Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the bill approved by the House Energy and Power Subcommittee today is an environmental and fiscal travesty with absolutely no chance of enactment. I urge Congress to once again reject this misguided and dangerous legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal dated March 28, 1999, which outlines the dreadful prospect that the nuclear power industry has for any future, based upon the economics as I outlined in my statement.

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada is absolutely correct. I think there is a shaft of light at the end of the tunnel, if I may use that metaphor, in which a number of thoughtful Members of Congress, working together with the administration and some responsible nuclear utilities, have come to recognize the futility of the process that my friend, our senior colleague, knows only too well, and to try to work out something that addresses the legitimate concerns of ratepayers in States where nuclear reactors exist and yet does not devastate our environmental laws and create a situation that is costly and dangerous to the American public.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is correct again. These are suggestions that have been generated by thoughtful Members in the Senate, and in the House, by the administration, and increasingly the dialog has indicated that, again, what I would call responsible and reasonable nuclear utilities are engaged in a dialog. And I am hopeful, as I know my senior colleague is, that we can avoid this train wreck that occurs annually in the Congress and work out something that deals responsibly and legitimately with the concerns that ratepayers have in States with these reactors, but does not involve this incredibly foolish effort to transport 77,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste to the State of Nevada unnecessarily. And, as the Senator from Nevada knows, that is simply not going to happen, because the administration and the Department of Energy's Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board all agree that such an approach is unnecessary and unwise. I thank my colleague for his thoughtful and insightful questions, and I look forward to working with him in developing a responsible approach to resolving this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of Nevada's oldest and most respected businesses on the occasion of its 90th Anniversary. The Las Vegas insurance firm of Cragin & Pike was begun in 1909 by Ernie Cragin and William Pike, pioneers in the truest sense of the word. In 1909, Las Vegas was a newborn city, having been founded just four years earlier as a railroad division point for the San Perdro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad. Since its 20th century birth, when Las Vegas was established as a railroad community, the Las Vegas Valley has seen dynamic change. Cragin & Pike has enjoyed as colorful a history as the city it calls home, both witnessing and shaping the events that would make Las Vegas the world's premier city for entertainment and tourism. Ernie Cragin himself served as the mayor of Las Vegas for 25 years. William Pike saw the legalization of Nevada gambling in 1931 and the construction of the Boulder Dam completed four years later. Cragin & Pike has been a full partner to many of the city's most familiar names in business. In a city that defines itself by the ever changing view from the Las Vegas Strip, Cragin & Pike has endured through its dedication to its customers and its rock solid business philosophies. I know that its name sake founders would be as proud as I am today to see this innovative yet faithful member of the Las Vegas community observe yet another achievement in the celebration of its 90th Anniversary. I congratulate the partners and associates of Cragin & Pike on this accomplishment, and look forward to many more.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, in introducing this important legislation today to honor an individual whose extraordinary military service record and faithful commitment to his community warrants special recognition. As Senator Reid has explained, in the next few months a new wing will be dedicated at the Ioannis A. Lougaris VA Medical Center in Reno, Nevada. This five-story, 110-bed tower is a welcome addition to the Reno VAMC, and will provide veterans in northern Nevada with the modern facilities and quality inpatient care they so clearly deserve. The purpose of the legislation we are introducing today is to name that new wing after Mr. Jack Streeter, an individual whose lifetime is hallmarked by his exemplary service record, his steadfast dedication to the veterans community and his leadership in numerous charitable and nonprofit organization. I have had the opportunity to know Jack for many years now, dating back to my tenure as governor of Nevada. Anyone who has come into contact with Jack Streeter, and who had the occasion to talk with Jack and learn more about his experiences, can understand and appreciate what an extraordinary individual this man is. Jack Streeter's military service record is quite well known in the state of Nevada. He is, in fact, the most decorated World War Two veteran in Nevada, having earned five Purpose Hearts, five Silver Stars, and two Bronze Stars in the European Theater. Let me repeat that Mr. President, because it truly is an astounding record. Five Purple Hearts, five Silver Stars, and two Bronze Stars. As a young second lieutenant during the war, Jack saw action from the Allied invasion of Normandy to the decisive Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944-45. Upon leaving the service in 1946, Mr. Streeter earned a law degree from Hastings Law School in San Francisco and later returned to Reno, where he was soon elected as district attorney. He later found the National District Attorney Association and participated in numerous civic organizations and foundations. Jack Streeter's distinguished military service record, coupled with his unyielding dedication to his community, merits the sort of recognition and rememberence that this legislation will provide. To all Nevadans who have had the opportunity to know Jack, he is a friend, a civic leader, and most importantly, a champion of the community. I look forward to working with Senator Reid and the entire Nevada delegation in passing this proposal and naming this new wing after a true American hero.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, in introducing this important legislation today to honor an individual whose extraordinary military service record and faithful commitment to his community warrants special recognition. As Senator Reid has explained, in the next few months a new wing will be dedicated at the Ioannis A. Lougaris VA Medical Center in Reno, Nevada. This five-story, 110-bed tower is a welcome addition to the Reno VAMC, and will provide veterans in northern Nevada with the modern facilities and quality inpatient care they so clearly deserve. The purpose of the legislation we are introducing today is to name that new wing after Mr. Jack Streeter, an individual whose lifetime is hallmarked by his exemplary service record, his steadfast dedication to the veterans community and his leadership in numerous charitable and nonprofit organization. I have had the opportunity to know Jack for many years now, dating back to my tenure as governor of Nevada. Anyone who has come into contact with Jack Streeter, and who had the occasion to talk with Jack and learn more about his experiences, can understand and appreciate what an extraordinary individual this man is. Jack Streeter's military service record is quite well known in the state of Nevada. He is, in fact, the most decorated World War Two veteran in Nevada, having earned five Purpose Hearts, five Silver Stars, and two Bronze Stars in the European Theater. Let me repeat that Mr. President, because it truly is an astounding record. Five Purple Hearts, five Silver Stars, and two Bronze Stars. As a young second lieutenant during the war, Jack saw action from the Allied invasion of Normandy to the decisive Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944-45. Upon leaving the service in 1946, Mr. Streeter earned a law degree from Hastings Law School in San Francisco and later returned to Reno, where he was soon elected as district attorney. He later found the National District Attorney Association and participated in numerous civic organizations and foundations. Jack Streeter's distinguished military service record, coupled with his unyielding dedication to his community, merits the sort of recognition and rememberence that this legislation will provide. To all Nevadans who have had the opportunity to know Jack, he is a friend, a civic leader, and most importantly, a champion of the community. I look forward to working with Senator Reid and the entire Nevada delegation in passing this proposal and naming this new wing after a true American hero.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. We are about to embark upon a roll call vote that only one other Senate in the history of our Republic has been called upon to cast. It is a weighty decision. We have taken an oath that requires us to render ``impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.'' By so doing each of us has undertaken a solemn obligation to be fair to the President, fair to the American people, and faithful to our constitutional responsibility. One hundred thirty one years ago, the 40th Congress faced a similar decision. Then, as now, the Nation was divided. Then, as now, the passions of the day raged across the land. Then, as now, the critics of the President were in the majority in the Senate. Confounding the cynics of that day, the Senate rose above itself by the slenderest of margins, a single vote, and acquitted President Andrew Johnson. More than a century later, that decision has stood the test of time. The Senate's acquittal reaffirmed a basic constitutional doctrine that the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch shall be separate and co-equal; and that the Executive Branch should not be subservient to the prevailing views of a Congressional majority. How different the course of our constitutional history might have been had President Andrew Johnson been convicted. Our system of government today might be more like a parliamentary system undermining the independence of the chief executive. Future Presidents may have been forced to operate within the omnipresent shadow of impeachment whenever a legislative majority was hostile to their views or policies. I think it is fair to conclude the office of the Presidency would be a profoundly different one had Andrew Johnson been convicted. It is in that historical context we meet. In this century, there have been five judicial impeachments that have reached