Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to preface my comments by commending my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Florida, on what was truly a very thoughtful and very enlightening presentation, in terms of his efforts in developing the formula, the rationale and the cause for which he speaks, and that is to provide some sense of equity and fairness predicated on the basic proposition that children everywhere, irrespective of the States from which they come, are entitled to receive a fair and equitable allocation of Federal tax dollars providing for their benefit. I enjoy, as I know all of my colleagues do, the erudition that is continually demonstrated on the floor by the senior Senator from New York in explaining the theoretical underpinning and the origin of this very complicated formula that we presently work with. I say with great respect and deference to him that whatever the merit in its origin that formula may have had certainly can have no continuing validity when the very basis upon which we are changing the law converts an entitlement program to a block grant program that has a cap attached to it with a very, very minimal margin to accommodate the growth of States such as my own and others, whose Senators I am sure will speak in behalf of this amendment, of 2.5 percent a year. So I come to the floor this evening to strongly endorse and to support the Graham amendment, the children's fair share allocation proposal. This amendment will, in my judgment, ensure a more equitable Federal funding formula based on the number of children in poverty in each State with a small State minimum. The bill before us severely penalizes high-growth States by relying on 1994 funding levels for fiscal year 1996 and into future years. I make it clear at the outset, Mr. President, that there is no defender of the current welfare system. It serves neither the taxpayer nor the recipient. I want to identify myself as an advocate for change. The welfare system in America has failed and we ought to change it in rather substantial ways. But in doing so, we should ensure that there is equity in allocating Federal funds to States--Nevada and others--that will have serious welfare problems compounded by the enactment of this piece of legislation. The Republican welfare proposal uses a block grant approach as a replacement for the current system. As a former Governor, I very much understand the attraction of block grants for Governors in their States. Quite often, block grants can be a better approach. I, for one, as a former Governor, recognize that there are circumstances in which increased flexibility would have [[Page S 13361]] been immensely helpful in dealing with the problems of my State, which may very well have differed from the problems of the State of the distinguished occupant of the chair and of the prime sponsor of this amendment, all of whom have served as chief executives of their respective States. But the notion that somehow block grants are a utopian answer to every problem we have with the current welfare system is, in my opinion, disingenuous, and this is particularly true when high-growth States, such as my own, will be left with much, much less resources to deal with the problem of an expanding population. If States are deprived of the funding necessary to do the job, all of the block grant flexibility in the world will not matter a single whit because States will not be able to do the job, let alone do it better. Earlier this year, I joined with nearly 30 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in writing to the majority leader to request his support for a bipartisan effort to address the funding formula in an equitable way. Although the Dole bill includes Senator Hutchison's Federal funding formula proposal, it is still, in my judgment, a grossly inadequate approach which penalizes high-growth States. The Republican leader's proposal hurts high-growth States like Nevada by capping Federal funding at the fiscal year 1994 level. High-growth States like Nevada will receive less funding at the very time that their population is exploding. Nevada is one of 19 States under the Dole-Hutchison Federal funding formula proposal which would be eligible to receive a very modest 2.5 percent annual adjustment to Federal funding in the second and subsequent years of the block grant authorization. But, Mr. President, this adjustment does not come even remotely close to offsetting the damage caused to my State by reason of the fiscal year 1994 funding cap. Nevada is the fastest growing State in America. I invite my colleagues' attention to this chart. It is dramatic. Beyond the comprehension of those of us who have lived in Nevada, as I have, for more than a half a century, if you look at the preceding decade, 1984 to 1994, Nevada's population has grown by 59.1 percent. If you look at the next fastest State in percentage of growth, that of Arizona, 33.7 percent. When I talk about the horrendous impact and consequences of this formula, I am not speaking in the abstract, I am speaking in the specific, and it will be devastating. Nevada's population is projected to increase from 1995 to the year 2000 by nearly another 15 percent from approximately 1.47 million to approximately 1.69 million. Again, Nevada leads the Nation in projected population growth for the remaining years of this decade. Nevada's AFDC caseload increased 8 percent from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1994, the sixth highest increase in the country. The national average was only a 1.4 percent increase. And from fiscal year 1992 to 1994, Nevada's welfare expenditures increased by nearly 22 percent, the fourth highest increase in the country, compared to the national average of only 4 percent. In the 5 years from 1989 to 1994, Nevada experienced a 35.7 percent increase in the number of children under the age of 18 years, the highest increase of any State in the country. Again, by comparison, the national average is 6.1 percent. Under the Republican welfare proposal, fast growing States like Nevada will suffer a devastating impact. We cannot expect yesterday's funding levels are going to come anywhere near meeting the needs of Nevada citizens in the years ahead. Under the Dole-Hutchison formula, Nevada would receive $36 million in fiscal year 1996. Nevada is already in the year of its implementation behind its projected needs. For Nevada, a 2.5 percent growth increase over the preceding year's block grant does not come close to meeting its welfare assistance needs. As a consequence, Nevada's State treasury and its taxpayers are placed at risk of having to increase the difference occasioned by the cap imposed in this formula. The children's fair share plan funding formula takes into consideration the substantial population growth projections. It does this by allocating Federal funds to States, based very simply on the