Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Let me say as we begin this debate in this Congress, it reminds me that we are talking about old wine in a new bottle. These arguments have been advanced for decades now, and the prime mover is the nuclear utility industry. The fatal flaw in S. 104 is that it is unnecessary, unneeded, and bad policy. That is not just the Senator from Nevada making that statement. Let me review for the record some of the statements made by various boards and commissions created by the Congress in terms of their response. We have the 1989 MRS Commission review. The commission report found no safety advantage to centralizing the storage of spent fuel. In 1996, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board analyzed the issue of interim storage and concluded that there is no urgent technical need for centralized storage of commercial spent fuel--no need, no compelling necessity, no safety advantage to be achieved. That was 1996. Now, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board underwent a change in the composition of the chairmanship, so in effect there was an opportunity for essentially a new board composed of new members to review whether or not they would agree with the position taken by their predecessors in 1996. In testimony offered on February 5, 1997, by Dr. Jared L. Cohen, the chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Dr. Cohen simply reaffirmed the position taken by his predecessors, that there is no need, either for technical or safety reasons, to move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility for the next few years. He further maintains that to maintain the credibility of the site collection process, any decision with respect to interim storage should be deferred until a technologically defensible site-suitability determination can be made at Yucca Mountain. Mr. President, that is what the scientists, the people who the Congress, through a series of legislative enactments, have asked to take a look at that, that is what they say--no need, no safety reasons, no compelling necessity, bad policy. That is what the scientific community says. I said at the beginning this is old wine in new bottles. Indeed, Mr. President, it is very, very old wine. The driving policy here is not science; it is the nuclear utilities. It is not a new car. If one looks back nearly two decades ago, on July 28, 1980, this issue was before the Congress. This Senator was not a Member of the body at the time, but the Congressional Record reflects debate on a proposed away-from- reactor concept, which is akin, if you will, to this interim nuclear waste proposal. At that time, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Johnston, addressed himself to the issue, referring again to this need to move this nuclear waste away from the reactor sites--the same issue, identical to what is being debated today. This is what the Senator from Louisiana said nearly 17 years ago: ``Mr. President, this bill deals comprehensively with the problem of civilian nuclear waste. It is an urgent problem.'' Sound familiar? Urgent problem. Urgent problem. ``Mr. President, for this Nation, it is urgent, first, because we are running out of reactor space at reactors for the storage of the fuel, and if we do not build what we call away-from-reactor storage and begin that soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983.'' That was 14 years ago. Not a single nuclear reactor in America has been closed or been forced to close because of this issue. Some have closed because of overriding safety concerns about their operation and maintenance. That, Mr. President, is a separate issue. So here again we have the nuclear utility industry sounding the drumbeat, issuing a clarion call, generating hysteria, that indeed there will be brownouts across the country and reactors will have to close unless we pass S. 104, the modern day equivalent to the legislation that was before the Senate of the United States some 17 years ago. The answer today is the same as the answer then. There is no compelling necessity, no need, no rational policy to do so, and no safety issue that makes that a compelling issue. So we come back to a policy that is driven by the nuclear utilities and their desire, insatiable as it may be, to move the reactor storage from site, somewhere, anywhere, but in this particular piece of legislation to a place at the Nevada Test Site or so-called interim storage. I want to take just a few minutes, Mr. President, and we will have an opportunity to debate this at some length, as the distinguished chairman indicated, but let me review the bill, because it is flawed not only in its premise; it is flawed in its content. I want to talk first of all about the National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted in 1969, enacted by bipartisan actions of this Congress, signed by a Republican President, and it was designed to do many things. But it was designed, first, to have an environmental impact addressed before, not after, the decisions are made. Now, what this legislation does--and I must give the nuclear utilities credit; their handsomely paid lawyers, legislative advocates, have been skillful, if somewhat deceptive, in terms of what they have crafted here. They say the National Environmental Policy Act, yes, it is applicable. But the Secretary--referring to the Secretary of Energy--shall not prepare an environmental impact statement under this section before conducting the activities that are authorized and commanded by the bill. Yes, the act exists, but you may take no action on it at this earlier phase. And then it goes on to say that the impact statement of the commission, in terms of what it may not address, shall not consider the need for interim storage. Mr. President, this is the total antithesis of the underlying predicate of an environmental impact statement. In effect, this ties one hand behind the back of those who would conduct such an environmental impact statement and, on the other hand, writes the script as to its conclusion before any study is undertaken. So the first thing they cannot do--Heaven forbid that they should examine the need for interim storage. They can't do that. No, they can't examine the time of the initial availability. They may not, Heaven forbid, consider any alternatives to the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in an interim storage. Heaven forbid that they would be able to consider any alternatives to the site of the facility, or any alternatives to the design criteria, or the environmental impacts of storage of spent nuclear fuel at a high-level radioactive waste at the interim storage beyond the initial term of the license. Now, this is very good lawyering, but disastrous public policy, because the initial application calls for a licensure period of 20 years. But when you look at the fine print, that can be extended for another 100 years and can be renewed for 100 years thereafter. So any environmental impact evaluation would be limited to the initial term of the license, 20 years. Why is that particularly significant? Mr. President, what we are dealing with is high-level nuclear waste. It is deadly, not for 20 years, 100 years, or a thousand years, but for more than 10,000 years. The National Academy of Sciences and other distinguished groups that have looked at this have indicated that indeed the impacts must be considered, and they must be considered even beyond the 10,000 years, they argue. This would say limit it to the first period of the initial term of the license, which is 10 years. And, oh, yes, we don't want to have the courts review what may happen. No, that would certainly be contrary to our tradition, our history, our society, and our culture to have any kind of a timely judicial review. This limits judicial review only to the time of licensing. So the impacts, such as they may be, must be considered only at the time that the commission makes a decision on licensing. ``No court shall have jurisdiction''--we are talking about Federal court, not a State court. ``No court shall have jurisdiction to enjoin the construction or operation of the interim storage facility prior to its final decision on review of the commission's licensing action.'' It makes a mockery of the National Environmental Policy Act, an absolute mockery. So indeed, that is the first thing it does that would destroy a carefully framed set of legislative policies enacted by Members of both political parties and a Republican President in 1969. Now, let me also talk for a moment about a preemption section. This was a subject of considerable debate in the last session of Congress when this virtually identical bill--now, the chairman made some reference to this fact--and I have not seen the language--that there may be some changes in this section. But because we don't have them, let me indicate that the bill as processed by the committee, in section 501, reads as follows: ``If the requirements of any Federal, State, or local law, including a requirement imposed by regulation, or by any other means under such a law, are inconsistent with or duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act or of this act''--this specific legislation--``the Secretary shall comply only with the requirements of this act and the Atomic Energy Act.'' Mr. President, make no mistake as to what that means. That wipes out virtually every environmental law passed in the last 25 years by this Congress--clean air, safe drinking water--it wipes them all out. That was the posture of the bill when it was presented and acted upon in the last Congress--preemption. That language remains in the committee draft. If there are changes in that, we will comment at a later time. Let me talk also about the standards. One may agree or disagree that nuclear energy is good or bad national policy. That is something that is reasonable to debate. But I want to speak specifically here to the standards that are referenced in the act. Now, why are the standards-- and the distinguished occupant of the chair is very much aware of the fact that our States are Western States with vast expanses of land, but we are as concerned about the health and safety of our citizens as those of our urban brethren who live along the eastern seaboard. So let us talk about what this legislation does with respect to the standards issue. The first thing that it does is it seeks to impose a limitation on the Environmental Protection Agency. Surely, one would agree that if we are to have a facility to store nuclear waste, we ought to have a safe standard. Can there be any fundamental disagreement with that? Well, the answer might appear to be yes. But, clearly, the legislative wordsmiths who have crafted this piece of legislation, much as they did in the last legislative session, have sought to handcuff and limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to establish standards. It is cleverly done. Give a gold star for that. But here is what it says: ``Such standards shall be consistent with the overall system performance established by this subsection, unless the Administrator determines by rule that the overall system performance standard would constitute an unreasonable risk to health and safety.'' Clearly, it shifts the burden of proof. It mandates a legislative standard, greatly diminished, unless the Environmental Protection Agency can prove to the contrary, that it would constitute an unreasonable risk to health and safety. Now, why would it be unreasonable to say, look, if you are going to establish this unnecessary, costly and, in my judgment, foolhardy venture, at least provide health and safety standards for the people who are going to have to live with that for 10,000 years. It doesn't mean that that is unreasonable. It is not narrow or parochial. One would think that every Member of this institution would feel that way. But not here. Let me just say that that has been debated before in the context of the WIPP facility and with respect to the WIPP facility, the two able Senators from New Mexico took the floor and, at great length, advocated very effectively that the standard for health and safety should be the toughest standard possible. That occurred in debate in this very Chamber in June 1996. The distinguished senior Senator, Mr. Domenici, said, ``What is most important to us and what is most important to the people of New Mexico is that, as this underground facility * * *''--they were talking about the WIPP