Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Craig amendment. Three million children in America today are on line on the Internet. By the year 2000, 15 million children will be on the Internet. Senator Kyl and I have offered an amendment which takes a public policy which I think every parent in America will support; that is, to prohibit gambling on the Internet. There simply is no way to control access to the Internet and to the types of gambling that are offered. If the Craig amendment is adopted, that policy is effectively emasculated. I join with the junior Senator from Arizona in asking this body to defeat the amendment because every child and every home in America that is on the Internet will have access to gambling on the Internet. My view is that there is no public policy that would support, in effect, a carve-out to say that we prohibit gambling on the Internet in America for everyone except Indian tribes. That makes no sense, may I respectfully submit to the Presiding Officer and to my colleagues. If you believe, as Senator Kyl and I do, that Internet gambling should be regulated and that we should not have access to Internet gambling by children, vote against the Craig amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3266

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute on this issue.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my good friend, the able Senator from Delaware, every States attorneys general in America supports this amendment. Mr. Freeh, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supports this amendment. Under the current law, Internet gambling is spreading all over. There are 140 web sites, $1 billion. We seek to close that door. The Kyl- Bryan amendment seeks to prohibit Internet gambling for everyone--for everyone--so it is not an expansion of gaming. We want to take gambling off the Internet so kids, libraries, and everybody else who can dial up on the Internet these days will not have access to an Internet gambling site. There are currently 140. That is twice as many as the year before. A year from now, there will be 500 if we don't close this hole. The Christian Coalition, everyone from major league sports teams to the attorneys general to the consumer groups all support this amendment.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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. BRYAN. Mr. President, I think that would be all right.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

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.

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. I ask unanimous consent the letter I have identified be printed in the Record.

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.

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, 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.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada would like to inquire of the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Nevada has a bill he would like to introduce. It would take 7 or 8 minutes. Is it possible to work out some kind of time arrangement to do so? The Senator from Nevada also has a flight at 12:45 he would like to make. I am prepared to enter into a unanimous consent if my colleagues agree the floor would be immediately reclaimed by the Senator from Kansas. I am not trying to cut him off, but I do have a time constraint that poses some limitations upon the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BRYAN. I will propound a unanimous consent, if that is agreeable. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to have 8 minutes with the understanding the floor would be retained by the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his consideration. (The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 2326 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and I are introducing ``the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.'' Commercial Web sites are currently collecting and disseminating personal information collected from children that may compromise their safety and most certainly invades their privacy. This legislation will ensure that commercial Web sites that collect and use personal information from children will have safeguards in place to protect you and your family. The Internet is quickly becoming an significant force in the lives of our children as it moves swiftly into homes and classrooms around the country. Currently more than 3 million children under the age of 18 are online and the number is expected to grow to 15 million by the turn of the century. I think all would agree that proficiency with the Internet is a critical and vital skill that will be necessary for academic achievement in the next century. The benefits of the Internet are extraordinary. Reference information such as news, weather, sports, stock quotes, movie reviews, encyclopedia and online airline fares are readily available. Users can conduct transactions such as stock trading, make travel arrangements, bank, and shop online. Millions of people communicate through electronic mail to family and friends around the world, and others use the public message boards to make new friends and share common interests. As an educational and entertainment tool, users can learn about virtually any topic or take a college course. Unfortunately, the same marvelous advances in computer and telecommunication technology that allow our children to reach out to new resources of knowledge and cultural experiences are also leaving them unwittingly vulnerable to exploitation and harm by deceptive marketers and criminals. Earlier this spring, I held several meetings in Nevada with educators and parents' representatives to alert them of some of the deceptive practices found on the Internet. Representatives of the FBI and Federal Trade Commission informed Nevadans about some of the Internet's pitfalls. I found it extremely informative and enlightening and to some extent frightening. You may be startled to learn what information other people are collecting about you and your family may have a profound impact upon their privacy and, indeed, their safety. Once what may seem to be harmless information has made its way onto the Internet, there is no way of knowing what uses may be put to that