number of children who are in poverty in each State. Mr. President, what could be more fair than to base the allocation on the number of children in poverty in each of the respective States? Basing welfare allocations on the number of poor children served puts the emphasis on where the priorities should be in this welfare debate, and that is on vulnerable, impoverished children throughout this Nation, irrespective of where they may live. Traditionally, the main goal of welfare cash assistance programs like AFDC has been to children who are impoverished, have a minimum standard of living. The need to meet that goal continues. The National Center for Children in Poverty reports that children under the age of 6 living in poverty in America has increased in the 5- year period from 1987 to 1992 by 1 million--from 5 million to 6 million. In the 20-year period from 1972 to 1992, the number of our children living in poverty nearly doubled. This, Mr. President, is a most disturbing trend and one that shows little chance of abeyance. None of us want poor children in this country to be unable to count on having a meal to eat and a place to sleep. If we cannot continue the current entitlement status for the cash assistance program, we must provide States sufficient funding on an equitable basis. Nevada, each month, draws thousands of people from surrounding States who come hoping to find jobs. In my own hometown of Las Vegas, 6,000 to 7,000 people each month move into the greater metropolitan area of Las Vegas. This population influx also brings a rapidly increasing number of children. Tragically and unfortunately, many of those children are children in poverty. The 1995 Kids Count Data Book found that in 1992, Nevada had 6.4 percent of its children in extreme poverty, that they lived in families whose income was below 50 percent of the national poverty level. Additionally, 25 percent of Nevada's children lived in poor and near- poor families. Rapid growth States, like Nevada, have always been hurt in receiving their appropriate share of Federal funds. Population increases and increases in Federal funds have rarely gone hand-in-hand because of many reasons. Maybe because the Federal Government was not efficient enough to make the sufficient adjustments. But it is particularly unfair to hold a rapidly growing State, like Nevada, to its 1994 Federal funding level as a baseline for future welfare assistance funding. But this will happen, unless the Graham amendment is adopted. Think about the absurdity, for a moment, of using population figures from 1994 as the baseline for all future welfare assistance funding increases. From day one, under the Dole bill, Nevada's children in poverty are punished. Under the Dole proposal, Nevada would receive $36 million each year from 1996 through 1998. Under the children's fair share plan, Nevada could receive up to $72 million a year. But understand that the basic overall amount spent on welfare is not the issue here. In my opinion, it is the formula used to allocate that amount. States like New York and California do better under the Dole bill. Fast-growing States like Nevada are seriously damaged. The Hutchison ``dynamic growth'' proposal serves Nevada children no better. Once again, Nevada would be held, in 1996, to its 1994 level of $36 million. In 1997, Nevada would get $1 million more for a total of $37 million. In 1998, Nevada would get an additional $1 million more, again for a total of $38 million. Yes, it is a funding increase. No, it is not based on meeting Nevada's population growth nor its needs. I genuinely want to achieve a fair and bipartisan solution to this critical issue. The children's fair share proposal, in my judgment, provides that solution. If your State has a high number of children in poverty, your State receives a higher amount of Federal funding. If your State has fewer children in poverty, your State receives a lesser amount of Federal funding. The Federal funding follows the need. What could be fairer than that? Again, I urge my colleagues to think about the impoverished children in [[Page S 13362]] America. Let us work together to ensure that those children, regardless of where they are living, are going to be provided adequate care on an equal basis. They depend upon us to care for them. We must not let them down. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me preface my comments by thanking the ranking member for his courtesy in acknowledging that the Senator from Nevada has been on the floor and to acknowledge the courtesy of his colleague and our friend, the junior Senator from New York. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bob Kerrey and Hollings be added as cosponsors to the Graham amendment.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of the women's softball team at the University of Nevada- Las Vegas. This outstanding group of women and their coaching staff have set a standard of excellence in 1995 which is worthy of merit. The team results for the 1995 season are the best in the history of the university. UNLV softball finished their season ranked fourth in the Nation by both a USA Today poll and the NCAA. [[Page S 13479]] This is the second straight year that the Rebels have finished in the top five. They were the champions of various regional conferences and tournaments as well. Individual players also received special awards for their performances on the field. Five of the women were voted All-Americans, and others were selected for special recognition teams. Individual players were recognized by the Big West Conference for their athletic talent in their respective positions. Off the field, the players also achieved academically; six of the women were named Scholar-Athletes by UNLV, and four were given the same honor by the Big West Conference. The women's softball coach, Shan McDonald, was selected Big West Conference Coach of the Year; she is assisted by Carol Spanks and Jenny Conden. The team will be honored at a tea hosted by UNLV President Carol Harter on Sunday, September 17 at 2 p.m. in the Tam Alumni Center. I am pleased to congratulate the women's softball team for their outstanding accomplishments in the 1995 season.