the Senate. In each of those proceedings, the actions of the House and Senate were decided by a bipartisan vote, and all five judges were convicted, and removed from office. In the history of the Republic, there have been but two presidential impeachments, that of Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton. Each Presidential impeachment, however, has come to the Senate under an ominous cloud of partisanship. The Constitution wisely imposes a heavy burden of proof upon the House of Representatives to convict and remove a duly elected President. And when that constitutional process is tainted by partisan actions, the Articles of Impeachment must be subjected to an additional measure of scrutiny. The Constitution provides in Article II, Section 4 that ``The President . . . shall be removed from office on Impeachment for the Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' What constitutes impeachable conduct, as contemplated by the Constitution, is the central issue of this trial. The Framers of the Constitution labored at some length to fashion an impeachment article. As their guide, they looked to the English experience in their parliamentary system. They followed that history in deciding to involve both the House of Representatives and the Senate giving them different roles--the former to charge and impeach, and the latter to convict or acquit. Unlike the British parliamentary system with its monarch, the Framers decided impeachment would apply against its highest office holders, expressly including the President. Further, the Framers determined that impeachment would in and of itself be limited. Rather than including capital punishment and other criminal penalties as a part of impeachment as Britain did, the Framers limited impeachment to the removal of the individual from office upon conviction. As the drafting of the Constitution's impeachment clause proceeded, the drafters struggled with how to characterize the offenses for which a president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Initially, offenses such as ``malpractice'', ``neglect of duty'', and ``corruption'' were considered. As the Constitutional Convention drew to a close, the Convention's Committee of Eleven proposed ``treason or bribery'' as the appropriate standard. George Mason suggested the addition of ``maladministration'' due to his concern that limiting the offenses to only treason or bribery would still allow a president to commit ``many great and dangerous offences'' which would not be subject to impeachment. [The Records of the Federal Convention]. However, James Madison believe ``maladministration'' was ``. . . [s]o vague a term [it] will be equivalent to a tenure during [the] pleasure of the Senate.'' [The Records of the Federal Convention]. George Mason then proposed the addition of ``high crimes and misdemeanors against the State'', which the Committee on Style modified by deleting ``against the State'' believing that language unnecessary. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper Number 65 argues that the Senate could convict and remove a President only for ``those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' Nearly two centuries later, Charles Black explained in his ``Impeachment Handbook'', the purpose of impeachment is to protect the nation, rather than to punish the individual holding the office of president. Thus, the behavior at issue must reach a level of endangering the state. The House voted to impeach President Clinton on two Articles; perjury before the Grand Jury, and obstruction of justice. Two other Articles accusing the President of perjury in a deposition in a civil case, and of abusing his power by not responding to the 81 requests for admission made on November 5, 1998 in a manner the House desired were not approved. Article I charging perjury is poorly and rather vaguely worded. Nevertheless, it appears to contain 11 separate allegations. The House Managers in their presentation in Article II allege seven acts of Presidential misconduct constituting obstruction of justice. The Office of Independent Counsel was authorized by the Attorney General of the United States to conduct an investigation of the President's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Starr has 25 attorneys and 5 non-FBI investigators on his personal staff, and access to the virtually unlimited resources of the FBI. The investigation continued for eight months culminating in a record of over 60,000 pages of materials including sworn testimony from Grand Jury appearances, depositions, and sworn statements. That the relationship between the President and the Office of Independent Counsel was a contentious one, is beyond dispute. Mr. Starr has been as aggressive Special Prosecutor. Many believe that his prosecutorial zeal violated any reasonable standard of fairness. He has been no shrinking violet in his pursuit of the President. Yet even Mr. Starr and his staff, after careful analysis, concluded that 8 of the 11 allegations of perjury before the Grand Jury, and one of the allegations of obstruction of justice lacked sufficient prosecutorial merit to be submitted to the House. Certainly, it cannot be contended that these allegations can sustain the burden of proof to establish the President's guilt, or to rise to the level of impeachable conduct necessary to remove a duly elected president. The Constitution's impeachment process was not created to mete out punishment against the individual serving as President. Rather, the impeachment process is to protect the nation from a President who has brought grave harm to the office and to the country. These are distinctly different goals. As is so often the case, the American people have a clear understanding of the circumstances that bring us together. The President had an improper relationship in the White House with a 22-year-old intern. The President lied to his family, his staff and the American people in denying the existence of the relationship. The President pursued a course of conduct to conceal his improper relationship with the White House intern. The President's conduct was wrong and it was immoral. It remains for us to determine the constitutional consequences, if any, to be attached to this conduct. The House Managers rely heavily upon circumstantial evidence and draw from that evidence a series of inferences which lead them to conclude that the President is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. The President's counsel artfully attack the weaknesses in the Managers' case and assert that exculpatory direct evidence raises sufficient doubt under the law, and therefore, the President is entitled to be acquitted. On this record, as one of the House prosecutors pointed out reasonable people can differ as to the conclusions they reach. It is acknowledged that the House Managers have the burden of proof in establishing the President's guilt under legal definitions. Open to question is the standard of proof to be applied, a mere preponderance of the evidence as in a civil trial, clear and convincing evidence as in alleging fraudulent behavior, or beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. The House alleges that specific crimes have been committed, to wit perjury and obstruction of justice as defined in law. Under these circumstances, I believe the appropriate standard is the criminal standard--proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But is it impeachable conduct? Does it rise to the constitutionally required standard of bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I think not. The President's conduct is boorish, indefensible, even reprehensible. It does not threaten the Republic. It does not impact our national security. It does not undermine or compromise our position of unchallenged leadership in international affairs. Although I conclude that the evidence presented in this case does not reach the standard commanded by the Constitution to convict and remove a President, it does not follow that we are precluded from registering our strong disapproval of the President's personal conduct. There is a way. After our vote on these Articles of Impeachment, and assuming, as most believe, there are not the votes to convict the President--the Senate should proceed immediately to adopt a bipartisan resolution of censure. It is important for us to do this. There are two reasons. First, the American people need to hear from us in strong and unambiguous language that the President's personal conduct is unacceptable and unworthy of the President of the United States. The record of these proceedings must also reflect that the acquittal of the President can in no way be construed as an exoneration of his conduct. A censure resolution should not be embarked upon lightly or for political reasons, but it should be used in this case. And finally, a response to the injunction that we have frequently heard over the past several weeks: that no man is above the law. That is a core value. It goes to the very essence of our beliefs as Americans. No violence is done to this sacred principle by pursuing the course of action I have chosen. For those who believe that the President is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice--criminal offenses--there is a forum available for that determination. It is our criminal justice system and William Jefferson Clinton may be called to the bar of justice to respond to these criminal charges--armed with no greater legal protection than that accorded the most humble among us. And that is how it should be.