facility--``proceeds to the point where it may be opened, that it be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's most strict requirements with reference to health and safety. As a matter of fact, they must certify it before it can be opened.'' I applaud the senior Senator from New Mexico for his concern for his constituents. I agree with him. I hope my colleague from Nevada and I will be provided the same benefit that would be afforded to the New Mexico Senators, as they expressed it. Mr. Bingaman expressed himself eloquently to the issue on that same day, the foremost concern that I have. What the junior Senator from New Mexico said is, ``Our concern from the beginning is whether or not we are adequately protecting the health and safety of our citizens.'' Mr. President, we may not agree on everything in terms of public policy. There is certainly ample room for policy debate on a whole host of issues. I acknowledge that. But believe me, it seems to me that we ought to be able to agree that health and safety is the most important thing that we ought to be about. I want to return to the subject of additional standards, because what this legislation does is quite manipulative. It limits the ability of those that we have vested with the responsibility of protecting our health and safety, in my view, in a very, very sinister way. First of all, it establishes, by legislative fiat, a 100 millirem standard. We are talking about radioactive emission exposure. I freely acknowledge, Mr. President, that I could not define a millirem with any degree of specificity. But I do know that it is the scientific unit that is accepted as the standard by which emissions are to be measured. I invite the attention of the body to the fact that for safe drinking water, it is a four millirem standard. We have other standards that are set, such as the WIPP standards, which the distinguished Senators from New Mexico addressed so eloquently last year as they were concerned about the health and safety of New Mexicans, just as Senator Reid and I are concerned about the health and safety of Nevadans. Let me suggest--it's perhaps wildly idealistic--shouldn't we all be concerned about the health and safety of Americans? We are one country, one nation. As I will point out in a minute, this is not just a Nevada issue. This affects tens of millions of people who would be affected by the policy implications of this bill. Let me go on and say that if you are from the Nordic countries, it is 10 millirems. The upper range Yucca Mountain study is 30 millirems. I cite this because it is so blatant. 100 millirems. That is a standard that is fixed not by science--oh, no, the utility lawyers put that one in there for us to contend with. Now, the National Academy of Sciences is a highly respected body. What they have indicated would be appropriate is a risk-based standard. It seems reasonable to me. I hasten to emphasize, Mr. President, there are no Nevadans that are on the National Academy of Sciences. They were not selected by the Nevada delegation, Nevada's Governor, or the Nevada Legislature. They were created by an act of Congress--the National Academy of Sciences. That is what they have recommended. Who is to be protected? This gets a little technical. Under S. 104, the standard of protection is greatly reduced. It is done in almost an arcane expression, but, in effect, a person whose physiology, age, general health, agricultural practices, eating habits, and social behavior represent the average for persons living in the vicinity of the site-- the ``vicinity of the site''; we do not know what that means--extremes in social behavior, eating habits, or other relevant practices or characteristics, shall not be considered. Has the National Academy of Sciences agreed with that standard? They have not. They believe that it ought to be a critical group, a small, relatively homogeneous group whose location and habits are representative of those expected to receive the highest doses. Those expected to receive the highest doses makes sense to me. One of the other provisions in here is the application. In other words, for what period of time must health and safety be considered? We are talking about an interim facility that could, under the terms of this legislation, last for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. There is a limitation again because the utilities don't want a scientific standard. They want something that they can lobby through the Congress and get what they want. So this legislation tells us that the commission shall issue the license--referring to the license to operate the interim facility--if it feels or finds reasonable assurance that for the first 1,000 years following the commencement of the repository operations--1,000 years; the recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences is that the repository should be required to meet a standard during a period of greatest risk and that there is no scientific basis for limiting the time period to 10,000 years, or any other value. I hasten to note that they believe that the standard should be considered even beyond the 10,000 years. There is another provision in here that again is arcane but particularly significant. That is that the commission is mandated to assume no human intrusion--that is to say, in the next 10,000 years--if no human intrusion would be possible. The National Academy of Sciences conclude that there is no scientific basis for assuming there would be no human intrusion. The performance of the repository . . . should be assessed using the same analytical methods and assumptions, including those by the biosphere, the critical groups used in the assessment of the performance for the undisturbed case. The National Academy of Sciences also recommends another very important provision. That is, that because these involve important policy issues, opportunities for rulemaking necessitates wide-ranging inputs from all interested parties. That simply means giving people an opportunity to be heard, to express themselves, to offer their own insights, and to allow those with the technical background to offer the technical analyses. That should be a matter of record before a decision. But not S. 104; these are set by statute with no public comment period allowed. So, Mr. President, we have something that is fatally flawed because it is not needed. It makes no sense. We have something that currently preempts the environmental laws of this country, emasculates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and establishes standards which are arbitrary and not predicated upon science. We will hear, as we have heard in previous debates, that this is all about science, to let science prevail. This legislation makes a mockery of the scientific process. It seeks to impose by legislative fiat a policy and a parameter limitation that is inconsistent with science. So let no one take the floor and argue that this is science that is speaking. This is nuclear utility politics speaking. That is the only thing that is being responded to. We have all agreed--the White House, the Congress, Democrats and Republicans--that we are going to balance the budget in the next 5 years. I want to specifically reference some of the language as it relates to the funding. The General Accounting Office has indicated in a report that the current fiscal condition of the nuclear waste fund will experience a shortfall of some $4 to $8 billion. That is to say that under its current construction, without the changes that this legislation makes, there would be a shortfall of $4 billion to $8 billion. I think many of my colleagues are aware that the nuclear waste trust fund is funded by a mill tax, a mill tax that is assessed on each kilowatt-hour that is generated. If we are currently underfunded, as the General Accounting Office has indicated, let me show you that the real significance of this legislation from a financial point of view is to shield the nuclear utilities from the liabilities that they agreed to undertake at the time the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was entered into and the agreements were signed and to shift their responsibility in the financial sense to the American taxpayer. This legislation provides that until the year 2002 the current 1 mill per kilowatt-hour will get capped. That is the maximum that can be collected from the utilities. That is a cap, contrary to the existing law which presents no such cap. In addition, this legislation provides that from the year 2003 the aggregate amount of fees--I will read the specific language. Although it is written in bill-drafting legalese, I think it will be clear to all. ``The aggregate amount of fees collected during each fiscal year, or thereafter, shall be no greater than the annual level of appropriations for expenditures on those activities.'' If we put that in the context of what is being spent this year, it would be roughly one-third of the mill, which would be the most that could be assessed. Why is that significant? That is significant because the last reactor license will expire sometime around the year 2033, and the responsibility for maintaining a repository would go on, in an active sense, for at least, say, roughly another 40 years. So that means that that kind of funded liability will be shifted from the nuclear utilities to the American taxpayer. I say to my friends--and I was supportive of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and I think that makes sense--that I believe one of the great legacies this Congress could leave to the American people is to get our fiscal house in order, to do some responsible things for the budget, and to reach that balanced budget goal by the year 2002. But, Mr. President, there is no way that you can give the utilities a bailout, a subsidy, if you will, a new corporate entitlement, to elevate corporate welfare to a high art form as this piece of legislation does. It caps their liability and says we will take care of the rest contrary to existing law. Existing law does not contemplate that that be true. Moreover, this legislation, S. 104, contemplates that that would be an interim storage. That would still fund the site characterization and the study activities of the permanent repository. But the estimate for funding interim storage, as this bill constitutes--and that comes from the Congressional Budget Office--in the first 5 years is $2.3 billion. If you add that to the cost of what we are currently expending, an amount of about $380 million a year--that is the total we are spending right now--in the next couple of years you are going to have to have $1 billion by the fiscal year 1999--that is $1 billion--to fund the current operation of an interim storage facility and the high-level nuclear waste repository proposed at Yucca Mountain. It is pretty clear what this is all about. This is an interim storage. This is a thinly disguised attempt to establish a permanent high-level dump without any of the safeguards that are provided in the current legislation form for a permanent repository. Mr. President, my colleague from Nevada has joined me. If I might inquire of him, I know that he might care to speak extensively on the transportation issue. I am prepared to do so if he cares to address another aspect of that. But I will invite his response.

Mr. BRYAN. That is absolutely correct. There are a number of utilities that do it. One is just about 40 miles from the Nation's Capital. It is authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So this is not a proposal that originates from those of us in this body, it is a scientifically accepted alternative that is available onsite storage which provides a 100-year storage option without, as the senior Senator from Nevada correctly points out, the risk involved in transportation and handling. I might just add parenthetically, with all the talk about the casks that are going to be used to be shipped across the country, those casks have not yet been designed and licensed.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me preface my remarks by acknowledging the courtesy from the senior Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate his courtesy in allowing me to make a floor statement for a period not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I might respond, the Senator from Nevada needs about 5 to 6 minutes, but if that inconveniences the Senator from West Virginia, I am happy to wait. Whatever the Senator wishes.

