
concluded that such gaming is not authorized by IGRA. [One of
the reasons, I might say, contained in the next sentence] As
you know, under IGRA, gaming activity is allowed only on
Indian lands.
This goes beyond that. It goes to any State, into any home, to be
used by any child who might log on to the Internet. All the people I
quoted before who testified before the Judiciary Committee said this is
a pernicious activity for young people who get into the Internet and
begin gambling. It could become the most addictive way for children
and, later, adults to become addicted to gambling.
As a result, it is an activity that needs to be stopped before it is
allowed to spread. What we should not do is create an exception just
for the Indian tribes, because, in effect, that is an exception that
precludes us from protecting our children. I urge, tomorrow, that we
defeat the Craig amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
____________________