information. Senator McCain and I wrote to the FTC asking them to investigate online privacy issues. Recently, the FTC completed the survey of a number of web sites and found that 89 percent of children's sites collect personal information from children, and less than 10 percent of the sites provide for parental control over the collection and use of this personal information. I was, frankly, surprised to learn the kinds of information these web sites are collecting from our children. Some were asking where the child went to school, what sports he or she liked, what siblings they had, their pet's name, what kind of time they had after school alone without the supervision of parents. Others were collecting personal financial information like what the family income was, does the family own stocks or certificates of deposit, did their grandparents give them any financial gifts? Web sites were using games, contests, and offers of free merchandise to entice children to give them exceedingly personal and private information about themselves and their families. Some even used cartoon characters who asked children for personal information, such as a child's name and address and e-mail address, date of birth, telephone number, and Social Security number. Much of this information appears to be harmless, but companies are attempting to build a wealth of information about you and your family without an adult's approval--a profile that will enable them to target and to entice your children to purchase a range of products. The Internet gives marketers the capability of interacting with your children and developing a relationship without your knowledge. Where can this interactive relationship go? Will your child be receiving birthday cards and communications with online cartoon characters for particular products? Senator McCain and I believe there must be safeguards against the online collecting of information from children without a parent's knowledge or consent. If a child answers a phone and starts answering questions, a parent automatically becomes suspicious and asks who they are talking to. When a child is on the Internet, parents often have no knowledge of whom their child is interacting. That is why we are introducing legislation that would require the FTC to come up with rules to govern these kind of activities. The FTC's rules would require commercial web sites to: (1) Provide notice of its personal information collection and use practices; (2) Obtain parental consent for the collection, use or disclosure of personnel information from children 12 and under; (3) Provide parents with an opportunity to opt-out of the collection and/or use of personal information collected from children 13 to 16; (4) Provide parents access to his or her child's personal information; (5) Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the confidentiality, security, accuracy, and integrity of personal information on children. The FTC must come up with these rules within 1 year. The FTC may provide incentives for industry self-regulatory efforts including safe harbors for industry created guidelines. The bill permits States' attorneys general to enforce the act. I believe these represent reasonable steps we should take to protect our privacy. Although time is short in this session, I hope we can find a way to enact these commonsense proposals this Congress. Most people who use online services have positive experiences. The fact that deceptive acts may be committed on the Internet, is not a reason to avoid using the service. To tell children to stop using the Internet would be like telling them to forgo attending college because students are sometimes victimized on campus. A better strategy is for children to learn how to be street smart in order to better safeguard themselves from potentially deceptive situations. The Internet offers unlimited potential for assisting our child's growth and development. However, we must not send our children off on this adventure without proper guidance and supervision. Mr. President, in my judgment, the legislation offered today by the senior Senator from Arizona and I provides those reasonable guidelines. I hope colleagues will join with me in making sure this legislation is enacted in this situation.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has enabled millions of individuals across the country to purchase their first home and realize a piece of the American dream. I know this firsthand because my wife and I bought our first home when we were newly married with an FHA loan. There are many families today who would not own their home if it were not for the Federal Housing Administration's single family insurance program. The Federal Housing Administration was created to promote home ownership and stimulate the construction of housing by encouraging financial institutions to make loans to those who did not have adequate resources for a down payment. Since then, FHA has evolved into a program which gives first-time home buyers and under served borrowers greater access to mortgage credit. It is a financially sound system that not only works well, but works well at no cost to the taxpayer. The state of Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country and, as in many states, the real estate activity in Nevada is an important aspect of our economy. As our population grows, the demand for new housing increases. And as we all know, the cost of new homes in many cases is more expensive than existing ones. In Nevada, for example, many first-time home buyers rely on FHA to purchase a home. But as new homes are being built and as the cost of housing rapidly increases in my state, more and more families are unable to secure home ownership. They simply cannot afford the cost of a home under a conventional loan. This not only hurts the economy, but it strips away any hope of owning a home. The loan limit which Senators Bond and Mikulski agreed to in the VA/ HUD appropriations bill would give more first-time home buyers the opportunity to afford a home who would otherwise not be able to. The FHA loan limit would increase the high limit from $170,362 to $197,620 and the lower limit from $86,317 to $109,032. Although the loan limit does not go as far as the President's proposal, which I supported, I believe this proposal is