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate that. That would accommodate the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death to persons under 35, and the fifth leading cause of death in the Nation overall. Unintentional injuries kill more children over age one than any disease. It is astounding that there are an average 21,400 deaths and 29.4 million injuries each year related to consumer products under the jurisdiction of a small, but effective, Federal agency--the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC]. The CPSC finds that deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with consumer products cost the Nation $200 billion annually. In 1996, the CPSC negotiated 375 recalls involving over 85 million products that presented a significant risk of injury to the public. However, despite recall notices and public warnings, many old hazardous products such as bean bag chairs, wooden bunk beds, mini-hammocks and cribs--with the potential to seriously injure or kill a child--remain in homes, flea markets, garage sales or in second hand stores. To rid consumers' homes of hazardous products, the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the leadership of Chairman Ann Brown, on April 16 of this year, will launch ``Recall Round-Up Day'' by broadcasting a video to television stations across the country. The video will have examples of hazardous products that might be in consumers homes, such as the following: Bean bag chairs that can present a choking or suffocation hazard to children. Some bean bag chairs can be unzipped and children can then inhale the small pellets of foam filling. The CPSC is aware of at least five deaths and at least 23 other incidents in which children inhaled or ingested bean bag filling. In the past 2 years, CPSC obtained the recall of more than 10 million bean bag chairs. Wooden bunk beds that can strangle young children. Since 1990, CPSC has received reports of 32 children who died after becoming caught in bunk beds with improper openings in the top bunk structure. Since 1995, CPSC has obtained the recall of approximately half a million hazardous bunk beds. Mini-hammocks that can strangle children. CPSC has received reports of 12 children, ages 5 to 17 years, who became entangled and died when using mini-hammocks without spreader bars. Last year, CPSC obtained the recall of over three million minihammocks. Old cribs that can choke or suffocate a small child. Cribs having more than 2\3/8\ inches between crib slats, corner posts, or cut outs on the headboard or footboard present suffocation and strangulation hazard to babies. Each year, 50 babies die when they become trapped between broken crib parts or in cribs with older, unsafe designs. CPSC is enlisting the help of State and local officials, as well as national and State health and safety organizations, in connection with State and local governments throughout the Nation, to publicize a safety campaign, distribute information about these and other hazardous products in the home. In some States, recalled products will be rounded up and brought to a central location for disposal. I commend Chairman Ann Brown and the CPSC for taking this bold action. My State Office in Las Vegas is working with the State chapter of the National SafeKids Campaign, Sunrise Children's Hospital, and the Clark County Health Dept. to organize local events throughout the State for Recall Roundup. We will publicize the campaign through the media to reach the general public. Special efforts will be directed to reach child care providers and especially new parents. The sellers of used articles that could include recalled products will also be alerted to the hazards that used cribs, bunk beds, minihammocks and bean bag chairs could present to prevent the resale of these items. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in this effort and to encourage organizations in your State to take an active role in this lifesaving effort on April 16. For this reason, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a ``Suggested List of Local Activities'' recommended by the CPSC for this important Recall Round-Up Day on April 16.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, yesterday in the Senate Banking Committee American consumers were dealt a major setback. The committee was expected to vote out legislation that would have ended a practice that costs hundreds of thousands of homeowners millions of dollars per year. The Banking Committee was scheduled to vote out S. 318, the Homeowners' Protection Act of 1997 which is sponsored by Senators D'Amato, Dodd, Domenici, and myself. This bill would outlaw the practice of overcharging homeowners for private mortgage insurance they no longer need. Unfortunately, Chairman D'Amato was forced to cancel the markup because a number of Members put the interest of a small, yet highly profitable, industry over the public's interest. To make matters worse, this industry is clearly taking advantage of millions of Americans in an unconscionable manner. The opponents of Chairman D'Amato's legislation argue that the bill places too heavy a burden on this one industry. I do not share their opinion and believe the interests of millions of American homeowners should be put ahead of an industry that is clearly taking advantage of these same homeowners. Those protecting the industry need to heed the advice of one of their colleagues, Congressman James Hansen. Let me share from Congressman Hansen's observations: As a small businessman for most of my life . . . I have learned that if an industry polices itself, the government should not interfere. I firmly believe that the government should stay out of the private marketplace. However, when an industry does not follow even its own guidelines, I believe it is our responsibility to draw that line. Now that comes, Mr. President, from one of our more conservative colleagues who serves in the other body. I commend Chairman D'Amato for his leadership in introducing this important legislation that will affect millions of homeowners. Let me indicate how important that is and how many people are affected. In 1996, of the 2.1 million home mortgages that were insured, more than 1 million required private mortgage insurance. One industry group has estimated that at least 250,000 homeowners are either overpaying for this insurance or paying when it is totally unnecessary. At an average monthly cost of $30 to $100, unnecessary insurance premiums are costing homeowners thousands of dollars every year. Now, clearly, private mortgage insurance serves a useful purpose in the initial mortgage lending process. It enables many home buyers who cannot afford the standard 20-percent downpayment on a home mortgage to achieve a dream of home ownership. While private mortgage insurance protects lenders against default on a loan, there comes a time when that protection afforded to the lender becomes unnecessary, and the point, it seems to me, is reached when the homeowner's equity investment in the residence gives the lender sufficient assurance against default. The comfort level generally within the industry has been 20 percent. So it stands to reason that PMI is not necessary for risk management and prudent underwriting procedures once the homeowner has reached the 20-percent equity mark. Therefore, borrowers who amass equity equal to 20 percent of their homes' original value should be treated in the same way as borrowers who are able to make a 20-percent downpayment or more at the outset of the loan. The Homeowners' Protection Act of 1997 would ensure that existing and future homeowners would not continue to pay for private insurance when it is no longer necessary. Specifically, this legislation would inform the borrower at closing about private mortgage insurance and outline how the servicer of the loan will automatically cancel the mortgage insurance, assuming the transaction is not exempt from cancellation when the loan balance reaches 80 percent of the original value. Mr. President, there is no doubt that private mortgage insurance is an important tool in the American system of mortgage finance. However, retaining private mortgage insurance beyond its usefulness to the homeowner is a practice that should be ended. The Homeowners' Protection Act will prevent present and future homeowners from paying for private mortgage insurance that is no longer needed. This proposal will end the unfair practice and protect the consumer. This legislation is supported by almost every consumer group, but also leading industry groups such as the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Homebuilders. I urge my colleagues to move forward on this important piece of consumer legislation and put the industry's objections below the overriding public interest. We must lift this unfair burden from American homeowners. I thank the Chair. I thank my senior colleague from West Virginia for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for his courtesy and his most generous remarks and to say, again, as I have on previous occasions, that I am very pleased to be a supporter of this constitutional amendment that he has authored each and every Congress that I have been here since 1989. I believe what we are discussing today is central to the issue of meaningful campaign reform, and I want to publicly commend him for his leadership and express my admiration for him and my conviction that I share with him that this is the essence of what we need to do. Let me just say that I believe that the most corrosive force in our political culture today, and what lies at the heart of many problems in our political system, is the amount of money required to run a campaign for elective office. Money has become the dominant factor in deciding who runs, who wins and, too often, who has the influence and power in the halls of Government. Mr. President, I don't say that with a partisan vein. That is true with respect to the system that we are all a part of--Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. Every year, the expense of campaigning increases, and the pressure to seek financial support, wherever it can be found, intensifies. Clearly, good people are trapped in a system where the amount of money needed to run a campaign can overshadow their views and the issues. Too often, candidates are forced to spend as much time raising money as going out and meeting the voters or to develop responsible solutions to the critical issues that face our society. It is a fact that all of us would acknowledge that every night here in Washington someone has a political fundraiser, either a Democrat or a Republican running for office, running for reelection. And much like an ever-escalating arms race, the cost of Senate campaigns have increased sixfold over the last 20 years, from $609,100 in 1976, to $3.6 million in 1996. The average cost for a winning House candidate during that same period of time increased from $87,000 in 1976, to $661,000 in 1996. And between 1992 and 1996, fundraising by political parties increased 73 percent. Simply put, Mr. President, there is too much money in the political process. Mr. President, the recently concluded Presidential and congressional campaigns were the most costly ever in American political history, with combined amounts of more than $2 billion. The two parties raised $263.5 million in soft money in the 1996 campaign, almost three times the amount raised in the 1992 election. Unless the rules are changed, candidates and their parties will continue to pursue the money chase and the amount of money involved in future campaigns will continue to grow exponentially. Mr. President, I might make an aside here, if the distinguished primary sponsor has a moment for me to expand for just a moment.

