Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend and colleague will yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, that morning business be extended for a period of 10 minutes so I might be permitted to address the Senate.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank my colleague, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the committee chairman, Senator Pressler, Senator Hollings, Senator Inouye, Senator Ford, Senator Kerry, Senator Breaux, Senator Dorgan, Senator Akaka, and Senator Johnston for their leadership in introducing this bill which is the United States Tourism Organization Act. Let me say, parenthetically, I hail from a State where tourism is far and above our largest single economic industry. It is the mainstream, the main spring for an economy which has grown more rapidly than any economy in America, added more new jobs, enjoys more economic growth and vitality. The southern part of the State, Las Vegas, will soon have 100,000 hotel rooms. That is larger than any city, not only in America, but in the world. And several new properties are on the drawing boards. So tourism is something we understand in Nevada. From my former capacity as the chief executive of Nevada, I know that we work at the State level to establish the public-private partnership that my colleagues have alluded to earlier this afternoon in their remarks on the floor. So I am delighted to work with them in fashioning this piece of legislation. Travel and tourism has been one of our country's great success stories. Tourism is the second largest employer in our Nation after health care. It employs, either directly or indirectly, 13 million Americans and has created jobs at more than twice the national average. Travel and tourism generated $417 billion spending in 1994. International visitor spending accounted for $77 billion in foreign exchange, making it America's largest export. Tourism generated a $22 billion net surplus in our trade balance. The opportunity that we have is ever so promising because international tourism is the most rapidly growing sector in the tourism market. By the year 2000, 4 years from now, more than 661 million people will be traveling throughout the world. That is twice as many people as traveled just a little more than a decade ago, in 1985. Unfortunately, even as we look forward to anticipate the good news of expanded international travel, we reflect upon the fact that America's share of the world's tourism market is declining. In 1983, the United States enjoyed almost 19 percent of the world's tourism receipts. That has declined to 15.6 percent this year and is expected to shrink to 13.8 percent by the end of this decade. The loss in the U.S. share of the world tourism market can be translated into a significant impact on our trade deficit and employment--jobs, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia pointed out. If we were able to keep our world tourism share from shrinking, we would improve our trade balance by $28 billion and increase employment in America by 370,000 persons by the year 2000. Those are significant numbers by any measure. Very few industries can shape our economy to this extent. Until a few months ago, the Federal Government funded a tourism program effort that ranked 23d in the world in terms of dollars spent, putting the United States behind such countries as Tunisia and Malaysia. While this effort fell far short of what should have been, it was a worthwhile effort that produced tangible effects. Under the skillful leadership of the Under Secretary of Travel and Tourism, Greg Farmer, USTTA was an effective organization and helped to create a favorable impression of our country to foreign tourists. Although this bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the continuation of the agency for a transitional year, it was supported in the Senate; we had strong bipartisan support of Senator Burns and Senator McConnell. Unfortunately, in the House the action of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee killed this minimal effort and left our country without any international tourism promotion, while at the same time our international competitors have impressive international tourism efforts, trying to entice America and other countries' citizens to visit their countries. The United States, as a result of this action, was unilaterally disarmed in the competition for international travel markets. This was a bad decision, when we consider the great opportunities that we have to encourage visitors to this country this summer. As the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, we have, in an adjacent State to his own, the summer Olympic Games in Atlanta; an opportunity for people from around the world to stay and not only visit the Olympic Games but to see other parts of our country as well. While the effort to continue the USTTA for the transitional year, as I have indicated, was unsuccessful--and I opposed what I considered a myopic approach--nevertheless, we do have an opportunity to recover. Last October the White House hosted the first ever White House Conference on Travel and Tourism. That conference came up with a series of recommendations from all segments of the tourism industry on how to improve our promotional efforts as a country. Most significant was the recommendation to establish a public-private partnership for tourism promotion, and it is this legislation that traces its origins to the White House conference, generated by a broad sector of the tourism industry, that we embody in the legislation that we introduce today. This legislation establishes, by a Federal charter, the U.S. Tourism Organization. The organization shall be nonprofit and shall implement the national travel and tourism strategy, operate travel and tourism promotion outside the United States, establish a travel and tourism data bank to collect and disseminate international market data and to conduct market research for the effective promotion of U.S. tourism. The organization shall be governed by a board of directors which shall have 45 members and be known as the national tourism board, representing a broad and diverse cross-section of various public and private-sector tourism entities. The tourism industry strongly supports this legislation. We are counting on them to turn this into a successful organization. This legislation, incorporating a public-private sector partnership, is a model for how Government, industry, and labor should cooperate in promoting our national efforts. I hope we can swiftly pass this legislation and send it to the President so we can get on with our efforts to encourage more travel and tourism from abroad to the United States.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the committee chairman, Senator Pressler, Senator Hollings, Senator Inouye, Senator Ford, Senator Kerry, Senator Breaux, Senator Dorgan, Senator Akaka, and Senator Johnston for their leadership in introducing this bill which is the United States Tourism Organization Act. Let me say, parenthetically, I hail from a State where tourism is far and above our largest single economic industry. It is the mainstream, the main spring for an economy which has grown more rapidly than any economy in America, added more new jobs, enjoys more economic growth and vitality. The southern part of the State, Las Vegas, will soon have 100,000 hotel rooms. That is larger than any city, not only in America, but in the world. And several new properties are on the drawing boards. So tourism is something we understand in Nevada. From my former capacity as the chief executive of Nevada, I know that we work at the State level to establish the public-private partnership that my colleagues have alluded to earlier this afternoon in their remarks on the floor. So I am delighted to work with them in fashioning this piece of legislation. Travel and tourism has been one of our country's great success stories. Tourism is the second largest employer in our Nation after health care. It employs, either directly or indirectly, 13 million Americans and has created jobs at more than twice the national average. Travel and tourism generated $417 billion spending in 1994. International visitor spending accounted for $77 billion in foreign exchange, making it America's largest export. Tourism generated a $22 billion net surplus in our trade balance. The opportunity that we have is ever so promising because international tourism is the most rapidly growing sector in the tourism market. By the year 2000, 4 years from now, more than 661 million people will be traveling throughout the world. That is twice as many people as traveled just a little more than a decade ago, in 1985. Unfortunately, even as we look forward to anticipate the good news of expanded international travel, we reflect upon the fact that America's share of the world's tourism market is declining. In 1983, the United States enjoyed almost 19 percent of the world's tourism receipts. That has declined to 15.6 percent this year and is expected to shrink to 13.8 percent by the end of this decade. The loss in the U.S. share of the world tourism market can be translated into a significant impact on our trade deficit and employment--jobs, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia pointed out. If we were able to keep our world tourism share from shrinking, we would improve our trade balance by $28 billion and increase employment in America by 370,000 persons by the year 2000. Those are significant numbers by any measure. Very few industries can shape our economy to this extent. Until a few months ago, the Federal Government funded a tourism program effort that ranked 23d in the world in terms of dollars spent, putting the United States behind such countries as Tunisia and Malaysia. While this effort fell far short of what should have been, it was a worthwhile effort that produced tangible effects. Under the skillful leadership of the Under Secretary of Travel and Tourism, Greg Farmer, USTTA was an effective organization and helped to create a favorable impression of our country to foreign tourists. Although this bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the continuation of the agency for a transitional year, it was