a fair compromise that would benefit our society as a whole. Let me be clear about the importance to raise both the floor and the ceiling of the FHA loan limit: First, raising the FHA loan limit would increase home ownership opportunities. Over the years, the new home portion of FHA's activity has diminished to roughly 6 percent, and only 5 percent of all new homes are now financed with FHA-insured mortgages. This decrease in FHA's role in the market for new homes is clearly a result of the current mortgage loan limits. HUD estimates that higher loan limits would enable approximately 60,000 more families--who have been cut out of the market--each year to purchase a home. Second, FHA is critical to first-time home buyers. Thousands of families with the ability to make the mortgage payments on a home cannot make the purchase because they lack the up front capital required. Raising the FHA loan limits would give them the chance that they do not have under current home finance options. Third, raising the limit would enhance FHA's ability to spread risk. The FHA insurance fund is a financially healthy program and HUD believes that the fund will become stronger when the loan limits are raised. Both Price Waterhouse and the General Accounting Office note that higher value loans perform better than lower valued loans and that the rate of default is lower for larger loans than for smaller loans. OMB estimates that raising the loan limits would create excess revenues of $228 million. Finally, raising the limit would raise revenue for the Treasury and would improve the Government's finances; approximately $225 million in annual revenue would be generated. Arguments against raising the loan limits are weak and do not live up to the true reality of what is in the best interest of the American people. Some argue that the very group FHA was created to serve will be pushed along the wayside if loan limits are increased. Let me remind you that raising the loan limit will increase the average FHA loan amount by 4.2 percent--from $85,500 to $89,109 and the average income by 3.8 percent--from $40,800 to $42,350. The increase would enable more families to buy a home. It would not take away from the underserved population. In fact, since 1992, when the FHA loan limits increased from $124,875 to $170,362, the share of FHA mortgages to low-income borrowers increased from 15.7 percent to 20.1 percent. Mr. President, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me today and support the increase in the FHA loan limit to $197,000 and reject any measure that threatens the opportunity for many first-time home buyers across the country to own a home.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and I are introducing ``the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.'' Commercial Web sites are currently collecting and disseminating personal information collected from children that may compromise their safety and most certainly invades their privacy. This legislation will ensure that commercial Web sites that collect and use personal information from children will have safeguards in place to protect you and your family. The Internet is quickly becoming an significant force in the lives of our children as it moves swiftly into homes and classrooms around the country. Currently more than 3 million children under the age of 18 are online and the number is expected to grow to 15 million by the turn of the century. I think all would agree that proficiency with the Internet is a critical and vital skill that will be necessary for academic achievement in the next century. The benefits of the Internet are extraordinary. Reference information such as news, weather, sports, stock quotes, movie reviews, encyclopedia and online airline fares are readily available. Users can conduct transactions such as stock trading, make travel arrangements, bank, and shop online. Millions of people communicate through electronic mail to family and friends around the world, and others use the public message boards to make new friends and share common interests. As an educational and entertainment tool, users can learn about virtually any topic or take a college course. Unfortunately, the same marvelous advances in computer and telecommunication technology that allow our children to reach out to new resources of knowledge and cultural experiences are also leaving them unwittingly vulnerable to exploitation and harm by deceptive marketers and criminals. Earlier this spring, I held several meetings in Nevada with educators and parents' representatives to alert them of some of the deceptive practices found on the Internet. Representatives of the FBI and Federal Trade Commission informed Nevadans about some of the Internet's pitfalls. I found it extremely informative and enlightening and to some extent frightening. You may be startled to learn what information other people are collecting about you and your family may have a profound impact upon their privacy and, indeed, their safety. Once what may seem to be harmless information has made its way onto the Internet, there is no way of knowing what uses may be put to that information. Senator McCain and I wrote to the FTC asking them to investigate online privacy issues. Recently, the FTC completed the survey of a number of web sites and found that 89 percent of children's sites collect personal information from children, and less than 10 percent of the sites provide for parental control over the collection and use of this personal information. I was, frankly, surprised to learn the kinds of information these web sites are collecting from our children. Some were asking where the child went to school, what sports he or she liked, what siblings they had, their pet's name, what kind of time they had after school alone without the supervision of parents. Others were collecting personal financial information like what the family income was, does the family own stocks or certificates of deposit, did their grandparents give them any financial gifts? Web sites were using games, contests, and offers of free merchandise to entice children to give them exceedingly personal and private information about themselves and their families. Some even used cartoon characters who asked children for personal information, such as a child's name