Mr. BRYAN. And I say that we all lament the declining participation in the political electoral process in America. The 1996 election turnout was said to be the lowest since 1920. I would offer this as at least a significant contributing factor. There is no question the folks back home are pretty upset with those of us who serve in the Congress. I believe that that is their thought, seeing each party and each of us who are part of this system--I want to be clear, Mr. President, I include myself as being part of this system--who are forced to go out there and raise these inordinate, scandalous amounts of money to be competitive--to be competitive. In the State of Nevada, it was about $3.5 million for my last campaign for reelection to the U.S. Senate. They see this. And I think it has engendered a sense of public cynicism that all of this money that is involved--I believe in the public mind, they frequently link the big money, the big contributors to the political system that we have today. And because most of them are not in the category of being big money contributors, they have been turned off. The system no longer works for them, the system is no longer responsive to their needs, is their perception. So, as a result, I hear good people, Democrats and Republicans alike, in increasing and in alarming numbers saying, ``I'm not going to vote. I'm not going to vote.'' I do not agree with that proposition and get into spirited discussions. ``What difference does my vote make? Look, the folks who have got the money, they're the ones who really control the electoral process in America today. Why should I get involved?'' And I must say, as we see these campaign expenditures continue to mount, I believe that we provide the evidence for their rising levels of cynicism. I was a young man in the State legislature in the 1970's, and the centerpiece to the Watergate reform was, as the distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, the concept of controlling and limiting the amount of money that is spent in running for office. The other provisions which continue to survive--individual campaign contribution limits and the Federal Election Commission disclosures, the distinction between soft money and hard money--which are still very much a part of the political environment, have survived, to some extent, successive legal challenges in the courts. But the centerpiece, limiting the amount of money spent for running for office, has essentially been eviscerated by the Buckley versus Valeo decision. I was in the legislature and responding to some of the reforms that came out of the Watergate Congress. We adopted, in the State of Nevada, a series of campaign limitations. Those, too, fell by the wayside by the Supreme Court's decision in the Buckley versus Valeo case in 1976, which I believe to be an ill-considered decision, but which, as everybody in this Chamber knows, essentially equated political expenditures on behalf of the individual candidate as being tantamount to free speech, and any attempt to limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend is constitutionally infirm. I must say, recent decisions in the Court, and the recent Colorado decision, give us no hope to believe that the Court is about to reconsider its position. It is my humble opinion that the Colorado case has made matters even more difficult and has continued to shred what vestiges remain of a comprehensive and, I think, carefully thought-out campaign finance reform legislation in the aftermath of the Watergate. Amending the Constitution is not something that should be undertaken lightly. That admonition is frequently given by our colleagues. And they are right. We ought not just to do that. We ought not to think of the Constitution as a rough draft that we can improve upon with a wholesale series of amendments. I agree with that admonition. But I would say, Mr. President, with great respect, that our forefathers could never have anticipated the consequences of the electoral system they put in place, with all of its checks and balances and with the genius that we all revere, Democrat and Republican alike, that this has increasingly become a money chase. So it seems to me we have two choices: To either do nothing and to allow a situation which I believe to be appalling to get measurably worse, or we can take corrective action. The American people want us to take corrective action. The American people do not fully understand that it is the Court's decision itself that prevents us from legislative action to impose a limit on the amount of money as candidates we spend in running for the Congress and in other elective offices in America. I believe one of the most important steps we can take to restore public confidence in our political process is to pass the amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor with my friend and colleague from South Carolina, and to give the Congress and to give State legislatures power that they thought that they possessed in the 1970's and to impose limitations on the amount of money that is spent in running for public office. Individuals who want to run for Congress and other elective offices ought to be able to run on the basis of the ideas that they represent, the vitality that they bring to the process, not as is so often the case, ``Can I raise $3 million or $4 million or $10 million or, in some instances, $20 million?'' Unless we can find a way to limit the amount of money spent on Federal campaigns and place a greater emphasis on getting support from the people back home that we represent, we will fall short of real reform. Any serious reform proposal must start with the constitutional amendment to allow the States and Congress to craft measures that would take Government out of the pockets of the special interests and back in the hands of the American people who we represent. Mr. President, I am not unmindful of the fact that our task is difficult. Many of our colleagues do not agree. But I must say that as I talk with my own constituents, I think there is an overwhelming interest across a broad spectrum, Republican, Democrat, liberal and conservative, to do something about this political process that we are all a part of. In the Nevada legislature this year there is a proposal that will require further disclosure on the amount of campaign contributions. That, so far, the Supreme Court has said is legal, and that enjoys bipartisan support and is likely to pass overwhelmingly. A ballot proposition on the Nevada ballot this past fall which sought to further limit the amounts of individual campaign contributions in statewide and local races passed by 71 percent. I understand if you ask people about things that concern them most in life, they are not going to list campaign finance reform. They are interested in crime, in schools, in drugs, and those kinds of issues, which I understand. But I have yet to be in an audience of any size in which you ask people about this system that we are part of, and they do not say, ``I hope that you will do something to reform it. Campaign finance reform is something that you should undertake.'' They understand, as do each of us in this Chamber, it will not come about without bipartisan support. Mr. President, let me again commend my friend and colleague, who has really been the laboring force on behalf of this constitutional amendment, for his courage and tenacity and, I think, the wisdom of his proposal. I am proud to support in this Congress, as I have previous Congresses, such a constitutional amendment. I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to speak, as I need to return to a committee hearing.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for his thoughtful comments. Mr. President, let me just say, by way of prefacing my comments, that I have enjoyed being a participant in this debate. And I have enjoyed the manner in which my colleague, the distinguished Democratic floor leader--who has a very different point of view from that which Senator Hatch and I share--has conducted himself and the arguments that he has made and the responses by the senior Senator from Utah. It seems to me that that is what this institution is all about--the ability to conduct an honest debate on the floor with different points of view being expressed. Hopefully from that collision of different points of view will emerge a public policy which will enable this country to move forward on the correct course. Mr. President, the Senate will soon cast a historic vote to decide whether Senate Joint Resolution 1 should become a part of our Constitution. This may very well be the most significant vote the Senate will cast in this session of the Congress. If we are successful, it could dramatically alter the future of our country in a very positive way. I renew my request and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of a balanced budget amendment for the sake of future generations. The Senate has been debating Senate Joint Resolution 1 for an entire month, and just as it should when we are considering an amendment to our Constitution, the debate has been thoughtful and thorough. We have debated serious and credible amendments on a wide range of topics including the treatment of Social Security and capital budgeting. The Senate debated these issues and after debate decided to leave Senate Joint Resolution 1 intact and rejected each of those proffered amendments. I supported several of the amendments, but it is now time to put the debate on those amendments behind us and pass the amendment. While some of us may have felt that the amendment could be improved with certain change, all of us must realize that we are better off with this amendment than with the status quo. I would like to take a moment to recognize the two of my colleagues who have spent more time in the Chamber debating this than any of us, and that would be the senior Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], and the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd]. These men have served in this institution with distinction for a combined 60 years. During this past month, each of them has treated us to his own brand of eloquence in espousing his point of view. It has been a delight for those of us who are privileged to serve in this institution to hear and to share in that debate. No one who has observed the floor proceedings can question the depth of their sincerity about their feelings. It is a tribute to the democratic process to see this kind of debate occur in this Chamber. Mr. President, amending our Constitution is the most significant action the Senate can take, and it should not be undertaken lightly. In this case I believe the future of our country is at stake--the ability of our children and our children's children to have the same economic choices in their time that our generation has enjoyed. We are constantly reminded that everyone is for a balanced Federal budget but not everyone is for a constitutional amendment which puts that process in place and helps us to achieve that goal. On its face, this position appears to me to be inconsistent. If you are for a balanced budget, it would seem the more logical course of action would be to support a mechanism that would help to facilitate the outcome. I believe the amendment accomplishes that purpose. The