supported in the Senate; we had strong bipartisan support of Senator Burns and Senator McConnell. Unfortunately, in the House the action of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee killed this minimal effort and left our country without any international tourism promotion, while at the same time our international competitors have impressive international tourism efforts, trying to entice America and other countries' citizens to visit their countries. The United States, as a result of this action, was unilaterally disarmed in the competition for international travel markets. This was a bad decision, when we consider the great opportunities that we have to encourage visitors to this country this summer. As the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, we have, in an adjacent State to his own, the summer Olympic Games in Atlanta; an opportunity for people from around the world to stay and not only visit the Olympic Games but to see other parts of our country as well. While the effort to continue the USTTA for the transitional year, as I have indicated, was unsuccessful--and I opposed what I considered a myopic approach--nevertheless, we do have an opportunity to recover. Last October the White House hosted the first ever White House Conference on Travel and Tourism. That conference came up with a series of recommendations from all segments of the tourism industry on how to improve our promotional efforts as a country. Most significant was the recommendation to establish a public-private partnership for tourism promotion, and it is this legislation that traces its origins to the White House conference, generated by a broad sector of the tourism industry, that we embody in the legislation that we introduce today. This legislation establishes, by a Federal charter, the U.S. Tourism Organization. The organization shall be nonprofit and shall implement the national travel and tourism strategy, operate travel and tourism promotion outside the United States, establish a travel and tourism data bank to collect and disseminate international market data and to conduct market research for the effective promotion of U.S. tourism. The organization shall be governed by a board of directors which shall have 45 members and be known as the national tourism board, representing a broad and diverse cross-section of various public and private-sector tourism entities. The tourism industry strongly supports this legislation. We are counting on them to turn this into a successful organization. This legislation, incorporating a public-private sector partnership, is a model for how Government, industry, and labor should cooperate in promoting our national efforts. I hope we can swiftly pass this legislation and send it to the President so we can get on with our efforts to encourage more travel and tourism from abroad to the United States.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I understand my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, wishes to speak shortly, but that he needs a little more time. If there is no objection from the floor managers, I will make some general comments about the bill at this time, if I may. Mr. President, I think it is appropriate at this time, as we are, hopefully, nearing the conclusion of our debate on this important piece of legislation, to make some general observations and comments. First, to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Simpson. What has been accomplished, in my judgment, could not have been accomplished in earlier Congresses. I commend his leadership. Although the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee has not been in agreement on all parts of the piece of legislation, I believe that Senator Kennedy's role in this has been a constructive part of a process which, in my judgment, will make major changes in our immigration enforcement efforts. Some time last year, I had the pleasure of testifying before the Immigration Subcommittee in support of S. 269, Senator Simpson's illegal immigration reform bill. I am pleased that the legislation that we have been debating these past few days essentially deals with the scope and the manner which the bill that I testified on last year covered. I want to preface my remarks by reemphasizing a point that I made at the time, which I think is valid in the context of the debate this year. That is, that there are those who are critics of our attempts to reform the immigration laws in this country who suggest that our efforts are somehow mean-spirited or even ``xenophobic.'' In my view, that is not only an unfair characterization; it is an opinion that is completely out of touch with the realities of our time. The Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Honorable Barbara Jordan, responded to this in the 1994 report to the Congress in which she and the members of the Commission concluded: We disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest. Mr. President, first and foremost, it is and it has always been the province, and indeed the responsibility, of the Congress to establish and to provide the means of enforcing our country's immigration laws and to do so in the national interest. Since the Immigration Act of 1882, Congress has recognized the need to fashion immigration policy to fit the various public policy interests of the time. In the 19th century, our country depended on immigrants to build the railroads, to defend our unstable borders, and to populate the new frontier. At the turn of the century, our immigrant population helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution and to promote economic expansion. As a consequence, immigrants were allowed nearly unfettered access to our shores during that same period of time. As the needs of our country changed over the course of the early part of the 20th century, so, too, did our immigration policies. Although some of these policies were clearly the result of a racial animus, our legal immigration system has evolved into one that primarily is based on family unification and needed skills. In spite of the Congress' best intentions, U.S. immigration laws have been violated on a massive scale over recent years. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that nearly 300,000 undocumented aliens enter and remain in the United States permanently each year. That figure includes a substantial number in my own State of Nevada, estimated to be nearly 20,000. The proposition 187 ballot initiative in California last year is an example of the frustration felt by many in that State over the failure of the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws. The consensus that has emerged in this Congress and in the White House concerning the need to balance the Federal budget in 7 years has placed severe constraints on discretionary spending in the foreseeable future. As that discretionary pie continues to shrink, we must constantly reprioritize the spending allocations for many worthwhile spending programs that in whole or in part the Federal Government has been asked to support. While rational people may disagree as to the overall societal cost associated with illegal immigration, it seems rather fundamental to me that limited Federal resources are better spent on those persons who have played by the rules and reside in our country legally. I want to mention another aspect of unlawful immigration, one that is more difficult to quantify, yet clearly carries a price tag for us as a society. That is the cost to our environment. In many parts of the country, but particularly in the Southwest, the burgeoning population has placed tremendous strains on our natural resources. The quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land on which we live and recreate is directly related to population levels. Our ability to maintain a safe and healthy environment is constantly being challenged as those growth levels continue to increase. Unlawful immigration exacerbates these challenges in areas ranging from solid waste disposal to maintenance of our city parks. Mr. President, I have cited several of the realities we face as a nation in order to put in context the need for the legislation that we have debated and, hopefully, we will pass later on today. Quite simply, we must do a much better job of curbing the flow of illegal immigration, and that means both preventing illegal aliens from entering our country and deporting those who remained within our borders unlawfully. The legislation that we debate addresses both of these problems. It contains strong law enforcement provisions to assist in detaining and removing illegal immigrants, and, more importantly, it includes strong provisions relating to employer sanctions and verification systems. I might just parenthetically acknowledge the support of Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy with an amendment which I added which has been included in the managers' amendment that deals with juvenile offenders who are here illegally and commit crimes that, if committed by adult offenders, would be serious felony offenses. The fact that this provision has been accepted in the legislation, I think, will strengthen the hand of law enforcement and give us an additional tool to deal with those violent juvenile offenders who are here unlawfully who currently are protected under the provisions of the Family Unity Act and who now may be subject to the provisions which will enable a stronger effort to be made to return them to the country of their own origin when these serious felony offenses are committed. The bill incorporates many of the recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform, as I alluded to earlier. It recognizes, as did the Commission, that the primary factor motivating people to enter our country illegally is the availability of jobs, jobs that pay more, often much more, than that in which an individual could expect to make in his or her native country. While this legislation reflects the need to enhance our border security efforts by nearly doubling the authorized level of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, it also recognizes the fiscal and geographical constraints of patrolling the entire U.S. border. Mr. President, the fact that more than