and address and e-mail address, date of birth, telephone number, and Social Security number. Much of this information appears to be harmless, but companies are attempting to build a wealth of information about you and your family without an adult's approval--a profile that will enable them to target and to entice your children to purchase a range of products. The Internet gives marketers the capability of interacting with your children and developing a relationship without your knowledge. Where can this interactive relationship go? Will your child be receiving birthday cards and communications with online cartoon characters for particular products? Senator McCain and I believe there must be safeguards against the online collecting of information from children without a parent's knowledge or consent. If a child answers a phone and starts answering questions, a parent automatically becomes suspicious and asks who they are talking to. When a child is on the Internet, parents often have no knowledge of whom their child is interacting. That is why we are introducing legislation that would require the FTC to come up with rules to govern these kind of activities. The FTC's rules would require commercial web sites to: (1) Provide notice of its personal information collection and use practices; (2) Obtain parental consent for the collection, use or disclosure of personnel information from children 12 and under; (3) Provide parents with an opportunity to opt-out of the collection and/or use of personal information collected from children 13 to 16; (4) Provide parents access to his or her child's personal information; (5) Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the confidentiality, security, accuracy, and integrity of personal information on children. The FTC must come up with these rules within 1 year. The FTC may provide incentives for industry self-regulatory efforts including safe harbors for industry created guidelines. The bill permits States' attorneys general to enforce the act. I believe these represent reasonable steps we should take to protect our privacy. Although time is short in this session, I hope we can find a way to enact these commonsense proposals this Congress. Most people who use online services have positive experiences. The fact that deceptive acts may be committed on the Internet, is not a reason to avoid using the service. To tell children to stop using the Internet would be like telling them to forgo attending college because students are sometimes victimized on campus. A better strategy is for children to learn how to be street smart in order to better safeguard themselves from potentially deceptive situations. The Internet offers unlimited potential for assisting our child's growth and development. However, we must not send our children off on this adventure without proper guidance and supervision. Mr. President, in my judgment, the legislation offered today by the senior Senator from Arizona and I provides those reasonable guidelines. I hope colleagues will join with me in making sure this legislation is enacted in this situation.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about my amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that was adopted last night by the Senate. This amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture to make important information about the Market Access Program (MAP) and its expenditures available to the Congress and to the General Accounting Office (GAO). It is no secret that I am no fan of this program, Mr. President. I would have rather eliminated funding for the Market Access Program completely, as we attempted to do with an earlier amendment. Unfortunately, this wasteful program's corporate handouts survived, but the reporting amendment adopted by the Senate will at least give auditors the tools they need to thoroughly investigate the impact of this program. As I pointed out earlier on the floor of the Senate, the claims that are continually used to justify MAP and extend its life have been called into question by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a study published last year. The report, which was requested by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Kasich, evaluated claims that MAP benefits the U.S. economy, boosts the agriculture sector, and helps counter competitor nations' agricultural export assistance programs. The GAO could not find evidence to authenticate any of these claims. In fact, the GAO assailed the lack of accountability within the Market Access Program and the general lack of clear and complete data available for their analysts. With major questions left unanswered, the GAO has been unable to produce an honest and useful evaluation of the program that could help Congress and program administrators choose policies that will provide the most benefits to the United States. In the conclusion to its report on the Market Access Program, GAO suggested that ``Congress may wish to direct USDA to develop more systematic information on the potential strategic value of U.S. export assistance programs.'' That is exactly what this amendment will do. My amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, to submit a report that analyzes the costs and benefits of the program in compliance with OMB guidelines and treats resources as fully deployed, two of the GAO's main criticisms of earlier program analyses for MAP and other export assistance programs. The amendment would require the USDA to estimate the impact 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. Another requirement calls for an analysis of increases in exports, controlling for outside influences, such as exchange rates and international market conditions, that can have a great influence on international trade. Finally, the Department is required to evaluate the sustainability of promotion efforts in the absence of government subsidies, an important question that has not been asked throughout the life of these programs. Again, Mr. President, I would have liked to eliminate the funding for MAP altogether and turn to other, proven programs to increase the strength of our agriculture sector, but this amendment moves in the right direction by opening up the inner workings of MAP and making this program more accountable. I am hopeful that using these recommendations to gather additional useful information in a report to Congress will finally establish what benefits can truly be attributed to MAP and will help us make informed decisions about this program. The Meat Labeling Act