amendment itself is very straightforward. Congress may not let spending exceed revenues in a given year unless a 60-percent supermajority of those elected both in the House and the Senate vote to permit a specific amount of deficit spending. While this does not guarantee balanced budgets, it will, in my judgment, make it more difficult to authorize deficit spending if this process, a constitutional amendment, is in place. My experience as Governor of Nevada convinces me of the merits of this process. With a State constitution that requires a balanced budget, those of us who were privileged to serve as the chief executive of our States were forced to make hard choices in spending and on revenues, particularly during the period of economic slowdown during the 1980's. The year that I assumed the Governorship of Nevada, January 1983, we were concerned that the State payroll would not clear because budget revenues had fallen far short of their original and earlier projections. Yet, with that hammer of a constitutional amendment in place in our own State, it would have been much more difficult, much more difficult to have ignored the constitutional mandate to balance the budget. Therefore, both the Governor and the State legislature were able to resist the pressure of those good people in our State urging spending for programs that many of us were for. The point I think, Mr. President, is the hard choice. It is the nature of those who are advocates for these programs, good people all, to urge more spending than they know a Governor at the State level or the legislature at the State level can approve, and it becomes the responsibility of those of us who have served at the State level as Governors to submit a balanced budget and for State legislatures to require a balanced budget. We did not have the luxury of avoiding the painful cuts by running deficits. That would have been the easy way out and, unfortunately, the way the Federal Government has chosen to proceed in 59 of the last 67 years. My experience as a Senator has also taught me how difficult those budget choices can be. The process is essentially the same, with a much greater magnitude, and while we have made impressive progress in reducing the deficit over the last 4 years--$107 billion in the last fiscal year, projected at one time to be $292 billion--the President and Congress can justifiably take pride in what they have accomplished, but balancing the budget by the year 2002 will require sustained discipline, the kind of discipline that has not characterized our actions either from the White House or from the Congress. If we are successful, we will have accomplished something that has occurred only once in the last 33 years. After 2002, the deficit picture gets worse, and gets dramatically worse, when the baby-boom generation, a tidal wave, begins to impact the programs that we have put in place for the elderly in America. Without the balanced budget amendment, the temptation will always be there, the temptation to avoid making the hard choices. History shows us all too well that at the Federal level both the White House and the Congress, without reference to partisan affiliation, has tended to take the easy road. It is true that Senate Joint Resolution 1 does not guarantee that we will not take the easy road, but I submit it would make it much harder to do so. Many of my colleagues who have indicated they plan to vote against Senate Joint Resolution 1 have stated their concerns over not excluding Social Security from the budget calculations. While I agree that excluding Social Security would be in our long-term best interests, I believe they are mistaken if they believe that Social Security will be better off without the balanced budget. I believe our best option would be to exclude Social Security from a balanced budget amendment, and I have so voted. But our next best option is enacting the balanced budget amendment as it appears in the Chamber today and as we will vote on it this afternoon. Our worst option is to preserve or to retain the status quo, and that is to do nothing, to reject this proposed balanced budget amendment. No one disputes that a balanced budget amendment will help end our string of deficits. Some will argue that we do not need it to achieve our goal, but no one says it will not help. And while the amendment does not mandate a balanced budget, it does, in my opinion, make it more likely. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to conclude that a balanced budget amendment will lead to less deficit spending than if we fail to enact the balanced budget amendment. If a balanced budget amendment will help cut deficit spending, what will the effects of less deficit spending be on programs that we all support, like Social Security? Every dollar of deficit spending that occurs now is a dollar that will not be available to pay Social Security retirees when they need it. And even worse, we lose not only that dollar but we lose the interest that we pay on it, which multiplies rapidly with the magic of compounding. The best example of this can be illustrated by looking at where we were in 1980. If we had adopted a balanced budget amendment in 1980, 17 years ago, and had not increased the national debt from about $1 trillion to more than $5 trillion today, we would not have to cut a single dollar from this year's budget to achieve balance. In other words, we would be in surplus if we did not have to make the interest payments on the deficits that were run up over the last 20 years. I do not want Senators years from now to say, ``Gee, if they had only adopted a balanced budget amendment in 1997, we would not have added trillions more to our national debt. We would not have added billions more in interest payments in servicing that debt. We would not have to be cutting the worthwhile spending programs because of the larger national debt.'' Mr. President, the trend line is both alarming and disturbing. Since 1980, the percentage of our budget dedicated to servicing the debt has risen from 7 to 15 percent. This year's budget contains a line item of $245 billion for interest payment on the national debt. That is the net interest payment. In other words, almost $1 out of every $6 in our budget goes to servicing the $5.3 trillion national debt. Worse than that, if the interest we earn from Social Security and other trust funds which is supposed to be saved to be paid out in future years is excluded, the gross interest we owe is really $350 billion. No one claims running a Federal budget deficit actually helps Social Security or other Federal program over the long haul. Congressman Joe Kennedy who is an undisputed champion of social programs to help the poor makes this point very eloquently. He maintains that deficit spending has not helped, but has hurt, spending for social programs. Every dollar that must go to servicing the national debt is a dollar that cannot go to school lunch programs, paving roads, or repairing our neglected national parks. Interest payments are now the second largest Federal spending item following Social Security in our budget. I must ask my colleagues who support taking Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment, as I do, whether their interests are not better served by a constitutional amendment that helps facilitate a balanced budget. This is now my 9th year in the Senate. I do not recall a single Senator getting up and offering a budget that excluded Social Security from the budget calculations. For those who profess to feel so strongly about Social Security that they cannot vote for a balanced budget amendment, why have they never attempted to exclude Social Security from past budgets? While it is wrong to use Social Security to mask the true size of the deficit, including Social Security, that is no reason to vote against a balanced budget amendment, in my view. The greatest threat to Social Security is the debt. There are real and tangible benefits for every American family if we balance the Federal budget. Interest rates are estimated to be 2 percent higher because of the deficit. The average price of a new home is $37,000 more because we can't balance the budget. A student loan is estimated to be almost $2,000 more expensive and a new car $1,000 more expensive because we haven't balanced the budget. Under current trends, a child born today will have to pay $180,000 over their lifetime to service the national debt. What kind of burden are we passing on to future generations? Given the overwhelming benefits of a balanced Federal budget, I strongly believe this country needs a balanced budget amendment to help us achieve this goal. Yes, there are some risks that a minority of our legislators will act irresponsibly--but that can happen today if 41 Senators choose to filibuster. Therefore, I believe we gain the benefits of greater pressure to achieve a balanced budget without incurring additional risks. We have a historic opportunity this afternoon to change the future course of our country in a very positive way. If we fail, I am afraid we will look back 20 years from now and be even further in debt, with fewer economic choices for that generation, and regret that we had not taken this important step today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 1. This vote will be your legacy to your children and to our country's future economic well-being.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to newspaper publisher Robert Sanford, who is celebrating his 40th anniversary as owner of the Mason Valley News. Mr. Sanford's tireless stewardship has helped make the Mason Valley News one of the finest newspapers of its kind and a model for journalistic integrity. The Mason Valley News is a weekly newspaper that serves northern Nevada. Since Mr. Sanford became owner of the newspaper in 1957, the paper has quadrupled its circulation and tripled its size--all while remaining true to its roots. Mr. Sanford's newspaper career started as a printer's devil when he was just 14 years old. After World War II, where he proudly served his country for 3 years in the Army, Mr. Sanford returned home to northern Nevada and gained experience working in virtually every aspect of the newspaper business. He came to own the Mason Valley News at the age of 35. Mr. Sanford's two sons, David and James, also work for the paper. It is with great pride and pleasure that I congratulate Robert Sanford and the Mason Valley News on 40 years of dependability and accomplishment and I wish them the best of luck for another successful 40 years.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I note by way of a prefacing comment the amendment that we are debating is a significant one. Obviously, there is going to be prolonged and thoughtful debate on the merits of Senate Joint Resolution 1, as is appropriate. I note that not all Democrats agree with the position I take in support of this amendment, and not all members of the same family agree. The very able and distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts has made an eloquent statement here just moments ago in opposition. His articulate and able nephew joined us at a press conference earlier today with equal vigor arguing for its ratification. So this will have some ramifications, I am sure, in terms of the process here in Washington.