half of all of illegal immigrants currently in the United States entered our country legally and subsequently overstayed their visas evidences the need to do much more than just to improve border security to stem the tide of illegal immigration. The Commission on Immigration Reform found that the ineffectiveness of employer sanctions, prevalence of fraudulent documents, and continued high numbers of unauthorized workers, combined with confusion for employers and reported discrimination against employees have challenged the credibility of current work site enforcement efforts. This bill recognizes an improved system to verify eligibility to work in this country must be developed. It includes provisions to reduce the list of documents that may be accepted by employers, and directs the President to conduct local or regional pilot projects on improved verification systems. The recommended system could not be implemented, however, until it was authorized by Congress. The bill also contains provisions related to another recommendation of the commission, and that is the availability of public benefits to legal immigrants. The current law in this area, a version of which has been on the books for more than a century, provides that an immigrant may be admitted to the United States only if the immigrant provides adequate assurance that he or she is not likely at any time to become a public charge. The bill provides if an alien within 5 years of entry does become a public charge that immigrant may be subject to deportation. This policy is consistent with the Commission's recommendation and with the philosophy we as a Nation admit legal immigrants, with the expectation they will reside permanently in the United States as productive residents. In addition, the bill provides sponsors should be held financially responsible for the immigrants they bring into this country. In making the affidavits of support signed by sponsors legally enforceable, the bill indemnifies the Federal Government and seeks to hold the taxpayers harmless of their current responsibility for providing for support. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I recognize the contribution immigrants have made to our society. With the exception of native Americans, we are all a product of our Nation's immigration system. That is why it is so important for us as a nation to establish and to enforce our immigration laws so that those who have played by the rules and followed the law are rewarded for their efforts. We can no longer allow aliens who enter or remain in the United States in violation of our immigration laws to effectively take immigration opportunities that might otherwise be extended to those potential legal immigrants whose presence would be more consistent with the public policy determinations made by this Congress about what is in our national interests. Once again, Mr. President, I commend Senators Simpson and Kennedy for their efforts in producing this piece of legislation. I look forward to supporting its enactment and its final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, as one of the original 22 members of this bipartisan coalition, I support of the Centrist Coalition's 7-year balanced budget proposal as a sound, moderate approach to a problem begging for a solution. Mr. President, this balanced budget proposal came about because evey member of the bipartisan coalition took it upon themselves to find a solution to the budget impasse that grips this country. During last year's budget cycle, responsible spending decisions were buffeted about by the winds of political rhetoric. This group of Senators is concerned about the future of this country, and about what failure to balance the budget today can do to burden the lives of our children and grandchildren tomorrow. Our coalition considered a number of balanced budget proposals. We looked at the President's budget proposal, the National Governors Association's budget recommendations, and at the House and Senate versions of the budget bill. We included elements of each proposal in our final plan. We took the time to hammer out a bipartisan compromise on every facet of the Federal budget. I believe this plan represents the greatest chance this country has to enact balanced budget legislation. Our burgeoning Federal debt is the greatest crisis facing our Nation today. It is gobbling up our savings, robbing our ability to invest in infrastructure and education, and saddling our children with an enormous bill that will eventually have to be paid. The interest payments on the debt consume dollars that could otherwise go for urgent needs such as infrastructure and education. As late as 1980, our national debt was less than a trillion dollars. A decade later it had more than tripled and today exceeds 4.9 trillion. Simply limiting the Government's ability to borrow is not enough to achieve deficit reduction or to control the compounding interest on the national debt. According to CBO, ``significant deficit reduction can best be accomplished by legislative decisions that reduce outlays or increase revenues.'' When I took the oath of office in 1983 as Governor of the State of Nevada, the Nevada State Constitution required a balanced budget. The necessary, excruciating task of balancing the State budget took strong executive and legislative leadership. Those tough decisions were made, and each year the State budget was balanced. Nevada is not alone in requiring a balanced budget; in fact, many States across the Nation require Governors to submit, and legislatures to pass, budgets that reconcile revenues and expenditures. It is time that the Congress and the President come together and make the tough decisions that are required for fiscally responsible governance. Not only is the Federal debt itself a problem, but annual interest payments on the national debt are devouring precious Federal dollars. For more than a decade, Congress and the President have had a credit card mentality--buy goods and services today, worry about the payment later. The public must share some of this blame as well, because there are constant objections to cutting Government programs. When the bill comes due, make that minimum payment and keep charging away. As any consumer knows, if you only make the minimum payment and continue to charge, you will never pay off the balance. The finance charges will just keep accruing. Unlike real life, however, the use of this Government credit card is never denied and the amount of debt continues to grow unchecked. History has shown that nothing is more desired and nothing is more avoided than the will to make tough choices. The last time our Federal budget was balanced was 1969. The Centrist Coalition's balanced budget plan is fair; it restructures and reforms Federal programs that are inefficient, in addition to scaling back spending. We want to make sure we get the most bang for the Federal buck. For instance, our balanced budget plan preserves Medicare and protects its long-term solvency. We expand the choices for Medicare beneficiaries by allowing them to remain in the traditional fee-for- service Medicare Program or to choose from a range of private managed care plans. By creating a new payment system for managed care and by slowing the rate of growth in payments to hospitals, physicians, and other service providers, our plan extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Our Medicaid reform plan protects the most vulnerable in our Nation. We incorporated a number of the National Governors Association's recommendations regarding enhanced State flexibility, while maintaining important safeguards for the Federal Treasury and retaining the guarantee of coverage for beneficiaries. Our Medicaid funding is based upon the population of covered people in each State, thereby ensuring adequate Federal funding in economic downturns. Our plan maintains a national guarantee of coverage for low-income pregnant women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. We allow States to design health care delivery systems which best suit their needs without obtaining waivers from the Federal Government. Under this plan, States can determine provider rates, create managed care programs, and develop home and community-based care options for seniors to help keep them out of nursing homes. Our welfare reform language includes strong work requirements and child protections. The welfare reform package includes many of the National Governors Association's recommendations; it is also based on the welfare reform bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly last year by a vote of 87 to 12. This package calls for tough new work requirements, a time limit on benefits, a block grant to provide maximum State flexibility while ensuring recipients are treated fairly, increased child care funding to enable parents to work, and a contingency fund to backstop States during recessionary times. Finally, our plan preserves the important safety net of food stamp and foster care programs. Included in our plan are provisions for tax relief to hard-working families. Our plan establishes a new $250 per child tax credit for every child under the age of 17. We have expanded the number of families eligible for tax deductible IRA's. We also provide education incentives, the first of which is an income tax deduction of up to $2,500 for interest expenses paid on education loans. The second incentive is an income tax deduction for qualified education expenses paid for the education or training of the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or dependents. We have cut the capital gains tax by 50 percent for individuals, and reduced the current maximum rate for corporations to 31 percent. We provide needed economic assistance to small businesses by an estate tax exclusion on the first $1 million of value in a family-owned business; and by increasing the self-employed health insurance deduction to 50 percent. Furthermore, our plan closes 25 billion dollars' worth of unjustified tax loopholes. Our plan reforms the Federal Housing Administration's home mortgage insurance program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure and decrease losses to the Federal Government. It also limits rental adjustments paid to owners of section 8 housing projects. This budget plan provides for discretionary spending reductions that can actually be achieved. The plan proposes a level of savings which is only $10 billion more than a hard freeze in these programs, ensuring adequate funds for a strong defense and for critical investments in education and the environment. Finally, this plan provides for an increase in Federal retirement contributions from both agencies and employees through the year 2002. This plan adopts the judicial and congressional pension reform provisions that were based on a bill I introduced, and that were included in last year's reconciliation bill. I fully support the Centrist Coalition's 7-year balanced budget plan. While I may not agree with every provision in it, I have accepted those provisions in the interest of the greater good to come of its passage. After the disastrous budget standoff of the past year, it is readily apparent that compromise is the only game in town when it comes to getting real work done in Washington. I am proud of the efforts and sacrifices may colleagues have made to put this balanced budget together.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I would like to accommodate----