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Responding to the inquiry of my friend, the senior Senator from Indiana, I wish I could represent to the Senator that this was noncontroversial. In this Senator's judgment, it ought to be. But fairness requires me to say, this is an amendment which has been before the Senate on many occasions dealing with the Market Access Program. It is controversial. I was under the impression that we could lay the pending amendment aside and consider it, but if the chairman has a concern about that, it is not my purpose to interrupt the orderly flow of the processing of this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I find myself in agreement with at least the concern that is expressed by the able chairman of the subcommittee. There is no question that certain agricultural segments in America face a real crisis. As I said at the outset of our discussion on this amendment, I am not unmindful, I am not unsympathetic, of these concerns and, indeed, I expect to support a number of proposals that will be advanced to assist American agriculture as it moves through this crisis period. I do not deny that the decline has demanded, that the turmoil in Asia has created a problem, that there are some weather-related phenomena, that, indeed, there may be some competitive practices by those who compete in the world's international agricultural markets that may be decidedly unfair to American agriculture. I am concerned about that as a citizen and am prepared to support measures that effectively deal with that issue and help American farmers. I am for that. I recognize that, as the myth of this program has taken on legendary proportions, it is an article of faith, unshaken by factual analysis, that somehow the Market Access Program provides additional farm employment, expands exports internationally, is a significant contributor to the growth of the American economy, and somehow is an effective counterweight to some of the unfair competitive practices which American agriculture faces abroad. Mr. President, the problem with that is that each of those arguments has been analyzed in considerable detail, not by the Senator from Nevada but by the GAO in its most recent report of September 1997. Very simply, what the GAO report concludes is that none of the claims, none of the assertions made, can be verified or authenticated-- none; none. The GAO report goes to the heart of the argument that, notwithstanding this mythic epic that seems to have arisen that suggests that this program is indispensable to American agriculture, the GAO report says, ``Look, none of that, none of that can be verified.'' That is the basic premise here. Yes, I want to be supportive and helpful to American agriculture in its time of crisis, but how can you support a program that in 10 years has cost the American taxpayer $2.3 billion? Let me make it clear--and this is not the subject of debate today, and the Senator from Nevada certainly will yield to the Senator from Mississippi in terms of his expertise in agricultural programs--but so none of my colleagues is somehow under the impression that this Market Access Program which I seek to eliminate strikes at the core of what we are trying to do to help American agriculture, let me point out that in this same 10-year period that we spent $2.3 billion on a program which the GAO says does not do what it is intended that it does, or at least it cannot verify or authenticate it, we have spent $9 billion on export subsidies, $7.8 billion on food aid, $53.1 billion in loan guarantees. We have tried to deal with some of the issues which American agriculture faces in the international marketplace. Point No. 1: If nothing else is taken out of this debate, the GAO says this program, notwithstanding the intensity and the passion that its advocates share for it, simply doesn't do the things that the advocates contend. Point No. 1. The second point that I think needs to be raised, even if one conceded for the sake of argument--and I do not and the GAO does not-- how can you continue to justify paying $2.5 million to the good folks at Sunkist? How do we justify paying $1.5 million to the good folks at Blue Diamond Nuts? These are sophisticated, highly effective American companies whose products are world class, and, notwithstanding the fact that none of these products are grown in my State, I think as Americans we take great pride in their success, and the fact these products are found in the storefronts in the markets of the world, that is wonderful, but how do we justify subsidizing with taxpayer dollars? These companies have advertising budgets of tens of millions of dollars--probably much more than that. So the American taxpayer is asked to write a check to subsidize these advertising accounts. This program is not an export subsidy, it is an advertising subsidy. The point I make in response to the point of my able colleague from Mississippi is, No. 1, the GAO says it doesn't accomplish what it says it is designed to accomplish; and, No. 2, the philosophical point, notwithstanding all of our attempts to reform this program that it ought to be confined--I don't think it ought to be in existence--to small companies, still when you look at the top 10 companies that receive these dollars, small businesses receive only $825,000 of the $7,816,000 that went to these top 10 applicants. Notwithstanding what we attempted to do in previous years, in effect, large companies continue to be the beneficiaries of a substantial amount of taxpayers' dollars to supplement their advertising accounts. My good friend and I have an honest difference of opinion. I think that is wrong. I am willing to work with and to support Members from agricultural States in trying to do something that makes sense, that works, that can be helpful, but at this point the GAO has concluded that none of the claims has any validity. I think it is very difficult to continue as we have for the last decade where we spent $2.3 billion on this program. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3157