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman McCain today as a cosponsor of the Air Transportation Improvement Act. As Senator McCain has indicated, this legislation is exactly the same as legislation approved by the Senate last year by a vote of 99-1. Passing legislation to extend the Airport Improvement Program needs to be among our highest priorities for early action in this Congress. While I do not support every provision of this legislation, it was a reasonable compromise, which enjoyed nearly unanimous support in the Senate last year. As pressure continues to increase on our national aviation system, and with the looming Y2K problem, we need to act quickly to ensure continued improvements in air safety and efficiency. One provision of this legislation of particular interest to me, and many others, is the provision related to the Reagan Washington National Airport ``perimeter rule.'' Codified in 1986, the National ``perimeter rule'' limits non-stop flights serving National to destinations within 1250 miles of the airport. Originally enacted to promote the development of Dulles Airport as the region's long-haul carrier, the ``perimeter rule'' has long outlived its original justification, and remains today a significant barrier to competition in a very competitive aviation industry. While the justification for the ``perimeter rule'' has long since faded, it continues to unfairly limit service to communities outside of the 1250 mile perimeter. Communities like Las Vegas, a community that desperately needs additional air service, are denied access to a very significant airport. In addition, air carriers which happen to operate hubs located outside of the perimeter face a very serious competitive disadvantage. On numerous occasions, the General Accounting Office has identified the ``perimeter rule'' as a barrier to entry in the Washington, DC air service market. Simply put, the ``perimeter rule'' should be repealed. Nevadans, and other Westerners, deserve the same access to our nation's capital city as those in the East. Continuing this discriminatory, artificial barrier to competition creates major inequities in our national transportation system. The legislation we are introducing today, unfortunately, does not repeal the ``perimeter rule.'' Instead, like the legislation passed last year by the Senate, the legislation grants limited exemptions from the perimeter rule for up to 12 additional slots a day at Washington National. Last year, in the interest of compromise, I supported this approach. I continue to be concerned, however, that the 12 new, outside the perimeter slots, if enacted, will be insufficient to truly address the competitive problems created by the ``perimeter rule.'' While I support Chairman McCain's attempt to reach consensus on this issue, I am hopeful that last year's approach can be further refined to create additional opportunities for Washington National service from beyond the 1250 mile perimeter, while at the same time recognizing the interests of those communities within the current perimeter, as well as Northern Virginia. I look forward to working with the Chairman, and other members of the Commerce Committee, on this important legislation.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the Children's Online Privacy Act was reported out of Committee by voice vote. Because of time constraints at the end of the session, we have been unable to file a Committee Report before offering it as an amendment on the Senate floor. Accordingly, I wish to take this opportunity to explain the purpose and some of the important features of the amendment. In a matter of only a few months since Chairman McCain and I introduced this bill last summer, we have been able to achieve a remarkable consensus. This is due in large part to the recognition by a wide range of constituencies that the issue is an important one that requires prompt attention by Congress. It is also due to revisions to our original bill that were worked out carefully with the participation of the marketing and online industries, the Federal Trade Commission, privacy groups, and First Amendment organizations. The goals of this legislation are: (1) to enhance parental involvement in a child's online activities in order to protect the privacy of children in the online environment; (2) to enhance parental involvement to help protect the safety of children in online fora such as chatrooms, home pages, and pen-pal services in which children may make public postings of identifying information; (3) to maintain the security of personally identifiable information of children collected online; and (4) to protect children's privacy by limiting the collection of personal information from children without parental consent. The legislation accomplishes these goals in a manner that preserves the interactivity of children's experience on the Internet and preserves children's access to information in this rich and valuable medium. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill's provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce the enactment of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act. This historic legislation passed the Senate on October 8th and President Clinton signed it into law on October 19, 1998. Mr. President, this legislation has its roots in the Southern Nevada Public Lands Task Force. The Task Force was originally established in the summer of 1994 by Congressman Jim Bilbray to provide an open forum in which public land issues affecting the Las Vegas Valley could be discussed among federal, state, local, and private entities. It is comprised of representatives from the State of Nevada, Clark County, the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Regional Flood Control District, the Clark County School District, and representatives of the development and environmental communities. At its inception, the Task Force set two primary goals for itself: (1) to establish and maintain a better working relationship between the BLM and local governmental planning agencies; and (2) to develop a ``master plan'' for the Las Vegas Valley that identified those BLM lands which should be transferred to private ownership and those which should be retained for public purposes. In the summer of 1995, Senator Reid and I reconvened the Task Force to build on the goal of developing a ``master plan'' for the Las Vegas Valley. We worked closely with the Task Force in our efforts to develop a legislative proposal that sought to improve the current BLM land disposal policy in the Las Vegas Valley; this proposal eventually became the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, which Senator Reid and I introduced in the Senate on March 19, 1996. Congressman Ensign then introduced a companion bill in the House, and I have enjoyed working with him in a bipartisan fashion over the last several years to fine tune this legislation and shepherd it through the Congress. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act is a response to perhaps the greatest challenge facing Southern Nevada--the need to promote responsible, orderly growth in the Las Vegas Valley while protecting the surrounding environment and enhancing the recreational opportunities that exist in Southern Nevada. In the broadest sense, the legislation reflects a partnership between federal, state, and local entities to enhance the quality of life in the Las Vegas Valley and throughout the State of Nevada. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Las Vegas valley is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country. Since the beginning of this decade, nearly five thousand people each month, on average, have chosen to make Las Vegas their new home. Last year alone, nearly 20,000 new homes were built in the Las Vegas valley to accommodate this explosive growth. And while the majority of Southern Nevadans have welcomed the benefits of an expanding, robust economy, there is a realization within the community that a long-term, strategic plan must be developed to deal with growth related problems. Both State and local elected officials are currently grappling with different ideas as to how best to meet the infrastructure needs and quality of life expectations of current and future generations of southern Nevadans. Local officials estimate that new infrastructure development over the next ten years will cost between three and eight billion dollars for such things as school construction and water, sewer and transit systems. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the situation, the Clark County School District needs the equivalent of a new elementary school every 30 days for the next five years to keep pace with the twelve thousand new students entering the school system every year. Mr. President, this legislation is a critical component of Southern Nevada's long term plan to manage growth in the Las Vegas valley. Each time the BLM transfers land into private ownership it has important repercussions for the local governmental entity that must provide infrastructure and services to that land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) controls in excess of 20,000 acres of land throughout the Las Vegas valley. Consequently, unlike most communities, land use planning decisions are not made solely at the local level; the BLM is an important player in the local land use planning process. This legislation would strengthen the partnership between the BLM and local government and improve upon the current land use planning process. The BLM's primary method of disposing of land in the Las Vegas valley, through land exchanges, has been the subject of much attention over the past several years. I happen to believe that land exchanges serve a valuable public purpose--the Federal Government disposes of land it no longer needs in exchange for land that is worthy of public ownership. In the Las Vegas valley, however, the real estate market is such that it does not lend itself well to appraisal-driven land exchanges. Disagreements between the BLM and exchange proponents over appraisal methodology and value determinations are often the cause of protracted delays in the land exchange process. Because of the dynamic nature of the real estate market in the Las Vegas valley, any delay in the exchange process can cause the appraisals to become outdated before the transaction is closed. Mr. President, the legislation before us today would make two significant improvements over the current land exchange process: (1) it would allow local land managers to take a more pro-active role in federal land disposal decisions; and (2) it would institute a competitive bidding procedure to ensure that the disposal of BLM land yields the highest return, or true ``fair market value.'' There are currently over twenty-five land exchange proposals pending in the BLM's Las Vegas office--some are clearly in the public interest, others are not. The vast majority of these proposals are intra-state exchanges, meaning the BLM has the authority to process them without Congressional action. This legislation would open the process to allow anyone who wishes to bid on BLM land to do so in a competitive sale, and it would eliminate the need to enter into protracted appraisal negotiations over selected BLM land that so often bog down the already cumbersome exchange process. The legislation stands for the same proposition as the current land exchange process--the sale of federal land in the Las Vegas Valley should be used as a means of protecting environmentally sensitive land throughout the State of Nevada and of enhancing the use of public land recreational areas in Southern Nevada. At the conceptual level, the legislation represents a synthesis of two previously enacted public land bills that specifically address public land management issues in Southern Nevada--the Santini-Burton Act and the Apex land transfer legislation. You may recall that the Santini-Burton Act, which was enacted in 1980, authorized the sale of BLM land in Las Vegas to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe basin. Our legislation embodies a similar proposition--the sale of federal land in the Las Vegas