Mr. BRYAN. I do not want to transgress and separate that wall of separation between church and state, but I think there may be a period of redemption here for those who have not yet been enlightened by our view. It is always a pleasure to engage the Senator from Massachusetts in conversation because I know that he advocates from a position of conviction, sincerely a colleague whom I respect even though in this particular case I find myself in disagreement with his position. Mr. President, this debate will climax later this month when the Senate tries to muster the 67 votes necessary to make this the 28th amendment to the Constitution. The outcome of this vote will have historic consequences which will significantly affect this country for decades to come. If we are successful in getting this amendment added to our Constitution, it will be this Congress' legacy to the history books and to our children and our grandchildren. The President spoke eloquently last evening in his State of the Union Address. I have known the President for at least 15 years, when he and I served as chief executive officers of our respective States, and I have never heard him speak more eloquently. I believe it is the most eloquent of the State of the Union Messages that I have heard as a Member of this body. He spoke at considerable length about our children and the 21st century. We are part of the 20th century. As he pointed out, those who are born this year will have little or no memory of the century that has been the governing influence in the lives of every Member of this institution and those who report our actions for this generation. I believe with equal sincerity that the action we take on this amendment is, likewise, for our children and their legacy so that they may have the same economic opportunities we have. It is my sense, and I will speak to this more in just a moment, that we foreclose and mortgage their future if we do not arrest a trend that has been institutionalized with both Democratic and Republican administrations and with Democratic and Republican Congresses. As I commented earlier this month at a press conference with my able colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, both the White House and the Congress have supported a balanced budget. Democrats and Republicans in the Congress support a balanced budget. It has become the Holy Grail, if you will, of American political strategy to reach a balanced budget. Suffice it to say, our track record has not been particularly impressive. In 59 of the last 67 years, we have failed to balance the budget, and as a consequence these numbers are staggering. I want to talk to that issue a little bit more in a moment. I do not underestimate the seriousness of an undertaking to amend the Constitution. We have only done so 27 times in our history, and so we should approach this carefully and analytically. This will and should be a lengthy debate, with serious consideration given to legitimate points of view, but in the final analysis I believe it is imperative that Congress send to the States some form of a balanced budget amendment. Other approaches have been tried and failed, but for the future economic well-being of our country, our children, and our grandchildren, we must take this step. The wording of the resolution is straightforward and the text is barely two pages long. Under Senate Joint Resolution 1, total Federal spending must not exceed total Federal revenues for each year unless a 60-percent supermajority of those elected in both the House and the Senate vote to allow the Congress to authorize a specific amount of deficit spending. While the wording is straightforward, the significance in terms of its impact on our country cannot be overestimated. Balanced budget amendments are not alien to our Government. In fact, almost all States have balanced budget requirements either in their constitutions or in their statutes. As Governor of Nevada, I was required to balance the State's budget. It was not always an easy task, particularly during the economic slowdown of the early 1980's which affected my own State of Nevada and many other States. The year that I was elected Governor, in 1982, the recession had reached its low point in my State, and in January 1983, as I assumed office, we were not sure in that first month whether we could handle the payroll for State government. It was close. It was nip and tuck. It is always the lot of those who seek support for programs, many of which I support, many of which the Members of this Chamber are supportive of, it is always the nature of those groups to ask more than they know you can provide, and Governors have the responsibility reinforced with a balanced budget provision, notwithstanding those requests and the merit of many of them, to simply say I would love to do it, I would like to do it, but we simply cannot do it because we do not have the money to do it and we have to operate within the revenue stream that we have. That is the way we conduct our personal affairs, in business and private life. We lack that institutional discipline, it seems to me, here at the Federal level. And I say that without respect to partisanship. That is true with Democratic and Republican administrations alike. My experience born out of that time is that a balanced budget requirement instills fiscal discipline in a system that is otherwise predisposed to avoid making hard, unpopular choices, and for the most part States have performed admirably when it comes to fiscal responsibility. We cannot say the same for the Federal Government in recent history. In our country's first 150 years, there was almost an unwritten rule that the Federal Government should balance its budget. The United States Government ran deficits during the War of 1812, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, to name a few occasions. But in other periods the Federal Government ran surpluses to reduce its outstanding debts. On the whole, only emergencies justified running deficits. However, in the past 36 years, the Federal Government has balanced its budget only once, in fiscal year 1969, and has failed in 59 of the last 67 years. That is not an impressive record. None of us ought to be proud of that record. Let me emphasize, because this is bipartisan, that occurred under Republican administrations, Democrat administrations, Republican Congresses, and Democrat Congresses. So institutionally we all share the failure in being able to achieve that balanced budget. Since 1980, the accumulated Federal debt has skyrocketed from less than $1 trillion to over $5 trillion. That represents $20,000 for every American, man, woman, and child. This has taken place in an era when our country has not been at war and has enjoyed relatively healthy economic conditions. No one can claim national emergency necessitated running these deficits. Many in Washington believe there is now a true commitment to fiscal discipline. On the Federal level, in the last few years there has been some cause for optimism. For the first time since before the American Civil War, for four consecutive years, the annual deficit has declined. The President can take credit for that as well as the Congress for actions that have been taken. What we do not hear is that in the current budget year we are developing, the deficits will begin to rise again, and so they will in each successive year to the year 2002. That success has been achieved as a result of a number of things that we have done in the Congress and in an economy that has enjoyed a surprising long run in growth. The deficit has been cut in half from its projected level just 4 years ago and the deficit has fallen from 4.9 percent of the gross domestic product in 1992 to 1.4 percent in 1996. I know, and I think every Member of this Chamber knows, it is going to be extremely difficult, but we must complete the task and balance the budget by 2002. I am pleased to note and to sense a strong bipartisan will to achieve this goal. When we debate the budget resolution and 13 appropriations bills later this year, our will to achieve a balanced budget by 2002 will be sorely tested. I am optimistic, and I am hopeful we will rise to that challenge. If we can balance the budget by 2002, some may ask, why do we need a balanced budget constitutional amendment? The simple answer is that this amendment is in the form of an insurance policy that Congress will live up to its good intentions. The amendment will keep our feet to the fire. While I respect the good intention of Members of Congress, history has proven that in the past three-quarters of a century we have not been up to the challenge. As I indicated a moment ago, in 59 of the last 67 years, the Federal Government has spent more money than it took in. Additionally, since 1978, Congress has enacted five statutes requiring a balanced Federal budget--clearly good intentions. But Federal statutes have not worked, which is why I believe an amendment to the Constitution is the next logical and necessary step we must take. If we have the desire to balance the budget, why have we had so much difficulty in achieving this goal? While people in theory support a balanced budget, I am sure my colleagues share the same experience that I have had. At every townhall meeting, if asked, ``Do you favor the Federal Government balancing its budget?'' The answer is overwhelmingly in the affirmative. But when it comes down to specific cuts, it is interesting that that same townhall meeting will say, ``But I don't want you to cut here.'' And in an audience of a couple hundred people, there are probably a dozen programs that those of our constituents who come to these meetings suggest: Balance the budget but don't make any cuts in these respective programs. They, like past Congresses, shy away from the hard choices. Unfortunately, the consequences of failing to make the hard choices are either very subtle or are not felt for years or decades. While cuts in food stamps or home heating assistance are felt immediately and energize a specific constituency, a point or two rise in interest rates caused by deficit spending is hidden. Some of the American people have to make the connection between large Federal budget deficits and higher interest rates. These higher interest rates have a dramatic impact on the American family's bottom line. In fact, DRI-McGraw-Hill estimates that interest rates will drop by 2 percent if we balance the budget. This will save an average family $2,169 per year in mortgage interest, $180 on an auto loan, and $216 on a typical student loan. But the most insidious effects of deficit spending are the larger and larger burdens we pass on to the next generation. In just a decade, the deficit has gone from $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country to more than $20,000 this year. We are burdening future generations with the tab for our inability to bite the bullet, to make the hard choices. Our inability to balance the budget has had a compounding effect. Each year we fail to do so, the job becomes harder the next year, as we have to pay more to service the national debt. In the past 20 years, the percentage of our budget that goes to servicing the debt has risen from 7 to 15 percent. We lose 15 percent of our budget just paying for the excesses of the past and just the interest, none of that retiring the principal which is now approximately $5.3 trillion. Put another way, $1 in every $6 of our Federal budget goes to paying interest on our more than $5 trillion national debt. Before the first school lunch is paid for, before another road is paved, before much- needed repair is undertaken on our neglected National Park System, we spend in gross interest payments alone, $300 billion as the cost of servicing our national debt. It is the second largest Federal spending item, following Social Security, and is equal to almost one-half of our personal income taxes paid to the Federal Government. Yet we have nothing to show for it. While there is little disagreement on the evils of budget deficits, there is a serious disagreement and debate over whether Senate Joine Resolution 1 addresses specific concerns people have. I want to address one that is very sensitive and certainly worthy of being discussed and carefully considered, and that is whether Social Security should be included in a balanced budget amendment. I believe Social Security should be removed from the balanced budget amendment. I do not do this lightly, because removing the Social Security surpluses will make it more difficult in our task of balancing the budget. The surplus for 1996 was approximately $60 billion. But whether Social Security should be taken out of the balanced budget amendment depends on how you view the Social Security system. If you believe it to be a pay-as-you-go system where today's workers' payroll taxes should go to pay the benefits of today's retirees, then Social Security should remain a part of the overall budget, and that is an honest, philosophical point of view. If, however, you believe the funds being taken out of today's workers' payrolls should be set aside for their retirement, years from now, then Social Security should be taken out of budget. In fact, Congress has spoken on this issue and, in 1990, enacted legislation to take Social Security out of the unified budget. But my support for taking Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment is based on my conviction that we must start putting aside money for future retirees or we will face, as a country, financial calamity. The math does not work out, for there will be far too few workers to support far too many retirees when the baby boom generation retires in the next century. Finally, we currently have 3.2 workers for every retiree. In the year 2030, we will have only two workers for every retiree, and young people today are rightfully skeptical about what will be left to pay for their retirement. One way to restore their confidence would be to truly set aside their payroll contribution by taking it out of a balanced budget amendment. This would prohibit the Federal Government from using Social Security surpluses when it balances the budget, and Social Security would look more like a traditional retirement system. Over the next several weeks the Senate will engage in serious debate over the issue of excluding Social Security from a balanced budget amendment. While I support such an amendment, I believe it is vital that we pass a balanced budget amendment, even if it does not exclude Social Security. The worst thing we can do for Social Security is to fail to pass any balanced budget amendment. Without the fiscal discipline provided by the amendment, we will never be able to keep our budget in order. If we have learned nothing else from our past budget problems, it should be that putting off the solution only makes matters more difficult to rectify. A little pain now helps us to avoid a lot of pain later. The fiscal discipline of the balanced budget amendment will make it much easier for us to responsibly assure the long-term solvency of the Social Security System. The worst option for the long-term viability of Social Security, in my opinion, would be to continue with the status quo and fail to enact a balanced budget amendment. Let me just embellish upon that for a moment. I know that many of my colleagues will be joining me in supporting an amendment to take Social Security off budget, and I believe they are sincere in desiring to protect Social Security. But I must say, I find it difficult to follow the logic that if there is not sufficient votes to take Social Security off budget in this constitutional amendment, that somehow voting against a balanced budget in some way protects Social Security. I have been a Member of this body since 1989. I have seen budgets submitted by a Republican and a Democratic President, and we will see a budget submitted to us tomorrow by this President. Each President has submitted as part of a budget proposal to us the Social Security surplus. So tomorrow, the $60 billion that represents this year's surplus will be included in the spending plan that is recommended to the Congress. So the notion that somehow if we fail to adopt a balanced budget amendment we are protecting Social Security, I must say, is an argument the logic of which I do not understand. We are currently using that surplus in the Social Security budget to finance the operational expenses of the Federal Government. Republican Presidents have done it; Democratic Presidents have done it. And in my view, it is a misguided notion that we protect Social Security by rejecting a balanced budget amendment that does not contain the off-budget language. Mr. President, this Congress has a historic opportunity to take action that will positively affect this country for generations to come. If we fail, I am afraid we will continue to push financial burdens on those who come after us. Let this Congress' legacy be that it took bold action and that it did so in a bipartisan way, and that by so doing, we protect the future economic well-being of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to enact Senate Joint Resolution 1. As I said at the outset, I do not take amending our Constitution lightly, but I feel, in light of the circumstances of our recent history, it is the only responsible course of action. History has shown us that good intentions, Federal statutory enactments have failed to do the job. A balanced budget amendment will bring about the fiscal discipline our country so desperately needs, and I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join with us in enacting a constitutional amendment that will balance the Federal budget in the year 2002, and, by so doing, ensure that our children and our grandchildren will enjoy the economic opportunities that have been the privilege of our generation to enjoy. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank my colleague from Utah for his generous remarks. I look forward to working with him and our other colleagues in seeing this measure is enacted into law.

Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, last month U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman, Ann Brown, came to Nevada to deliver her vital safety messages to my constituents in Las Vegas and Reno. Her timely visit, just before the holidays, when many people are preparing their homes for visits by friends and relatives, reminded the citizens of my State of the practical things they can do to keep their homes safe. In Las Vegas, we visited the home of Ms. Lori Black. Lori and her husband Mike are the parents of eight children. As we toured their home with Lori and her youngest daughter Leslie Mika and oldest daughter Ann, Chairman Brown reviewed the CPSC's baby safety checklist and found that they had done an excellent job of making their home safe for children. In Reno, we visited the home of Lisa and Scott Anderson and their daughter Lyndsey Sue. There, Chairman Brown was able to point out that their baby crib passed the soda can test. She demonstrated that a soda can is useful to measure the spaces between the slats in a baby's crib. If the soda can cannot go through the slats, then the crib is baby safe. Chairman Brown also demonstrated the importance of clipping the loop at the end of venetian blind cords. She told us in the past 14 years, 173 children had strangled in the loops of curtain and blind cords, but that as a result of a voluntary agreement she secured from the blind cord industry, manufacturers are now installing safety tassels at the end of their cords. She commended the Andersons for making their home safe for a baby by putting all medicines on an upper shelf far from a baby's curious hands and having no baby clothes with strings or cords. In both Las Vegas and Reno, the homes contained smoke alarms, but lacked carbon monoxide detectors. Chairman Brown emphasized to both families the necessity of these devices. Every year, about 200 people die from carbon monoxide poisoning, and thousands are treated in hospital emergency rooms. With the installation of CO detectors and annual appliance inspections, these deaths and injuries can be prevented. I want to commend Chairman Brown for her valuable work promoting consumer product safety in Nevada and across the country. The baby safety program she initiated is a model of the way business and government can work together as partners to advance the public interest. The Gerber Products Co. underwrote the costs of printing the materials for the baby safety program. This has allowed the CPSC to make the baby safety checklist and other helpful materials available to thousands of people throughout the country. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a small agency with a big mission--to keep families safe in their homes and at play. It is also one of the taxpaying public's best bargains in government. CPSC's $42.5 million budget, about 16 cents per capita, helps to attack the $200 billion in annual societal costs and about $30 billion in direct medical costs. Thus, every dollar appropriated to CPSC has the potential to address about $5,000 in societal costs and about $600 in direct medical costs. As one example, the CPSC's work in making sure baby cribs are safe and removing unsafe cribs from the market has reduced crib-related deaths from 200 annually to less than 50 deaths per year. That one project alone saves society nearly $1 billion a year--or almost 25 times the CPSC's current annual budget. But the CPSC is most concerned with saving lives and reducing injuries and it is working even now on actions to reduce those crib-related deaths to an even lower figure. I would like to thank Chairman Brown for bringing her lifesaving message to the citizens of Nevada and to commend her for her excellent leadership of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I urge my colleagues to share the CPSC's baby safety checklist with the new parents and grandparents in their States. I ask unanimous consent that the baby safety checklist be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today because of strong concerns I have related to the Air Force's evaluation of the events surrounding the tragic Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. The Air Force has not yet released its official report on these events, but it has been widely reported that the Air Force will recommend no disciplinary action against any officer in relation to this incident. Mr. President, I do not understand this recommendation. As you will recall, shortly before 10 p.m. on the evening of Tuesday, June 25, 1996, a fuel truck pulled up to the perimeter of a Khobar Towers' complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia. This complex housed almost 3,000 airmen of the 4404th Wing, as well as military personnel from the United Kingdom, France, and Saudi Arabia. Air Force guards spotted the truck and immediately began an effort to evacuate the building. Unfortunately, before they could succeed, a large explosion occurred that destroyed the face of Building 131, killing 19 American servicemembers and seriously injuring hundreds more. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion the members of our Armed Forces acted heroically, restoring order and providing aid to those who had been injured. In less than 3 days the 4404th Air Wing had recovered and was once again flying its mission over the skies of southern Iraq. This bombing and a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, bombing in November 1995 that killed five Americans, raised a number of fundamental questions regarding the threat of terrorism to United States forces deployed overseas and the priority of force security among those military commanders charged with responsibility for providing that security. Secretary of Defense Perry took an important step in addressing these questions by establishing an independent task force to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the bombing. This task force was led by Gen. Wayne A. Downing, a highly respected and distinguished retired four-star general. The findings of the Downing report were significant and wide ranging. They covered force security standards and policies, intelligence, threat assessments, and United States-Saudi cooperation. Secretary Perry took these findings seriously and as a result has announced major changes in our approach to force protection. Unfortunately, in a number of areas it appears the Air Force has chosen to disregard the Downing task force findings. The contrast between the Downing report and the Air Force's apparent findings, and I use the term ``apparent findings'' because at this point, Mr. President, the official report has not yet been released, finding 19 of the Downing report states ``The chain of command did not provide adequate guidance and support to the Commander, 4404th Wing.'' Finding 20 states ``The Commander, 4404th Wing did not adequately protect his forces from terrorist attack.'' Did not adequately protect his forces from terrorist attack. Yet the Air Force has apparently concluded that every person in the chain of command met standards of performance and acted with due care and reasonably. Furthermore, the Downing report details the information available on the terrorist threat against our forces in the Khobar Towers. The Downing report states that the Khobar Towers had been described as a soft target, critical target and a specific site of concern. In addition, the Downing report notes that there was a series of 10 suspicious incidents in the preceding 90 days surrounding this complex that indicated the possibility of a terrorist threat. In contrast, the Air Force has reportedly found that the chain of command considered the threats, in view of the information known at the time, and acted with due care and prudently. This judgment by the Air Force, in my opinion, is inexplicable. Mr. President, the wing commander of the 4404th Wing, General Schwalier, has been scheduled for a promotion from brigadier general to two-star rank of major general. Now, I understand that hindsight is 20/ 20, yet I cannot ignore the findings of the Downing task force. For this reason, I have written a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force expressing strong concerns regarding this appointment. The Downing task force makes clear that General Schwalier did have command responsibility and authority for force protection of his personnel in the 4404th Wing while he could not have been expected to know the precise nature of the terrorist attack, the Downing report does raise a number of concerns regarding the priority of force protection under General Schwalier. For example, in light of the terrorist threat, a number of additional measures could have substantially reduced the threat from a terrorist attack. The windows facing out from the complex, Building 131, could have been coated with a shatterproof substance known as Mylar. Airmen with outside rooms could have been moved into the interior of the complex. That was the area that was most exposed, Mr. President. Finally, a higher priority could have been placed at moving the perimeter fence farther away from housing quarters. When difficulties with the Saudi Government halted plans to move the fence, the matter should have been taken up and reported up the chain of command. According to the Downing report, these steps were not taken. General Schwalier concentrated solely on the threat of a penetrating bomb attack and failed to address other kinds of terrorist attack. He failed to correct vulnerabilities he could have corrected, and for those vulnerabilities he could not correct by himself General Schwalier failed to raise the issues up the chain of command or coordinate with the host nation. Mr. President, I do not believe that the Downing report was unreasonable or looking for scapegoats. This task force took an independent, forthright, and tough look at the threat of terrorism and how we can respond to that threat in the future. I have no doubt this tough assessment will save U.S. lives in the future. In the same way, the Air Force must also take a tough look at its responsibilities to protect its forces from this new threat. And in this instance, Mr. President, I am afraid the Air Force has failed to do so. I urge the Secretary of the Air Force to reconsider the Air Force's conclusions regarding this horrible and tragic incident. Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, H.R. 3219, will pass the Senate. I would like to enter into a short colloquy with Senator Mack, the subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development. In Nevada, there are a number of small Indian tribes which are very dependent upon the funding they receive from Department of Housing and Urban Development for their local housing programs. Under this bill, the funding for native American housing assistance will be provided to tribes through block grants for operation, modernization, and new development through a new funding formula. For fiscal year 1997, this legislation provides for hold harmless funding for small tribes like those in Nevada. During fiscal year 1997, the tribes will work with HUD through a negotiated rulemaking procedure to implement this act, and develop the funding allocation. Tribes in my home State have raised concerns that the current hold harmless provision might disadvantage small tribes that received no modernization funding in fiscal year 1996, and that a technical correction may be necessary to ensure their funding level is indeed held harmless.