Mr. BRYAN. I would like to accommodate. I think the Senator from Alaska and I both have had time set aside during the morning business. I had time and I know he had time. It is going to require unanimous consent that time be extended. I will offer to extend time for him as well.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield for an inquiry, but I do not lose the floor; is that correct?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 26, is the 10th anniversary of the most dramatic ecological disaster of the 20th century--the explosion of reactor No. 4 at the V.I. Lenin Atomic Power Plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine. On that day, 10 years ago tomorrow, a combination of poor design, human error--or, more accurately, human negligence and incompetence-- led to a massive explosion within the core of reactor No. 4--an explosion that blew off the 2,000-ton reactor chamber roof, spewing massive amounts of radiation into the surrounding area and the Earth's atmosphere in a radioactive cloud that eventually reached as far away as California. It was not until several years after the disaster occurred that the truth about Chernobyl, the crown jewel of the Soviet nuclear power industry, began to emerge--that following the explosion, reactor No. 4 experienced what has long been considered the worst-case scenario in nuclear power--a full reactor meltdown. The core material burned, exposed to the atmosphere, for nearly 10 days, and resulting in a total meltdown. Our colleague, Senator Kennedy, summed it up shortly after the disaster, when he said ``The ultimate lesson of Chernobyl is that human and technological error can cause disaster anytime, anywhere.'' That has particular residence for us in Nevada. The ecological and economic consequences of Chernobyl were massive, immediate, and will last for tens of thousands of years. Thirty-one people died as an immediate result of the explosion, 200 were hospitalized, and 135,000 were evacuated from 71 nearby towns and villages. High doses of radiation spread over at least 10,000 square miles, affecting 5 million people in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. The explosion spread more than 200 times the radiation released by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts combined. Anywhere from 32,000 to 150,000 people could eventually die as a result of the blast. Millions of people have had their lives permanently disrupted by the accident. Belarus and Ukraine now report a broad rise in respiratory illness, heart disease, and birth defects. Scientists are still waiting to see what the role may be of the radiation exposure in leading to the many cancers that take longer than 10 years to develop, but expect it to be significant. The children of Belarus have been particularly hard hit. Seventy percent of the Chernobyl fallout landed in Belarus--a nation that itself has no nuclear reactors. Huge tracts of land in Belarus were contaminated with radioactive cesium, strontium, and plutonium. Prior to 1986, Belarus's thyroid cancer rate for children under 14 was typical--2 cases in a nation of about 10 million. By 1992, the rate was up to 66, and by 1994, the rate had increased to 82--an increase that can only be explained by the Chernobyl fallout. One quarter of the land of Belarus, home to one-fifth of the nation's population, has been severely contaminated by the Chernobyl explosion. The power plant complex is surrounded by an 18-mile radius exclusion zone--an area of very high contamination that is off-limits to for residence and entry without a special permit. Lying outside of the exclusion zone is a much larger area with lesser, but still very high, contamination. Despite official government pronouncements that this area is unsafe, it is still home to 237,000 residents of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, who simply cannot afford to live anywhere else. The remains of reactor No. 4, still highly radioactive, are contained in a hastily erected sarcophagus--a highly unstable structure, considered by many the most dangerous building on earth. As concerns regarding the possibility of collapse of the sarcophagus or the reactor entombed inside increase, it is unclear if the technological or financial challenges of stabilizing and cleaning up reactor No. 4 can ever be met. Mr. President, If Chernobyl has taught us anything, it is that when dealing with such high-risk matters as nuclear power, or nuclear waste, small mistakes can have enormous consequences. Next week, the Senate may turn to a bill aptly dubbed the ``Mobile Chernobyl Bill''--S. 1271, the Craig nuclear waste bill. As many of my colleagues are aware, this establishes, on an accelerated schedule, a so-called interim high-level nuclear waste dump in Nevada. I want to be clear on what this interim storage program means. Tens of thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste will be removed from reactors, loaded on over 16,000 trains and trucks, and shipped cross country to Nevada, a State with no nuclear power. The waste will travel through 43 States on transportation routes that bring the waste within one mile of over 50 million people. Mr. President, I know the nuclear power industry is lobbying hard for this bill. I know there is a lot of pressure on Senators to support this legislation. I also know that the nuclear power industry has spread a massive amount of disinformation about the bill. By any objective evaluation, this legislation is completely unnecessary. In fact, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a Federal agency created by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and comprised of the Nation's most respected scientists, said just 1 month ago that there is simply no need for an interim storage facility at this time. This is not the first time the industry has cried wolf. In 1980, a supporter of the industry asserted: 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, another type of interim storage, and begin soon, we could begin shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983. Of course, Mr. President, no U.S. reactors have closed due to lack of storage. Thirteen years have passed since the prediction that in 1983 there would result the closure of reactors. Despite the crisis mentality created by the nuclear power industry, there is no nuclear reactor in America that will be forced to close down due to lack of storage. Every nuclear utility, if it so chooses, can take advantage of existing, NRC licensed, off the shelf dry cast storage systems to meet its spent fuel storage needs. Should the mobile Chernobyl bill come to the floor next week, I will have a lot more to say about the lack of any compelling need for this legislation. There are, however, plenty of other reasons to oppose this bill. The bill preempts nearly every local, State, or Federal environmental protection. It creates a taxpayer liability of billions of dollars to solve the private industry's waste problem. It eliminates EPA authority to protect the health and public safety. Mr. President, I do not know when the Senate may consider this bill. It is my hope that it never comes up. Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to fully consider the many legitimate public health safety consequences raised by this legislation, particularly as they relate to their own constituents, and to oppose the mobile Chernobyl bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for a period of 20 minutes, so I might be accommodated for my 10 minutes and the distinguished Senator from Alaska may be accommodated for his 10 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 75, I voted ``yea'' and intended to vote ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today is remarkable. At long last--on the floor of the Senate--we are considering health care reform legislation that the American people both want and support. And at long last, it is legislation with significant bipartisan support. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. It will provide health care insurance protection for thousands of Nevadans, and millions of Americans. This incremental bill is our best opportunity to get working Americans the health care access they deserve. We have been close to this point before. It seems like ancient history when I think back to cosponsoring former Senator Lloyd Bentsen's small business insurance health care reform. It too had incremental insurance coverage improvements that many in this body supported--yet once again, the final hurdle could not be overcome. Many times--and over many years--Nevadans have shared with me their heart breaking stories. Families whose children have medical conditions that prevent the family from being able to purchase health insurance, because no insurer will take a child with a preexisting condition. Working individuals who develop chronic health conditions, and cannot leave their current employment for fear of not being able to get health insurance in their new job. Health insurance is often denied for the very illnesses most likely to require medical care. Eighty-one million Americans have conditions that could subject them to such exclusions if they lose their current coverage, and sometimes these exclusions make them completely uninsurable. People with preexisting conditions are penalized twice. First, they have a serious health care condition that requires medical care--a situation they did not choose. Second, they are at the mercy of insurers who decide whether they will have coverage, or be cut off. For the person with a preexisting medical condition, who has been lucky enough to get health care insurance through his or her job, the secondary fear is keeping their job. If the job is eliminated, it may mean no more health care insurance-- ever. For the person who wants to better himself or herself by taking a new job, or starting a new business, it may mean no more health insurance--period. We can all imagine that fear. These insurance company decisions affect working people who play by the rules. They pay their insurance premiums when they can get coverage. But they find themselves in untenable situations. They are unable to have the most basic insurance of all--for themselves and their families--to not have to worry about health care coverage. It is demeaning to all Americans if people cannot better themselves and their families' situations for fear of losing health care insurance. This legislation will free many working people from the stagnation of being unable to accept new job opportunities. The Health Insurance Reform Act guarantees that private health insurance coverage will be available, renewable, and portable to working Americans. This legislation will make it easier for individuals and employers to buy and keep health insurance, even when a family member or employee has a pre-existing condition. This legislation makes health care coverage portable so workers would no longer be locked into jobs or prevented from starting their own business for fear of losing their health coverage. Small businesses and self-employed individuals are particularly victimized under the current system, because they lack the bargaining power of larger corporations. This legislation addresses their problem by encouraging them to form private, voluntary coalitions for purposes of purchasing health plans and negotiating with providers. By forming these groups, the costs of health plans would be more competitive for small employers and individuals, as compared to large employers, by giving them more clout in the marketplace. This bill is the foundation for incremental health reform. Although this insurance reform legislation will not solve all of the problems of the Nation's health care system, it will promote greater access and security for health coverage for all Americans. Private insurance carriers will compete based on quality, price and service, instead of by their ability to refuse coverage to those who need it the most. We all know there will be attempts to add amendments to this legislation. Some of those amendments are going to be very hard to vote against. But we must keep focused on what it is we are trying to accomplish here. We have the opportunity to provide access to health care insurance for millions of Americans who each and every day face the uncertainty of whether they will have coverage. We can do something to allay those fears. Passing this bill is a big step to ensuring health care coverage is available to working Americans. Other steps are needed--but they need not be taken today. Let us first take this big step, and get the job started. And from there, we can and will, work to ensure even better health care for all Americans.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the China-Burma-India Veterans Association [CBIVA] of Nevada. These veterans played a decisive role in World War II. The China-Burma-India Veterans were responsible for driving the Japanese out of the treacherous Burma jungles and for building a road from Burma through the Himalayas to China, which was originally called the Burma Road. The China-Burma- India Veterans also flew the most famous of the B-29 airplanes, brought the air war to Japan and its occupied territories and ended the war with the historic atom bombing of mainland Japan. The China-Burma-India Association was established in 1948 in Milwaukee, WI and is now a nonprofit organization of approximately 7,000 veterans. In Las Vegas, a group of the brave and courageous veterans has established a chapter of their own called the Silver State Basha No. 133 with Eugene Henkin as their current commander. The China- Burma-India Veterans Association, Silver State Basha No. 133, keeps their veterans in touch by sending out more than 200 newsletters to China-Burma-India Veterans of Las Vegas and surrounding communities. The Silver State Basha No. 133 is an example of the many fine men and women in our country who had the courage, sacrifice, and devotion to serve in World War II. On April 21-23, the China-Burma-India Veterans Association World War II will hold its western area reunion in Las Vegas at the Rio Hotel and Casino. I am pleased to recognize this group and would like to wish the China-Burma-India Veterans Association best wishes on a successful reunion.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. If I might, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been here longer than I.

Mr. BRYAN. Responding to the floor manager's inquiry, I will speak for less than 10 minutes, hopefully.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the majority floor manager for accommodating me and recognizing me in sequence. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report and to speak about an aspect of this farm bill that is particularly troubling to me and has been troubling to me for many years. Again and again this Senate has passed provisions to reduce and to reform the Market Promotion Program which is also known as MPP. Each and every time the Senate has called for reform of MPP the conference committees which convened subsequent to the passage of those reforms have removed the reform language from the final conference report. By way of background, Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program was created to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of exports of U.S. agricultural products. MPP is a successor to the Targeted Export Assistance Program [TEA] which was established in 1986. TEA was originally created to counter or offset the adverse effect of subsidies, import quotas, or other unfair trade practices of foreign competitors directed at U.S. agricultural exports. Since 1986, the Federal Government has spent $1.43 billion on TEA and MPP. The General Accounting Office has pointed out that the entire Federal Government spends about $3.5 billion annually on export promotion. While agricultural products account for approximately 10 percent of total U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture spends about $2.2 billion each year or 63 percent of that total. By contrast, the Department of Commerce spends $236 million annually on trade promotion. MPP is operated through approximately 64 organizations that either run market promotion programs themselves or pass the funds along to individual companies to spend on their own advertising efforts. In fiscal year 1994, about 43 percent of all MPP activities involved generic promotions while 57 percent involved brand-name promotions. In fiscal years 1986 through 1993, $92 million of MPP funds went to foreign companies. Mr. President, when I talk about MPP funds, I am talking about tax dollars collected from American citizens who remit their taxes to the Federal Government each year. That $92 million represents nearly 20 percent of the total funds allocated for brand-name promotions during those 8 years. In fiscal year 1994, more than 140 foreign companies received MPP funds. Although the stated goal of MPP is to benefit U.S. farmers, the program can also benefit foreign enterprises. By funding foreign firms, the General Accounting Office has contended that MPP can make it more difficult for U.S. firms to compete and to obtain a foothold in foreign markets. While it has been argued that the funding of foreign companies may produce short-term gains in the export of U.S. agricultural commodities, those gains are likely to come at the expense of U.S. firms gaining a more permanent foothold in overseas markets. On September 20 of last year, the Senate voted 62 to 36 to reform the MPP Program and to lower the amount of Federal Government money supporting it. This amendment was cast in the form of the Bumpers-Bryan amendment and would have made three reforms to MPP. First, under the provisions of the amendment, only small businesses and Capper-Volstead cooperatives would be eligible for financial assistance. Second, no funds would be used to provide assistance to foreign trade associations. Third, the funding level would be reduced to $70 million. When the fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations conference report came back to the Senate on October 12 of last year, it was passed on a voice vote. The conference committee had removed the Senate language reforming MPP and restored its level of annual funding to $110 million. Again we tried to reform MPP when the 7-year farm program authorization first came before the Senate last month. The Senate passed the Bryan-Kerry-Bumpers-Reid amendment by a vote of 59 to 37, and it contained the same provisions that were previously included in the Bumpers-Bryan amendment, the reforms as well as reducing funding to $70 million annually. Now the farm bill conference report has come back to the Senate and, again, repeating the pattern of the past MPP reforms that passed the Senate, have been removed. Let me make specific reference, Mr. President, to language contained in the conference report itself that addresses this subject, and I quote: Funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to any foreign for-profit corporation for the corporation's use in promoting foreign-produced products. Now, at first blush, a superficial reading of the language might suggest that foreign companies would be excluded from receiving money through MPP, but this apparent reform is disingenuous. While the language adopted by the conference committee might prohibit direct assistance to foreign companies, it does not prohibit indirect assistance to foreign companies by nonprofit associations. And in what may be the ultimate irony, the conference report implies that a new reform is being enacted that would preclude payment to foreign corporations for foreign-produced products. MPP was never designed--and I repeat never designed--to compensate corporations for foreign- produced products. This claim of reform is illusory. At a time when the gospel of budgetary restraint has reportedly been embraced by all, a majority of the agricultural conferees continue to pursue a taxpayer giveaway to foreign corporations. Finally, this conference report adds a new and rather curious mandate. It officially changes the name of the Market Promotion Program to the Market Access Program [MAP] as it will now be designated. Is this reform? I would submit that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it is a duck. Whether it is called MPP or MAP, this program remains what it has always been, a frivolous use of taxpayer money and a prime example of a corporate welfare program that should be eliminated. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, for yielding the floor. Mr. President, most of those who are privileged to represent the West on both sides of the political divide recognize that we need to enact responsible grazing legislation that balances the concerns of the livestock industry with the concerns of the conservation community. It is in seeking that illusive goal of balance that we find ourselves operating from a slightly different approach. In my view, notwithstanding the best efforts of the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, his bill fails to achieve that balance and, in my view, would seriously threaten the multiple-use concept which has governed public land policy for decades. It is for that reason that I rise this afternoon to support the substitute amendment offered by the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico, which I believe represents a preferred course of action. The Bingaman substitute is a thoughtful, balanced approach to correct what is wrong with the current grazing regulations. Let me just also note for the Record, Mr. President, that each summer on the occasion of our recess I spend most of that recess traveling throughout rural Nevada. Today Nevada, paradoxically, is the fastest growing State in the country, although 87 percent of the total land area is under Federal jurisdiction. It is also one of the most urban states in the country, with most of the population located in the metropolitan Las Vegas area, which today exceeds 1 million people, and in northern Nevada in the so-called Truckee Meadows, embracing Reno- Sparks. One might logically say it extends to Carson City and Douglas County, that they are as well in a metropolitan area. Although rural Nevada represents a small part of the population, I have been concerned, since the time I first assumed statewide office in 1979 as attorney general, with the concerns of those good people who choose, as our colleague and friend, Senator Domenici, points out, a lifestyle which has been part of the heritage of the West and part of the heritage of our State. Their concerns are legitimate. They are good people. They work hard. They want to protect a livelihood and a lifestyle which is terribly important to them. It is for that reason, Mr. President, for the last 6 months I have been a participant in a bipartisan group of western Senators and their staffs in an effort to reach a consensus on grazing legislation. Notwithstanding the hours of effort made on both sides of the political aisle, it is my view the negotiations failed because of the approach insisted upon by the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, that is, his insistence on using S. 1459, his bill, as a baseline for discussions. Because of that methodology or that approach, which sought to codify a series of old grazing regulations, superimposing a new series of regulations and statutory provisions as well, it became very difficult to modify his bill, and ultimately we failed to achieve a consensus in working out an issue which we all share a legitimate interest in resolving. I would note that some improvements were made to the Domenici bill, as a result of our discussions. But I have never been of the view that Congress should micromanage grazing policy to the extent that is provided for in the Domenici bill. For example, the bill limits public participation in grazing decisions by listing seven arbitrary instances in which an ``affected interest''--those are words of art--occur and individuals are entitled to be notified of a proposed grazing decision. It denies the public the opportunity to protest a grazing decision; it exempts on-the-ground grazing management decisions from the National Environment Policy Act; and finally, it does not target specific, troublesome regulations for repeal, rather, it contains a blanket repeal of all the current BLM grazing regulations. What we are presenting here today in the Domenici bill in many respects takes a step back from the policies originally established during the Reagan administration under the tenure of Interior Secretary James Watt. To put that in some context, the former Secretary has been accused of many things, but he has never been accused of being an environmentalist. I believe we ought to make the necessary changes to the so-called rangeland reform proposals that have been offered under Secretary Babbitt. Efforts to limit the public's right to be involved in grazing decisions will not, in my opinion, bring stability to the ranching industry, nor will it improve rangeland conditions. It will only lead to continued turmoil and lawsuits that are a drain on the resources of both the ranching community and the Federal Government. By way of contrast, the substitute amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, which I am pleased to cosponsor, reflects a balanced approach that, in my opinion, addresses the legitimate concerns of the ranching industry. I repeat, again, I believe that there are many such legitimate concerns. It also addresses the equally valid concern and interests of the conservation community. It does not arbitrarily repeal the current grazing regulations and replace them with an inflexible statutory scheme which, in my view, S. 1459 would create. For example, in response to concerns raised by Nevada ranchers and others, the Bingaman substitute waives the application of NEPA for permit renewals and transfers unless significant changes are made. It contains expedited NEPA provisions where grazing activities would not have a significant effect on the environment. I believe those are positive and instructive changes that meet some of the concerns raised by the Nevada ranchers. It also reinstates the grazing advisory boards and expands the surcharge exemption to include spouses and grandchildren, or children which Nevada ranchers have raised. On the other hand, however, in response to concerns expressed by conservation groups, those who enjoy the public land for outdoor recreational use, whether hunting, fishing or hiking, these organizations, as well, have legitimate interests. I believe the Bingaman substitute protects public involvement in grazing decisions and requires that other public land values, as important as grazing is, it is not the only important public land value that needs to be protected, but wildlife is given equal consideration in the decisionmaking process in the goal of achieving a balance, recognizing that we want to be fair to Nevada ranchers, we want to make sure they are able to continue to use the public lands as they have for generations and to provide for themselves and their families. We also need to recognize that the West has changed. The demand made upon public lands for outdoor recreational uses have grown exponentially over the years, as Nevada in my own lifetime has gone from a State whose population the year I started school in Las Vegas in 1942 had slightly more than 100,000. We used to say, somewhat tongue- in-cheek but true, that every person, every man, woman, and child in Nevada, could be comfortably seated in the Los Angeles coliseum in 1942. Today, it is the fastest growing State in the Nation. Our population, small by contrast with some of our larger States, is 1.6 million. So the uses of public land, where we strike that balance, is very important to this Senator in making sure that public recreational values are considered in the decisionmaking process, as well as grazing interests. In addition, the substitute offered by Senator Bingaman specifically authorizes conservation use so that non- ranching entities can hold a permit and rest an allotment if the practice is not deemed inconsistent with the land use. Conservation use, as a management practice, is particularly important to us in southern Nevada. It is an integral part of the Clark County's Habitat Conservation Plan, a plan devised in response to the concerns advanced by many about the federally listed endangered species, the desert tortoise. Without that habitat conservation plan, a moratorium might very well have gone into effect with potentially catastrophic economic impacts for those of us who make southern Nevada our home. That habitat conservation plan was a compromise achieved as a result of the ability to use conservation use as a management practice. Another important provision of the Bingaman substitute concerns the use of the portion of grazing fees that are returned to the States and dispensed to local grazing boards. The substitute provides that these funds may only be used for on-the-ground range improvements and for the support of local public schools in the counties in which the fees were generated. Currently, those fees are subject, in my opinion, to an abuse, an unconscionable abuse, in that these moneys are currently being used to finance lobbying activities and litigation. Nye County, NV, has used more than $40,000 of these funds to finance a legal battle against the BLM, where they have asserted