Valley should be used as means of protecting environmentally sensitive land throughout the State of Nevada and of enhancing the use of public recreational areas in Southern Nevada. With nearly 5,000 new residents moving into the valley each month, it is imperative that we protect our open spaces around the valley from development and expand recreational opportunities for the public in order to maintain the quality of life we have come to expect in Southern Nevada. Also in keeping with Santini-Burton, our legislation recognizes that land use planning decisions are best made at the local level, so our proposal gives local government an equal voice in deciding when and where federal land sales should occur in the valley. The map referenced in section 4 of the bill would establish a boundary for future BLM land sales and exchanges in the Las Vegas Valley, and combined with other components of the bill, it would serve as the blueprint to assist us in designing public land policy for the 21st century. The map essentially represents the maximum build-out boundary for the valley; it was generated in close consultation with local governmental planning agencies and other members of the Task Force to reflect their vision for future growth and development in the valley. It is important to note that virtually all of the BLM land recommended for sale or exchange under this bill has already been identified for disposal by the BLM under the existing Management Framework Plan for the Las Vegas Valley. In fact, our legislation would reduce the overall amount of land available for disposal in the valley. The Apex land transfer legislation, enacted in 1989, transferred over 20,000 acres of BLM land just outside the Las Vegas Valley to Clark County for the development of a heavy-use industrial site. When the land is improved and eventually sold by Clark County to a private entity, the revenue sharing provisions of the act allow Clark County recover the value of the infrastructure improvements it has made to the land before providing the federal government with its share of the proceeds from the sale. The legislation before us today recognizes the same principle--that the presence or proximity of local governmental services and infrastructure increases the value of federal land. Consequently, our legislation would direct a portion of the proceeds of federal land sales to local government to assist with local infrastructure development and to the state for the benefit of the general education program. Another important component of this legislation that I want to highlight today is involves affordable housing. This legislation will also make BLM land available throughout the State of Nevada to local public housing authorities for the purpose of developing affordable housing. There is currently a tremendous need in Los Vegas and Reno, and also in other communities throughout the state, for raw land to develop affordable housing projects. The BLM will now be able to assist each of these communities in meeting this important need. In closing, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge those members of the Public Land Task Force that played such an important role in the development of this legislation. Thanks go to Mike Dwyer of the BLM, Jim Tallerico and Alan Pinkerton of the Forest Service, Alan O'Neill and Bill Dickensen of the Park Service, and Ken Voget of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Thanks also go to State Senator Dina Titus, Pam Wilcox of the State Land Use Planning Agency, Rick Holmes, Jeff Harris, and Ron Gregory of Clark County, Pat Mulroy of the Las Vegas Valley Water District, Robert Baggs of the City of Las Vegas, Steve Baxter of the City of North Las Vegas, John Rinaldi of the City of Henderson, Gale Fraser of the Flood Control District, Dusty Dickens of the School District, Randy Walker and Jacob Snow with the Clark County Department of Aviation, and also Bob Broadbent, the former Director of the Aviation Department. A number of citizens representing the environmental community provided invaluable assistance; they include Jeff Van Ee, Lois Sagel, John Hiatt, Bob Maichle, and Steve Hobbs. From the development community thanks go to Robert Lewis, Bob Campbell, Scott Higginson, Mark Brown, and Jeff Rhoads. And finally, I want to thank Marcus Faust for all of his hard work on behalf of Clark County. Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank two members of my staff, Brent Heberlee and Sara Besser, for all of their work related to this legislation. I believe this legislation will make great strides toward improving public land management policy in Southern Nevada, and I look forward to continue working with all interested parties as this legislation is implemented.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this bill was reported out of Committee last week by voice vote. Because of time constraints at the end of the session, we have been unable to file a committee report before offering it as an amendment on the Senate floor. Accordingly, I wish to take this opportunity to explain the purpose and some of the important features of the amendment. In a matter of only a few months since Chairman McCain and I introduced this bill last summer, we have been able to achieve a remarkable consensus. This is due in large part to the recognition by a wide range of constituencies that the issue is an important one that requires prompt attention by Congress. It is due to revisions to our original bill that were worked out carefully with the participation of the marketing and online industries, the Federal Trade Commission, privacy groups, and first amendment organizations. The goals of this legislation are: (1) to enhance parental involvement in a child's online activities in order to protect the privacy of children in the online environment; (2) to enhance parental involvement to help protect the safety of children in online fora such as chatrooms, home pages, and pen-pal services in which children may make public postings of identifying information; (3) to maintain the security of personally identifiable information of children collected online; and (4) to protect children's privacy by limiting the collection of personal information from children without parental consent. The legislation accomplishes these goals in a manner that preserves the interactivity of children's experience on the Internet and preserves children's access to information in this rich and valuable medium. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss two provisions included in the conference report accompanying H.R. 4101, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. First, I want to express my gratitude to the House and Senate conferees for retaining a provision in the conference report that was originally passed here in the Senate relating to the Market Access Program. As my colleagues are aware, the Market Access Program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its Foreign Agriculture Service. MAP funding is designed to reimburse private companies, industry associations and cooperatives for the promotion of brand-name products as well as generic commodities overseas. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it has become quite clear that the Market Access Program is a flagrant example of a federal spending program gone wrong--one that is simply unproductive, unjustified and unaffordable. Over the past few years, I have stood here on the Senate floor several times to highlight the assorted flaws with this program, particularly the outrageous reality that we are channeling millions and millions of taxpayers dollars to some of the most prosperous corporations in America, including Sunkist, Welch Foods, Gallo and General Mills. My efforts to terminate the Market Access Program were endorsed by a sweeping coalition of fiscal watchdogs, including Taxpayers For Common Sense, National Taxpayers Unions, Citizens Against Government Waste, Friends of the Earth, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Unfortunately, proponents of this policy made claims about the program that were difficult for the General Accounting Office to refute as a result of the lack of available information about the effectiveness and value of the program. Clearly, greater scrutiny of this program is appropriate and necessary. In July of this year, the Senate passed an amendment that I authored to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that I believe will have a profound effect on the future of the Market Access Program. I am pleased this provision has been retained in the conference report before us today. This provision requires the USDA to estimate the impact of the Market Access Program on the agriculture sector as well as on U.S. consumers, while also considering the costs and benefits of alternative uses of the funds currently allocated to MAP. Additionally, the amendment requires USDA to evaluate the additional spending of participants and the amount of exports additionally resulting from the Market Access Program. I believe, Mr. President, that this information will allow the General Accounting Office to produce a useful evaluation that will enable Congress to make an informed, responsible decision about the utility of continuing this program in future years. Unfortunately, while this amendment will throw a spotlight on one wasteful federal spending program, I am concerned that another provision in this conference report could compromise past and future efforts to rein in other wasteful and unnecessary federal expenditures. As part of an effort to provide economic assistance to farmers and producers who have been hit hard by the worsening weather and market conditions facing rural America, this legislation includes roughly $6.5 million in the form of recourse loans for mohair producers. Perhaps this funding assistance is warranted. Clearly, the entire agricultural community is reeling from prolonged disastrous weather conditions, a 20-year low in commodity prices and dwindling overseas exports. It is imperative that we provide to our producers in need, timely disaster and other economic assistance for crop losses and other related dilemmas. However, we must be clear in stating that the emergency assistance provided in this bill for mohair producers is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to resuscitate the mohair subsidy program that was shut down by the Congress just a few short years ago. My colleagues will recall that the mohair subsidy program originated in 1954, when Congress passed the National Wool Act, authorizing a subsidy program to guarantee the production of domestic wool for military uniforms during the Cold War era. Mohair, which was used for decorative braids on military uniforms, was inexplicably affixed to the wool subsidy program. Over the years, the need and justification for