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Florida to deal with this issue expeditiously in the next Congress, if it is necessary to ensure that tribes which might be negatively affected by this bill will have their concerns addressed.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention the enactment of a vital piece of consumer legislation. In fact, I believe that the Fair Credit Reform Act of 1996, which is incorporated in the continuing resolution that we are about to vote upon, marks the most significant piece of consumer legislation enacted in this Congress. This legislation will improve the accuracy of credit reports and it will reduce the frustration of tens of thousands of Americans as they experience difficulties with inaccurate information in their credit reports and the consequent difficulties of getting that inaccurate information removed. Mr. President, it has been more than a quarter of a century since the original Fair Credit Reporting Act was enacted by the Congress. While the credit reporting industry has initiated a number of improvements voluntarily, the time has come to update the law. Senator Bond and I have been working on problems that individuals experienced with correcting inaccuracies in their credit files for more than 5 years. Errors in consumer credit reports have been the No. 1 item of complaint at the Federal Trade Commission and States attorneys general have experienced similar levels of complaint. That is why this legislation is so vitally needed. Credit financing has become a way of life for us in America. It is an integral part of our economy and it is hard to imagine our lives without it. Without the credit reporting system consumers would not have the easy access to credit that they now enjoy and America's economy would suffer as a consequence. The credit reporting industry keeps files on more than 190 million Americans, sells more than 1.5 million credit reports each and every day, and makes over 2 billion new entries each and every month. With this kind of overwhelming data flow there are bound to be mistakes in the system. Most of the time, errors are unintentional but they can be very damaging. While we expect mistakes when 2 billion bits of information are entered into a credit reporting system every month, what we should not tolerate are companies that show little regard for the accuracy of the information they provide to credit bureaus, and we should not accept the frustrations that consumers experience in trying to get erroneous information removed from their records. Mr. President, even as I speak, people are being turned down for student loans, car loans and mortgages. People are being turned down for jobs and for promotions all because of faulty information in their credit reports. While we will never eliminate human error or computer error altogether, I believe we can and should do a substantially better job. Over the past 5 years I have been working on this, the Senate has held extensive hearings on this topic. We heard that the credit reporting system, in a majority of cases, works extremely well and benefits American consumers by providing them with ready access to credit. However, we also heard from far too many consumers who endured frustrating experiences in getting errors removed from their credit files. I remember a hearing that we had in Nevada in which two cases come to mind. One involved a Bill and Barbara Kincade from a small town in northern Nevada, McDermitt, who corrected a mistake on their credit report that arose when their bank sold their mortgage to another institution. They believed that they had corrected that information. Three years later, they discovered that the erroneous entry had reappeared on their credit history when they were turned down for a loan to finance a satellite dish. Our legislation would prohibit the reinsertion of deleted information without notifying the consumer first. I also remember the story of Mary Lou Mobley who almost had to drop out of graduate school after she was denied a school loan because her credit report reflected that she was married to a man from Arizona with numerous financial defaults. The problem, Mr. President, is that Mary Lou had never been married, never been to Arizona. Although Mary Lou had an excellent credit history other than this erroneous entry, she was required to obtain a cosigner on a student loan and pay a significantly higher interest rate in order to process her loan. Four years later, after graduating from school, she was victimized once again by the same erroneous information and denied a car loan. These kind of stories demonstrate the need to improve our system of getting errors fixed. There are two provisions in this legislation which are especially important to fix the gaps in the current system. First, the bill creates a consumer friendly process for removing mistakes from your file. Anyone who has tried to correct a mistake in their credit history knows firsthand the immense frustration it causes. The consumer has to prove the information in his or her report is erroneous. This can often be exceedingly time consuming, costly and, in some cases, nearly impossible to prove the negative; namely, that the individual whose credit history is erroneously inserted in the applicant file for credit is not that same individual. Consumers should not be burdened with these costs and these frustrations. The legislation, which we will adopt in a few hours, changes the burden of proof from the consumer to the credit reporting agency when the consumer notifies the credit reporting agency that the information reportedly contained in his or her file is erroneous. Once that notice is given to the reporting agency, the reporting agency has 30 days to verify the information. If the reporting agency is unable to verify the information, the erroneous information must be removed. The second critical feature of this bill deals with those companies that furnish information to credit bureaus. The information in the credit bureau database is only as good as the data sent in by banks, retailers, and other furnishers of credit information. This legislation makes these furnishers of information liable if they fail to correct mistakes after consumers brought such mistakes to their attention. While none of us want to discourage companies from supplying accurate information to credit bureaus, it is equally important to hold them accountable for the accuracy of the data they supply. This legislation will provide companies with the necessary incentives to improve their reporting and, thus, result in fewer mistakes. Mr. President, I want to say a word about one of my colleagues with whom I have worked on this issue for the past 5 years--Senator Bond. He and I have worked closely on this legislation. With his support and that of his staff, we have been able to progress to the point where in a few short hours, this legislation will have passed the Congress and on its way to the President for signature. Interested parties have very strong feelings about this legislation. Senator Bond and I have spent countless hours trying to bridge these differences. And I greatly appreciate his persistence and determination in working toward reform of the credit reporting system. Let me also say, as every one of my colleagues know, major legislation such as this is not enacted without the strong and continuous support of very effective staff backup. I want to cite one of my staff members in particular, and mention some others before concluding my comments. Andy Vermilye has given literally hundreds and hundreds of hours, a frustrating experience as progress was offset by other problems that surfaced as this legislation was processed. In the 103d Congress, we had this legislation cleared in both Houses. A change was made at the last minute, and because it was the concluding day or two of the session, one colleague was able to hold up this legislation and literally wipe out the work of Senator Bond and our respective staffs, but particularly my legislative director, Andy Vermilye. So back again we came, and now we are on the threshold of victory. The record on this legislation should reflect that without Andy Vermilye's patience and persistence, this legislation would not have occurred. Other staffers need to be mentioned: Kris Siglin, Maggie Fisher, and Mark Kaufman, who have gone on to greener pastures, but labored mightily in behalf of the cause. John Kamart, Susan McMillan, Doug Nappi, and Kimberly Cobb worked long and hard on this bill. Amy Friend and David Medine were instrumental in getting this passed. Michele Meier, Ed Merwinski, Emmitt Carlton, Mike MacInney, Tim Jenkins, and Barry Connely deserve recognition for their contributions on this bill as well because all sectors--both the business community and consumer interests --are involved in making this legislation a reality. Mr. President, this legislation marks an important event for consumers in our country. We are making significant improvements in the credit reporting system, and the lives of thousands of Americans who have encountered difficulty in their credit reports will be made easier as a result of the changes made by this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage my esteemed colleague Chairman D'Amato in a brief colloquy to clarify two items pertaining to the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA] amendments contained in the H.R. 4278, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. First, the House of Representatives in negotiations over the weekend deleted a Senate-approved measure which would have codified the permissibility of direct marketing under the FCRA. The deletion leaves the law silent on this issue, retaining the status quo. The House action does not reflect any congressional intent regarding the extent to which direct marketing is permissible under FCRA. The second item relates to a requirement imposed under section 609 of the FCRA for personnel being accessible to consumers. The requirement that personnel be available under normal business hours is not intended in any manner to interfere with the use of automated menu telephone systems which provide the consumers with a range of options. The standard is satisfied as long as the system provides a consumer the option to speak to a live operator at some point in the audio menu. Does the chairman confirm these understandings?