a claim of ownership over all of BLM publicly administered land in Nye County. This is indefensible. I acknowledge that my friends and neighbors in Nye County have every right to avail themselves of the Federal court system to make these claims, but they do not, in my view, have the right to rely on federal grazing fees returned to local grazing boards to fight these causes. Those ought to be confined to on-the-ground improvements for public schools in the county in which the fees are generated. The Bingaman substitute, in my view, strikes an appropriate balance by reinstating the grazing boards but prohibiting this outrageous behavior and improper use of these funds. As I began, I mentioned over the year I have had a chance to visit extensively with Nevada's ranchers and to hear their legitimate concerns about the new grazing regulations, concerns that I feel should be, but are not, addressed by the legislation before us today. The ranchers I have met with are honest, hard-working people who asked Congress, in essence, to set ground rules for grazing on public lands that will bring a sense of stability to the ranching community. If stability is of paramount concern to the ranching community, it is my view that S. 1459 is not the answer. Finally, Mr. President, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that the administration has promised to veto S. 1459 as it is currently written. Our only hope, if we are interested in achieving that stability and balance to which I have addressed myself earlier this afternoon, is to enact a balanced piece of legislation which the administration can sign into law. For those reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in the Bingaman substitute so this issue can be put to rest and a sense of stability can be brought to our friends and neighbors in the ranching communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I rise in strong opposition to the second-degree amendment introduced by the junior Senator from Montana to his original amendment to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while also calling for a restructuring study of all the U.S. circuit courts of appeal. I commend the Chair's ruling on the two points of order brought by both Senator Feinstein and Senator Reid earlier today to hold the Burns amendment irrelevant to this omnibus appropriations bill. This amendment is the fourth attempt to break up the ninth circuit since 1983. These same drums have been beaten before--the circuit is too big--the cases are not decided in a timely manner. But this is, I fear, only a smokescreen for the real reason splitting the ninth circuit is proposed from time to time. Many simply do not like the decisions rendered by the circuit. Surely not all of the decisions in the ninth circuit, or for that matter, in any circuit come down the way all of us would like. I have even cosponsored legislation to reverse some ninth circuit decisions. But I do not believe differences over the decisions rendered by the ninth circuit are adequate grounds to split the circuit. What kind of precedent would Congress then be setting? Would a circuit court of appeals face possible reconfiguration, whenever Congress does not like the decisions being rendered? Does this Congress really want to support what is essentially judicial gerrymandering? I think not. The ninth circuit serves nine western States, and has been one circuit for over 100 years. Whenever the issue of splitting the circuit is put to a vote of the judges and lawyers in the circuit, the vote is overwhelming to retain the circuit as it is currently. Who better than those judges whose decisions are appealed to, and those lawyers who represent clients whose cases are heard by the ninth circuit to determine whether the circuit is working or not? It has been my experience that judges and lawyers have never been shy about stating an opinion when they think something needs to be changed. The last study of the Federal circuit courts of appeal was the 1973 Hruska Commission. A fellow Nevadan, the Honorable Charles Wiggins, a ninth circuit court judge, served as a member of that Commission. Judge Wiggins, a former Republican Congressman, originally supported a split of the ninth circuit. In his recent letter to Senator Feinstein, however, he stated: My understanding of the role of the circuit courts in our system of federal justice has changed over the years from that which I held when the Hruska Commission issued its final report in 1973. At that time, I endorsed the recommendations of the Commission calling for a division of the 5th and 9th Circuits. I have grown wiser in the succeeding 22 years.'' We should heed Judge Wiggins experience--act wisely and not split the ninth circuit. The last time a circuit court of appeals was split was 1980, when the fifth circuit was divided. And it should be noted that the judges of the fifth circuit unanimously requested the split --a situation we do not have with the ninth circuit. Judge Wiggins recently wrote me, Circuit division is not the answer. It has not proved effective in reducing delays. The former 5th Circuit ranked sixth in case processing times just prior to its division into the 5th and 11th Circuits. Since the division, the new 5th Circuit is still ranked sixth or seventh, while the new 11th circuit now ranks 12th, the slowest of all the circuits. The 9th circuit Court of Appeals judges are the fastest in the nation in disposing of cases once the panel receives the case. The ninth circuit has taken administrative steps to manage its caseload through innovative ways that other circuits use as models. The ninth circuit disposes of cases in 1.9 months from oral argument to rendering a decision. This is 2 weeks less than the national average. This currently makes the ninth circuit the second most efficient circuit. It is obvious the circuit has recognized court management areas that needed improving, and has successfully addressed them. I find it particularly ironic in this current political atmosphere with extremely tight Federal budget restraints that a proposal is being made to create a new circuit court. As my colleagues before me have discussed, it is estimated to cost $60 million to construct another Federal court house, and set up another circuit court. An additional $2 to $3 million is estimated to be needed to provide for the transition period. And thereafter, we would face the continuing costs of operating an additional circuit court. This makes no sense. I reiterate my opposition to the proposal to split the ninth circuit. This circuit has worked well for the nine western States it serves, and will continue to do so into the future. For those who believe the ninth circuit must be split, let the proposed commission to review all the U.S. circuit courts go forward. When the information necessary to determine whether any circuits need their geographical jurisdiction changed is available, we can then debate this issue intelligently. But let us not split the ninth circuit prematurely. To implement the ninth circuit split at the same time as a commission is gathering the information to make that decision simply would make no sense. This issue is simply too important to debate without all necessary information. I would hope my colleagues would join me tomorrow in voting to uphold the Chair's rulings on the irrelevancy of the Burns amendment. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am not unmindful, nor is anybody in this Chamber, nor anyone in America, that we are in the heat of a great Presidential debate. That is as it should be. That is a quadrennial experience in America. But we ought not to allow that Presidential debate to divert the focus of our own energies on the Banking Committee and on every other committee in the Congress in which we have very serious public business to undertake. I must say that the proposal that has been advanced--that we extend these hearings in the Senate not to a time certain but until after the so-called McDougal trial is concluded--in my judgment is nothing more than an open-ended extension which I regret to say smacks of partisanship seeking some advantage, seeking to embarrass the President, seeking to develop headlines, and not in the advancement of our effort to ascertain the truth--that is going to occur through the aggressive investigation of Mr. Starr--but to seek some political gain at the President's expense. First of all, we do not know when that trial might be concluded. This is a trial of extraordinary complexity. At a bare minimum, it would take several months for this trial to be concluded. Moreover, it is not without precedent in cases like this that there could be further unanticipated delays in which this body, the Senate of the United States, would have no ability to control or influence, nor should we. So we have no idea when this matter will be concluded based upon the uncertainties that a very complicated trial, as this has every expectation of being, would conclude. Let us assume for the sake of argument that, indeed, a conviction were secured against all of the defendants. I do not believe that anybody in this Chamber would challenge the proposition that there will be an appeal taken during the course of the aftermath of that conviction or convictions. As a result, those defendants would certainly not be available to the Senate committee because it is clear in every circuit in the country that the privilege which exists with respect to each of those defendants is not waived, nor is it extinguished in any form because it is entirely possible that an appellate court could reverse those convictions, in which case, if there was a subsequent trial, the defendants ought not to be disadvantaged by being compelled to disclose testimony which subsequently could be used against them. So that is very clear. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the trial concludes and the defendants are found innocent. Does that extinguish the privilege? Would that constitute some kind of a waiver? Look at the experience that the McDougals themselves had. They were prosecuted and subsequently acquitted. They are now subject to trial once again. They argued that they were precluded under the double jeopardy provisions of the Constitution from being tried again, and they lost in that argument. No one is arguing that the jurisdiction of the special prosecutor and the jurisdiction of the Senate Whitewater Committee is concurrent in all respects. So very clearly as a result of those circumstances the defendants, if they were acquitted, would not have lost their right to assert the privilege, and their testimony would not necessarily be available to this committee. Although it has a superficial appeal--well, let us wait until after the trial and then we will hear from the various defendants--in point of fact, that is clever but simply an open-ended prospect in which there may be no definitive conclusion by reason of the two alternatives I posit here--either a conviction, in which case they are certainly not going to be forthcoming in their testimony, or in the event of an acquittal by reason of the prior experience they have had there could be some other ancillary prosecution that could be commenced. So I think that the premise upon which this extension is sought is fundamentally flawed--that is, namely, this testimony would be available to us at such time as the trial would be concluded, whenever that might be, for whatever period of time, which could be for an extended period of weeks or even months, or, even assuming it is concluded either by reason of a determination of guilt or acquittal, that in either of those two circumstances the testimony might be available to us. I respectfully submit that a careful analysis of the information would indicate that in neither of those two events is it reasonable to assume that that evidence would be made available to us, and that in each of those cases it is very likely the defendants would continue to assert their privilege and the committee would not have the ability to receive their testimony. I began my comments by saying that I am as committed as any Member in this Chamber to getting at the facts. If there is evidence of misconduct, it should be brought to public attention. Indeed, the trials which are occurring right now will be public trials and that information, if there is such evidence, will come out. The American people will fully understand. I have indicated that I think Mr. Starr is a competent and an aggressive, energized prosecutor. There is every reason to believe he will follow any leads, any evidence that may suggest wrongdoing, and he will be aggressive in doing so. I believe an argument could be made that the Whitewater matter has gone on long enough in the Senate and it ought to be concluded at this point. But I believe the compromise that has been offered by the ranking member, namely, that we extend the hearings for a period of 5 weeks, and then allowing another 4 weeks thereafter to compile the report, is reasonable. In that period of time we ought to be able to conclude this matter, unless there is a different agenda here. And I think the American people need to understand that. I believe--and I hate to say this, but I think it is true--there is a different agenda. It is not an agenda to find out exactly what happened and to get to the bottom of this. It is to keep this issue alive, to generate a headline, to generate ongoing controversy with the hope that somehow this may spill over into the Presidential race this year and disable the President politically. What has been proposed is a very reasonable compromise, and I think any fairminded person who has looked at the 277 days, the 100 witnesses, the 45,000 pages of documents we have examined would conclude that another 5 weeks is a reasonable period of time. And so I commend the distinguish Senator from Maryland. That is a reasonable approach. I say to the American people that in 5 weeks, done energetically, not just one hearing for 1 hour, 1 day each week, but I mean an aggressive hearing schedule that would engage the members of the committee for a 4- or 5-day workweek, we can reasonably examine any evidence or tie up any loose ends that might have existed. But that offer was rejected. That offer was rejected. What we are faced with is a proposition that in effect has no time limit, no constraint at all. After the trial, whenever that might be, whatever week, whatever month, who knows, whatever year, we do not know what might occur. Those of my colleagues who have done trial work know that oftentimes in the course of a major piece of litigation--and this is certainly a major case--unexpected events occur and, indeed, the trial is recessed for a considerable period of time--weeks, even months. And so I would urge my colleagues to enable us to reach a responsible compromise that has been suggested by the distinguished ranking member, the senior Senator from Maryland, and let us go on with this. There are so many other things I would like to do in this year in the Banking Committee. Some are interested in regulation reform with respect to the banking industry. I would like to work on some of those provisions. I would like to see us complete our work here on the floor, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which was something that I personally invested a good many years on. But the reality is that the entire agenda of the Banking Committee, the legitimate public policymaking part of that agenda, has been held captive or hostage to the political machinations with an attempt to prolong a hearing on Whitewater, not for the purpose of getting at the truth, but for the purpose of trying to embarrass the President. I regret that I have to say that on the floor, Mr. President, but in my view the evidence lends itself to no other conclusion. I will conclude as I began by pointing out that last October, what may very well be the high-water mark in terms of the bipartisan approach which I hoped would characterize the entire Whitewater inquiry in the Senate, in which it was affirmatively stated that these matters needed to be concluded, that we should not hold our hearings in abeyance until the trial and those ancillary proceedings are concluded, but that we had a compelling public interest to address this issue and to address it thoroughly but to address it promptly and responsibly. That, I fear, Mr. President, we are not doing. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I take no backseat to any Member in this Chamber in terms of trying to ascertain and ferret out the truth as it relates to the so-called matter which has been embraced--the subject of Whitewater. We have today spent some 277 days on this matter. We have heard from more than 100 witnesses. We have collected more than 45,000 pages of documents. That is an enormous expenditure of time and effort. Mr. Starr, the special counsel, has spent some $25 million to date to engage 30 attorneys and 100 FBI agents working in concert with them. If we are truly interested in getting at the truth, and ascertaining if in fact there is any wrongdoing arising out of these matters, I believe that we have vested Mr. Starr with the authority and the resources to be complete and exhaustive in his review of all facts called to his attention. I happen to have had experience with Mr. Starr in a former capacity as chairman of the Ethics Committee. Mr. Starr served as a special master reviewing matters that were contained in a diary and to first review that information to determine whether or not it was subject to an agreed upon exception which the committee had established and, if not, that information should be available to us. My personal observation of Mr. Starr is that he is competent, he is aggressive, he is tough, and he is energetic. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Starr, with the resources made available to him, will not ferret out any wrongdoing if in fact such wrongdoing has occurred. I think it is important to remember that the premise for establishing the Office of Special Counsel was to take these kinds of circumstances out of the realm of partisanship on the floor of the U.S. Senate, vest special independent counsel with the authority to conduct the investigation, and then let the chips fall where they may. If indeed there is evidence of wrongdoing, that should be vigorously presented and prosecuted, and those who are guilty should be sentenced accordingly. I must say, having served on this Banking Committee for my 8th year, that it has been the history of the Banking Committee to be bipartisan in its approach. There are some committees that by reputation in the Congress are extraordinarily confrontational and partisan, that there is constant bickering, and that they really have evolved into partisan debating societies. That has not been the history of the Banking Committee. Sure, we have had our differences, and there have been intense discussions and debate. But we have not, by and large, broken into partisan bickering and confrontation. Let me say that if you go back to the end of last year, Mr. Starr requested of the committee that it hold action in abeyance until after he could have proceeded further with respect to his investigation and prosecution of these matters. That letter came to us, a letter dated September 27. That was carefully considered by our distinguished chairman and our able ranking member, and I believe in the spirit of bipartisanship which has historically characterized the operation and function of the Banking Committee that the chairman and the ranking member concluded that they would not do so; that, indeed, they felt that it was in the best interest of the Senate to proceed. I invite my colleagues' attention to a particular paragraph on page 2, which concludes, and I read it: For these reasons we believe that the concerns expressed in your letter do not outweigh the Senate's strong interest in concluding its investigation and public hearings into the matters specified in Senate Resolution 120. So at the very outset last fall, there was a delinking, if you will, in terms of the Senate's actions with respect to the Whitewater inquiry and the actions undertaken by the special counsel, or prosecutor. That was done in a spirit of bipartisanship. Let me say that I believe the premise of that letter, which is dated October 2--I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record--that premise is as valid today as it was last October.