both the wool and mohair subsidies has plainly evaporated. Yet in 1992, years after the sun had set on the Cold War and the strategic need for wool and mohair had long expired, wool producers were still receiving roughly 130 million dollars in subsidy payments while mohair producers were still receiving about 48 million dollars. In light of this, I joined with several of my colleagues in 1993, including Senators Kerry and Feingold, in terminating the wool and mohair subsidy that had existed for nearly forty years. We shut that program down. That was no small accomplishment, Mr. President. The Congress is clearly capable of, and has been somewhat successful in reducing the size, scope and funding for a number of federal spending programs. But to actually terminate a program and to categorically wipe that program clean from the federal budget, is indeed, an uncommon achievement. Mr. President, I am not here to dispute the contention that mohair producers are deserving of emergency assistance. Certainly, virtually every component of our agricultural community has been adversely affected by the crisis that is facing our Nation's farmers and producers. But I do want to take this opportunity to express to the distinguished Chairman and distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee my sincere hope that the inclusion of this funding for mohair producers is not an attempt to re-open the wool and mohair subsidy program that was shut down by Congress just a few short years ago. Terminating the wool and mohair subsidy was a small step on the road to a balanced budget, and I fully intend to monitor this situation next year. If we are to stay the course of fiscal responsibility, we must make sure that the American taxpayer is not forced to subsidize those antiquated programs the Congress has deemed to be wasteful and unaffordable.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. No objection on this side of the aisle.

Mr. BRYAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BRYAN. If I might respond to the inquiry from my friend, the distinguished Senator from New York, I am informed at this point we are not able to accept the amendment. The floor leader is absent from the floor temporarily and will return shortly. Perhaps the Senator may be able to engage in a conversation with him and the distinguished Senator on the other side of the aisle as to working out this point. I am not able to give the distinguished Senator the assurance that he needs that we can approve it.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator from Florida yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the courtesy of the senior Senator from Florida. I note from the chart the Senator has brought to the floor that the State of Nevada is included. The Judicial Conference has recommended, as I understand, two additional district court judges for Nevada. Would it be the Senator's intention to include in the amendment that he is about to discuss with greater particularity the two additional judges that were recommended by the Conference for Nevada?

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the statesmanship my friend has provided and the information that is made available with respect to the situation in Nevada. I might just add to the comments of the Senator that, having lived in Nevada for more than 57 years and knowing each of our four district court judges personally, I do not know of a harder working bench at either the State or Federal level anywhere in America. Frankly, it required considerable statesmanship of the former chief judge in Nevada in electing to take senior status, which the Senator from Florida fully understands, that allowed a new district court judge to come on board. That senior judge, together with another colleague of his who is a senior judge, maintains an extraordinarily active caseload. So that has helped but has not eliminated the backlog to which the Senator has addressed his comments. I must say, ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' The State of Nevada has the fastest growing population in the country over the past decade. That is reflected in the litigation in the Federal court system, based not only in the demographics but other situations which I am sure the Senator will allude to. So I want to join with the Senator from Florida in calling this very important issue to the attention of our colleagues and the American people. This is not an issue about lawyers or judges per se. What we are talking about are the needs of people who have their issues brought to the Federal court system and who are entitled to have those issues resolved in a prompt manner. With respect to those who violate Federal law, they need to have those matters addressed promptly in the interests of justice for all Americans. I think the proposal the Senator is about to unveil and explain in greater detail is entitled to the support of our colleagues. I wish him well and pledge my support in his efforts. I thank him again for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to preface my comments by commending the floor leaders, my good friends, Senator McCain and Senator Ford, for the leadership they have provided in getting this piece of legislation through the committee and on to the floor. I am not unmindful of the fact there are some points of contention, but both of them have provided the kind of leadership and experience and real statesmanship we have come to expect from both of these two leaders. And I, for one, want to praise them for their leadership. I want to talk about one of those points that has become historically somewhat vexing when we deal with an FAA piece of legislation, and that is the so-called perimeter rule. The perimeter rule is extremely important to my State, Nevada, and particularly the expanding markets in southern Nevada. Within the next year, 20,000 new hotel rooms will come on line. It will be critically important to have additional air capacity going into southern Nevada in order that those new hotel rooms can be filled. The Metropolitan Las Vegas area will have in excess of 120,000 hotel rooms within the next 18 months. I know of no place in the world that has that concentration of hotel rooms. It is no secret that the mainspring of the economy in southern Nevada, as well as the entire State, has been for decades tourism. And because of the relative remoteness and isolation of southern Nevada, air transport is a critical factor for our continued economic viability and the expansion that we have enjoyed over the years. I was able, with the support of the distinguished chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Arizona, to convene a hearing in Las Vegas earlier this spring, because one of the challenges that we face in providing additional air service to southern Nevada are some economic changes that are occurring in the airline industry itself. During the time in which the economy was relatively soft and business travel was not particularly robust, it was much easier for us in southern Nevada to get the kind of air service and the number of flights that we needed. As a result of the expanding economy and business travel expanding quite rapidly, the airlines have reached an economic judgment which, although hard to quarrel with, nevertheless has had some profound implications for us in Las Vegas. And that is to say that business travel, as opposed to recreation travel, generates more revenue per seat mile than does resort, tourist destination travel. So the airlines, to some extent, have shifted some of their capacity to the more profitable business routes. That change poses some real challenges to us in trying to fill those hotel rooms, I mentioned earlier in my comments, that are coming on line. That would be the largest influx of new hotel rooms in the history of Las Vegas for any given period of time. So as part of this hearing that we held in Las Vegas, we looked at a number of factors that might help to alleviate that problem. One area in which we desperately need expanded air service is from longer distance destinations, from the east coast. And one of the things that was pointed out as part of the barrier to that new service is that there are some artificial barriers that are created either by act of Congress or by policy, and to the extent that we can remove those barriers, it will be easier for us to get expanded air service. One of those barriers that was created by an act of Congress is the perimeter rule, established in 1986 as part of Federal legislation. That was part of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Act. Some history of the perimeter rule. In its initial origin, there may have been some justification for it. At the time, there was considerable concern that Dulles would not attract the kind of airline service needed to fully utilize that facility if, indeed, longer distance flights could originate out of Washington National or could come to Washington National. So this perimeter rule--which has kind of taken on a life of its own and has been exalted almost to divine status, something that is so sacrosanct that we should never touch it under any circumstances--is in point of fact an act of Congress' creation, and it is not inappropriate for the Congress to revisit that rule. The General Accounting Office, in examining airline competition, bolsters the argument that was made at our hearing in Las Vegas when it describes the perimeter rule as ``a barrier to entry service.'' It points out that the rules limit the ability of airlines based in the West to compete because those airlines are not allowed to serve-- LaGuardia is another airport which has a perimeter rule, as well as National Airport--from the markets where they are strongest. By contrast, because of their proximity to LaGuardia and National, each of the seven largest established carriers is able to serve those airports from its principal hub. So there is an invidious discrimination in the very existence of these perimeter rules. This report, as well as others, has suggested to the Congress that we grant authority to allow exemptions to the perimeter rule. I believe that is a sound recommendation and one that has been carefully crafted by my colleagues and friends who provide the leadership for us in the Commerce Committee, because a compromise has indeed been offered. Let me add an additional basis, it seems to me, for that compromise to occur. Not only does this invidious discrimination make it very difficult for new entrants to come into the market, but the original justification for the rule in 1986--if it ever had any validity, if one assumes arguendo that it may have been well founded at the time of its enactment--no longer exists. You will recall that the original or ostensible justification was to make sure that Dulles as an airport had plenty of activity and airline service, and therefore this artificial creation of the perimeter rule was designed to make sure that the longer distance flights emanated from Dulles. Having been to Dulles many times in the last month, none would argue that this airport is underutilized. It is a robust, healthy air terminal, and all of us are pleased for that. On two bases, it seems to me, the argument can be made: No. 1, that the original rationale and predicate of the perimeter rule no longer has any operative merit; and No. 2, the competitive aspect in the discrimination which I have alluded to in citing from the airline competition, ``The Barriers to Entering Into Domestic Markets,'' published by the General Accounting Office. I think for that reason the provisions that have been crafted into this piece of legislation dealing with additional slots at National, particularly those 12 which will be allowed to fly outside the perimeter, represent sound policy and a reasonable compromise. Again, I commend the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Ford, for their leadership. I hope we can get this enacted. I salute them for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership on this issue. The banking industry is enjoying its sixth straight year of record profits, which topped $60 billion last year. That is good news. But unfortunately, as part of a growing trend, these record profits are coming from an increasing proliferation of fees on bank customers. The number of these separate bank fees has grown from 90 to 250 over the last 5 years. Last year, banks made more than $3 billion alone on ATM surcharges. That is the new cash cow. And this is in addition to the $1 billion banks are paid as part of the interchange fee, which covers their cost of ATM transactions. So, that is where the surcharge comes in. The banks are already compensated through an interchange system. They are imposing an additional fee, a surcharge, which Senator D'Amato and I and others object to, which, in effect, imposes a charge twice on the customer. Mr. President, $1.50 or $2 for every ATM withdrawal may not seem like a lot, but over the course of a full year it adds up to several hundred dollars. Many banks for years prohibited these ATMs. In fact, three out of every four ATMs that are in place today were built before surcharges were prohibited, so the argument that somehow prohibiting the surcharge would limit the availability of ATMs is simply a specious argument. Two States that come to mind immediately, Connecticut and Iowa, prohibit ATM surcharges, and there is no evidence to suggest that customers in those two States are deprived of the option to use ATMs. So, people, in effect, kind of feel entrapped. Initially the banks offered ATMs because they reduced the costs of their transactions. They are much less expensive than the teller transactions. Customers responded because of the convenience. A win-win proposition. Once customers got induced to use ATMs, then they got hooked, and now they are being reeled in by the bankers with these new charges, because the average ATM transaction cost is about 27 cents while a transaction involving a teller costs the bank roughly $2.93. ATM charges are unfair, because the consumer is charged twice for the same transaction. Additionally, ATM surcharges have the anticompetitive effect of pressuring people to leave small banks--which may be their choice--for their larger banks, to avoid this double charge or the surcharge. I urge my colleagues to support the able and distinguished chairman and to support this. Let me just tell you, both in Nevada and around the world, this is how the public views the ATM surcharge. You will note from the chart there, the ATM reaches out with a loaded pistol and the customer is held hostage. That is what these ATM surcharges are all about. I urge support for my colleague's thoughtful legislation, I yield the floor, and thank the Senator for extending the privilege of the floor to me.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bumpers amendment. This past summer, as I have each summer since being a Member of the Senate, I spent most of my time in what we in Nevada refer to as ``cow county'' in rural Nevada. Most of that time I spent in places that are not widely known outside of Nevada. I was in Wells, Wendover, Elko, Battle Mountain, Winnemucca, Lovelock, Ely --some of the smaller communities in our State, but communities that are very dependent upon mining as the principal base of their economy. In the northeastern part of our State, as a result of the situation that relates to the international pricing of gold at or near record levels over the last 20 years, these communities are hurt. These are good-paying jobs of $46,000 or $47,000 a year with the full range of health benefits. They are premier jobs. These communities are hurting. Sales tax collections are down. So this is a major concern about what is happening to the principal economic base in the northeastern part of our State, which is a mining industry. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Arkansas that would prevent the National Academy of Sciences from studying Federal and State environmental regulations applicable to hard rock mining on Federal lands. As many of my colleagues from the West are aware, the Interior Department is proposing major revisions of the regulations that govern hard rock mining on public lands known as 3809 regulations. The regulations were originally promulgated in 1980 and require miners to submit plans for operations for approval by the BLM. The existing regulations require mine operators to comply with all Federal and State environmental laws and regulations, require that lands disturbed by mining be reclaimed, and require that bonds be posted to assure that reclamation is complete. The State of Nevada has one of the toughest--if not the toughest-- State reclamation programs in America. Nevada mining companies are subject to a myriad of Federal and State environmental laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act, among many others. Mining companies must secure literally dozens of environmental permits prior to commencing mining activities, including a reclamation permit, which must be obtained before a mineral exploration project or mining operation can be conducted. Companies must also file a surety or a bond with the State and the Federal land manager in an amount to ensure the reclamation of the entire site prior to receiving a reclamation permit. Let me just say parenthetically that both as Governor and Senator I have been to these mining locations for many, many years. Mining today is much different than mining was even a generation ago, and much, much different than it was a century ago. Some of the well-advertised misdeeds of mines in the past have to be freely acknowledged as something that is a source of major concern in terms of its environmental impact. I think it is an embarrassment to the modern-day mine manager whose philosophy and approach is much different and who is sensitive to the concerns as to the environmental impact. That represents the new Nevada and the mining operations that exist in my State with which I have firsthand familiarity. A number of the Western Governors, including our own Governor of Nevada, Governor Bob Miller, have expressed genuine concern about the 3809 rulemaking--that it will unnecessarily duplicate existing Federal and State regulatory programs. Governor Miller, in his testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, suggested that Congress call for an independent evaluation of the need to revive the 3809 regulations, and made the suggestion that the National Academy of Sciences would be an appropriate organization to conduct a sufficient study. I concur. The academy has a preeminent reputation for fairness and balance. This is not a committee that is associated with the mining industry, nor controlled directly or indirectly by them. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee saw fit to follow the suggestion of Governor Miller, because I must express that I, too, have serious questions concerning the need for the Interior Department's proposed regulations and revisions. The current 3809 regulations require compliance with all existing Federal and State environmental standards and requirements, including the Clean Water Act, the State water quality standards in particular. The Interior Department proposes to add a new layer of requirements on top of existing laws for both surface and ground water which extends beyond the agency's regulatory reach--far beyond management and protection of Federal lands. These proposed rules, if adopted, would result in inconsistent or duplicative water quality standards or technology requirements because BLM can no longer accept State or EPA determinations as compliance with the 3809 regulations. I must say it is somewhat ironic that the duplication of existing Federal and State water quality programs resulting from this proposal will, in my judgment, impose substantial additional costs on the Bureau of Land Management without any corresponding environmental benefits. The proposed regulations allow States to continue the common practice of joint administration of mine regulation--and this is significant-- but impose unrealistic demands for Federal approval of State programs. The Interior regulations will effectively federalize reclamation laws in all of the Western States even on non-Federal land because the States must amend their laws and regulations to comply with the Federal model in order to enter into an agreement for joint administration. Interior has proposed this requirement without any showing that existing State reclamation laws and programs are inadequate. And finally, the proposed regulations include numerous additional procedural and substantive requirements that will encourage delay in mine permitting and appeals and litigation over permitting decisions. It is clear that the Secretary of Interior is attempting to rewrite the mining law through the regulatory process. I share the Secretary's desire to update the mining law, and I would say for the record that Nevada's mining industry is in the forefront of recognizing that the mining law of 1872 needs to be updated. But that is a job for Congress, not unelected bureaucrats. I am hopeful that the discussions that have been occurring between my colleague, Senator Bumpers, and the mining industry will lead to an agreement on mining law. In the interim, however, I think it is important that we allow the National Academy of Sciences to assess the need for the Interior Department's proposed regulations, and for that reason I urge my colleagues to defeat the Bumpers amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I support the Enzi amendment. I think a statement may be helpful to my colleagues who have not followed this issue as closely as the Senators who have joined us on the floor for purposes of discussing this amendment, the statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that a page of history may be more instructive than a volume of logic. This issue dates back to the time of a court decision involving the Cabazon Indian Tribe. As a result of that decision, the Congress, in 1988, passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which has been referred to in the course of this debate as IGRA. I think the philosophical underpinnings of that legislation continue to be valid. Let me make it clear, because sometimes my view is misconstrued, I support the right of Indian tribes to enjoy entrepreneurial gaming activities to the same extent that State law, as a matter of public policy, permits those entrepreneurial activities to be available to all. So this debate is not whether you agree with Indian gaming or disagree with Indian gaming. I believe the tribes, subject to the qualification I have just stated, have a right to participate in gaming to the extent that, as a matter of State policy, a State chooses to permit gaming entrepreneurial opportunities. We have marked contrasts in the West. The State of Utah, as a matter of State law--as the distinguished Senator from Colorado just pointed out--as a matter of State policy, permits no form of gaming. It is, in my judgment, clear and properly so under IGRA that no tribe within the State of Utah would have a right to participate in any form of Indian gaming. The contrast to my own State is quite marked. In Nevada, as a matter of public policy since 1931, a full range of gaming entrepreneurial activities are available to the citizens of Nevada, and it is clear that the tribes in Nevada have the same opportunity. And, indeed, there have been five compacts negotiated with the tribes in the State of Nevada to permit that. Under IGRA, gaming is divided into three different categories referred to as class I, class II, and class III. Class I and class II are not a part of this discussion. Class I deals with traditional Indian games; class II deals with bingo, and class III deals with casino types of gaming, including slot machines. Again, to repeat, the premise of IGRA is that a Governor of a State is obligated to negotiate with a tribe to provide the same opportunities to tribes in his or her State to the extent the States, as a matter of law, permit gaming in general in that State. Here is what brings us to the floor again this year, as my distinguished colleague from Wyoming points out. Under IGRA, what is contemplated in those States that permit any form of gaming is a compacting process under State law, where the Governors--and, indeed, in the law of some States it is the Governors and the State legislators--are required to negotiate with the Indian tribes within that State to provide those tribes with an equal opportunity to participate in the entrepreneurial aspects of gaming. There is no quarrel by this Senator with respect to that approach. Here is what gives us cause for great concern. Some tribes have asserted that if the Governors of a respective State refuse to grant them everything they want by way of gaming, even though what they want is beyond what is permitted as a matter of State law, that that constitutes bad faith in the negotiating process. They want to be able to bypass that process; namely, the negotiation with the Governors, and in some States the negotiations with the Governors that must be approved by the State legislature. The Enzi amendment does two things. No. 1, it prevents the Secretary of the Interior from moving forward to promulgate the final regulation that would, in effect, seek by regulation to bypass or change the procedure that currently exists. The second thing the amendment does is to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from, in effect, bypassing the compacting process and authorizing a compact that is not in compliance with State law. My colleague from Wyoming has pointed out that this is an issue that is bipartisan in nature; this is not something that divides us on a partisan basis. It does not divide us regionally. It does not divide us philosophically. Some of my colleagues who have spoken oppose gaming in all forms. I respect that. This Senator does not take that position. But the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Attorneys General--both organizations of which I have been privileged to be a member in the past when serving as attorney general and Governor of my State--have gone on record as supporting the Enzi amendment. The reason why they are supporting this amendment so strongly is they want to preserve the right of State governments to determine, as a matter of policy, what, if any, form of gaming activity is permitted. So, for those who find some type of invidious discrimination in this process, I must say this Senator does not. To the extent that a State permits gaming, it is clear that Governors are obligated to negotiate that same right to Indian tribes within the State. To the extent that a State, such as Utah or Hawaii, permits no form of gaming, the Governors of those two States are not required to enter into any kind of compact because those States, as a matter of public policy, have the right to determine what that policy is, and they have said, as a matter of public policy, they oppose gaming, do not want any form to exist within the State. I must say, I thought we had hopefully put this issue to rest a year ago when we offered a similar amendment to the appropriations bill. I thought we had sent a clear message that the Congress of the United States does not want the Secretary of the Interior to bypass a process provided by law; namely, for Indian tribes to negotiate with the Governors as to what kind of gaming activity is to be permitted in that State consistent with that State's public policy. No sooner had this issue been approved by this body, the other body, and it became part of the Interior appropriations bill last year, than the Secretary of the Interior began a rulemaking process that, in my judgment, is violative of the spirit and contrary to the law in terms of what is his authority. It is that disagreement that brings Governors from all regions of the country, Democrat and Republican, in support of the Enzi amendment. It is that same concern that brings the Nation's attorneys general together in a similar bipartisan way to strongly support the Enzi amendment. They do so as a matter of preserving and protecting the ability of each State to determine how much, if any, or how little, gaming is to be permitted within that State. So, this is not, my colleagues, an issue of whether one favors Indian gaming or opposes Indian gaming. It is not an issue of whether you support gaming or oppose gaming. This amendment is designed to preserve the existing law which gives to each State Governor and the legislature the ability in that State to determine whether gaming is to be permitted and, if so, what form of gaming. This is an extraordinarily significant piece of legislation. I must say, I am not familiar with any circumstances currently in the country where the tribes have not been able to negotiate a compact with those States that permit some form of gaming. At last count, there were 150 compacts negotiated in 20 States, pursuant to the law that was enacted by Congress in 1988. I am not suggesting that IGRA is perfect. I am not suggesting that some modification or change may not be needed with respect to some aspect. But that is a decision for the Congress of the United States, not a decision for the Secretary of the Interior. So I implore my colleagues to support the Enzi amendment in a bipartisan fashion, because what it seeks to accomplish is to reserve to the respective States the ability to determine what public policy will be with respect to gaming activities conducted within that State. As I have observed throughout my comments, to the extent that a State as a matter of public policy has determined that they will permit some form of gaming, it is clear in IGRA that State Governors are obligated to negotiate those same entrepreneurial opportunities, and I have no quarrel with that. That is the law. But what we are really talking about here is an attempt to make an end run around IGRA. To the extent that the Secretary of the Interior, by regulation or by determining that an impasse exists, is able to bypass the State compacting process, no longer is it the State determining what the public policy with respect to gaming in that State may be. It is the Secretary of Interior. I have great respect for the Secretary of Interior but, with great respect, that is not an authority that he, or any Secretary of Interior, ought to have. That is an authority that ought to be reserved to the State and the State legislature. We would do real violence to the very carefully crafted balance that was accomplished in IGRA when that was adopted a decade ago. For that reason, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Enzi amendment when this comes for a vote. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, and I thank him and the senior Senator from Arizona for their leadership on campaign finance reform. They have been faithful to the cause. They have been leaders on the floor and they have, I think, engaged the American people at long last in a colloquy so that I believe, as I will comment later in my remarks, the American public now has a better understanding of what is at issue here. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the legislation brought to the floor by Senators McCain and Feingold. I must say that I am pleased--``overjoyed'' may be an understatement-- that the Senate has at last an opportunity to revisit this issue. Although campaign finance reform has been derailed in the past by a perennial filibuster, the event of passage of the Shays-Meehan legislation in the House has provided us with a golden opportunity to move past the procedural maneuvering that has obstructed this important legislation for far too long. The volume of evidence from our most recent Federal elections clearly demonstrates that our current system has spiraled completely out of control. It is no longer a system of rules but a system of loopholes, and through these loopholes has poured a staggering amount of money that continues to escalate each and every campaign cycle. We no longer have a system in which candidates are encouraged to debate their records and their positions on the issues. We no longer have a system in which candidates are encouraged to look for votes by shaking hands at a coffee shop or greeting workers at a factory gate and knocking door to door at residents' homes. Sadly, the system in place today encourages candidates to look not for votes but for money. It is a money chase, Mr. President. And all of us are part of this unsavory system. And only we can change it. It is a shameless and demeaning system. And that just speaks to the extraordinary sums of money that candidates themselves are required to raise and spend. Add to that the millions and millions of dollars raised and spent by the national political parties and outside special interest groups who have perfected the art of saturating an entire State with political ads months and months before the election day. Mr. President, those who continue to oppose meaningful campaign finance reform must be living in a different world. I simply cannot fathom how anyone can look at the chaos of our past and current elections and suggest that the response of the U.S. Senate should be to do nothing. During the recent August recess, I had the opportunity to travel widely throughout my home State of Nevada and to meet face to face with thousands of my constituents. In fact, by automobile I traveled more than 3,000 miles through Nevada, visiting with some of the smallest communities in our State and holding 17 townhall meetings during the course of this recess. Time and time again, the issue of campaign finance reform was raised at these townhall meetings. It was deeply unsettling to see firsthand how disgusted the American people are with the absolute scandal taking place in our campaign finance system. These were not politicians talking about the need for reform. These were ordinary people who have become so disillusioned with our political process that they no longer feel any sort of connection to our democratic system. This is a dangerous threat to democracy itself. Let me also point out that as often as this issue was raised, not a single person, not one, expressed opposition to the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform. No one. Absolutely no one. Thankfully, the House of Representatives has provided us with the opportunity to at least stop the hemorrhaging of our current finance system. Several weeks ago, on a strong, bipartisan vote, the House passed the Shays-Meehan bill which was modeled on the McCain-Feingold legislation before us today. This was not just a handful of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass this legislation. In point of fact, one quarter of the entire House Republican conference voted for that bipartisan bill which passed by a margin of 252-179. Now, I have heard some of our colleagues, in expressing opposition to campaign finance reform, argue that just because the House has passed this legislation, it does not mean we should do so. I must say I have a different interpretation of the present situation. Shame on the Senate for not passing campaign finance reform in the past; shame on the Senate if we refuse to do so now when we have the opportunity to do so. Some of us, myself included, would have preferred more comprehensive reform legislation than McCain-Feingold offers. But it is an important step, a vital step, on the road to campaign finance reform. Its centerpiece is the ban on the so-called soft money. Banning these unlimited and unregulated contributions would represent the most important political reform enacted by the Congress in more than two decades. Let me repeat this: Banning these unlimited and unregulated contributions would represent the most important political reform enacted by the Congress in more than two decades. Despite the 3-year long filibuster of this legislation, we have heard very few opponents come down to the floor and stand up and defend the virtues of a $250,000 in soft money contribution or more. Soft money is an embarrassment to the American political system. It is the mother of all campaign finance loopholes and perhaps the most ingenious money- laundering system in history. Soft money as we know it refers to the unlimited and unregulated contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals that flow to the political parties, unchecked and unregulated, outside the accepted contribution limits and reporting requirements of Federal law. This soft money, with little or no disclosure, is then poured into what have become known as issue ads, a nickname given to television and radio advertisements that skirt Federal election laws and fall under no regulations. This money is raised and spent with virtually no limits and no disclosure. How much soft money can be contributed? Sadly, the sky is truly the limit. In fact, there are no limits to this incredulous, bizarre system. In 1992, just 6 years ago, the two parties raised and spent a combined $86 million in soft money. In just 4 years, soft money more than tripled, exploding from $86 million in 1992 to $262 million in 1996; $260 million that was raised and spent, completely outside the scope of Federal election law. Perhaps the only thing worse than to know how this soft money is raised is to know how this soft money is being spent. In recent years, the airways have been bombarded, saturated with political ads paid for with soft money. These political ads specialize in shredding various candidates without telling the viewers who paid for the ad, where the money came from, and who was responsible for its content. It should come as no surprise to any of us that more and more Americans are repulsed by these anonymous assaults and the sheer volume of money pouring into our election system. As a consequence, they are distancing themselves from the political process. That is the greatest tragedy of all. Americans are so turned off by our political system that they don't even vote on election day. When they do vote, often it is not the sense of voting for the better of two candidates; it is a perception that they are voting for the lesser of two evils on the ballot. With a tidal wave of campaign cash flowing into our political system, the torrent of negative advertising on the airways, and the lack of meaningful disclosure or accountability, it is becoming increasingly difficult, almost impossible, for the American people to feel good about any candidate, or their participation in the democratic process. Just last week, in my home State of Nevada, we had a critically important primary election. Not only is there an open gubernatorial seat in a hotly contested primary, there were primaries for the U.S. Senate, an open House seat, and a number of seats in the State legislature. I am sad to report that only 28 percent of all registered voters in Nevada turned out for this election--28 percent. Let me make an important distinction. That is not 28 percent of all Nevadans who were eligible to register and to participate in the system. That is 28 percent of those who are actually registered. This is a tragedy. It is not good for our system. Seventy-two percent of all registered voters in Nevada did not vote. And Nevada is not alone. I have heard it said that if one looks at the entire primary election cycle this year--and I presume they are factoring in those who are eligible to register and chose not to do so, as well as those who are eligible to vote, having registered but chose not to vote--less than 17 percent of the people in America have participated in the electoral process this year. This is a disaster wherever one comes down in the political scale. Whether one registers himself or herself more closely aligned with Democrats or Republicans, independent Americans or Libertarians, wishes to revive the old Know Nothing party, would like to see the old Whig party revived, or want to be part of the avant garde 1990s and become a member of the vegetarian party, wherever one comes down on the political spectrum, 72 percent of those registered to vote not participating is a system that we cannot sustain and still have a representative democracy in America. In addition to cutting down the soft money system, the McCain- Feingold proposal would place significant restriction on the issue ads which I have just described. Under the Snowe-Jeffords modification, if a radio or television advertisement mentions a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, the funds used to pay for that advertisement must be raised under Federal election law and must be fully disclosed. Some outside organizations have suggested that they have a constitutional right to freely discuss an issue with the electorate. I agree. In fact, under this legislation, any organization can run an advertisement on any issue they want-- whether it is health care reform, gun control, or any other issue--with no restrictions. That is a true issue ad and a sort of communication that the Supreme Court has said is free from government regulation, and properly so. The Supreme Court has also said that we can regulate advertisements that are not meant to advocate issues, but instead are meant to advocate candidates. That is what this legislation provides. True issue ads would be exempt from this legislation. However, if an organization chooses to run an ad in the weeks before an election, and if that ad is clearly designed to advocate for or against a particular candidate who is involved in that election, this legislation will define that activity as election related, and the money used for those ads will be required to be raised and spent under the provisions of Federal election law. Finally, in addition to banning soft money and enacting tough restrictions on candidate ads, the legislation includes a number of provisions that will improve the disclosure of fundraising activities and provide the Federal Election Commission with greater tools to detect and to investigate campaign finance abuses. Unfortunately, it appears that once again it will require 60 votes to move this important legislation through the U.S. Senate. I, for one, would like to see us move past these procedural games and start having real votes and real issues and debate campaign finance reform on the merits, on the substance. Let's vote on whether or not we should ban all soft money. Let's vote on whether these thinly disguised attack ads should be considered election and campaign ads subject to Federal election law, and let's vote on whether we should strengthen our disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Commission and provide that Commission with greater tools to ensure that all candidates and all parties and outside groups are playing by the rules. After the outrageous amount of money spent in the 1996 election, after all the charges and countercharges of abuse, impropriety and quid pro quo, and after what we have already witnessed in the opening months of the election season this year, it would be appalling, in my judgment, if the 105th Congress were to adjourn without passing a single reform of this deplorable system. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold legislation and begin the process of restoring a sense of integrity and confidence to our democratic process. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.