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining with Senator Pressler as a cosponsor on this amendment to provide States the option to use the IRS Federal income tax refund intercept process to try to recapture AFDC-type benefit overpayments. Some years ago, Congress provided for an IRS Federal income tax intercept process to be used to help retrieve child support payment arrearages. When an individual is in arrears on his or her child support payments, the IRS refund intercept allows the State to notify the IRS of the arrearage. If the individual is to receive a Federal income tax refund, the IRS can intercept the refund. Rather than having the tax refund go directly to the individual, the refund amount is intercepted and paid toward the child support arrearage. As I know a number of my colleagues have also done in their home States, I have spent significant time this year visiting welfare offices in both northern and southern Nevada. During those visits, I spent a significant amount of time listening to welfare eligibility workers. It surprised me to learn from these eligibility workers that State welfare agencies did not have the authority to notify the IRS to intercept Federal income tax refunds to try to recapture benefit overpayments for AFDC-type cash assistance. My experience in spending time with those who are actually involved in the welfare program, who administer it on a day-to-day basis, has been enormously helpful to me. They have helped explain some of the complexities in our welfare system, some of its inconsistencies and some of its frustrations that welfare workers experience when our best intended policies are hopelessly inconsistent, or when they find their hands tied because of some nonsensical rule that requires them to do certain things. This is why I am particularly pleased to join on as an original cosponsor of the Pressler-Bryan amendment. This amendment provides an answer to one of those frustrations. When benefit overpayments are made in AFDC-type cash assistance programs under this bill, State welfare agencies will now have the IRS refund intercept process available to them. Unfortunately, many times welfare recipients who receive benefit overpayments, and most frequently this occurs in the AFDC program, are able to walk away knowing they are not going to have to repay the benefit overage. Those individuals essentially have been unjustly enriched as a result of a fraudulent overpayment made to them. When they later qualify for a Federal income tax refund, the States are powerless to try to intercept that refund, and recapture the money rightfully due the State. Under the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota and myself, we now add a new category to cover those individuals who have received benefit overpayment by reason of their fraud, or for whatever reason the circumstances led to the overpayment. Now States are empowered, through the IRS, to intercept any tax refund check that would otherwise be paid to that welfare recipient. And as the Senator from South Dakota has pointed out, the amount of savings to the taxpayers is enormous. This amendment makes a lot of sense. Expanding the IRS refund intercept process to AFDC-type benefit overpayments makes common sense, and allows all States greater flexibility in the administration of the welfare system. I applaud the Senator for his leadership and associate myself with his comments on this important amendment. This is the kind of bipartisan work that I am delighted to participate in, and which can help make this welfare reform proposal workable for the States. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Democrats' Work First welfare reform plan, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this proposal. Welfare reform needs to be done now. Work First does what all of us want to do--it requires people receiving welfare to get to work as quickly as possible. It does this while also protecting those children at risk and dependent upon the welfare assistance system through no action on their part. This spring, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the need to reform our welfare system. I related what I had learned after spending an entire morning at one of the busiest welfare offices in Las Vegas, the West Owens District Welfare Office, observing an eligibility determination interview, and meeting with welfare eligibility workers. I later also visited a welfare office in Reno. The need for extensive and immediate reform of the current welfare system was brought home to me most vividly during these visits. I believe Work First gets us to that needed reform. The Work First alternative is self-explanatory. It puts the focus of the welfare assistance program where it must be--on getting people to work as quickly as possible. All able-bodied recipients go to work immediately. Those who work receive the help they need to get on their feet--they get an additional year of Medicaid health care coverage, and they get child care assistance. And for the working poor, those trying to go it on their own, they get a 5-year child care phase-in to help ensure they can permanently join the work force. Work First does this, while at the same time showing compassion for those in dire straits, and for those children who are at risk. It is too easy to forget in the heat of debate on this very important issue that there are people, and particularly children throughout this Nation who desperately, and very legitimately need welfare assistance. We want a welfare assistance system that will be there for those truly in need, yet ensures that they get on their own two feet as quickly as possible. My State of Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation. Rapid growth States like Nevada benefit tremendously from the current entitlement status of the Federal welfare assistance system. Today, if a person meets the eligibility criteria, he or she is entitled to assistance. The entitlement protects States like Nevada which are experiencing incredible population increases. As needy people move into these rapid growth States, the Federal funding follows the population shift. Work First limits the entitlement to welfare assistance. People who need assistance only get it if they are eligible, and only if they meet their responsibilities. It is a time limited and conditional eligibility. For the needy, assistance is there, but only if they do what is necessary to get to work. No longer can welfare assistance become a lifestyle. Work First provides States with the incentive to create welfare systems that will put people to work as soon as possible. If a State does not meet its target for putting welfare recipients to work, it is penalized. If a State exceeds the target, it is rewarded through a funding bonus. Work First, unlike the Republican proposal, does not use the block grant approach. As a former Governor, I very much understand the attraction of block grants for Governors and their States. Quite often it can be a better approach. But the notion that somehow block grants are, in and of themselves, the answer to every problem we have with the current welfare program is disingenuous. Particularly when the Republican block grant proposal asks States to do more with less. If States are deprived of the funding necessary to do the job the Federal Government is sending to them through a block grant, all of the flexibility in the world will not enable the States to do the job--let alone do it better. Under the Republican proposal, all States are held to their fiscal year 1994 cash assistance level of Federal funding for the next 5 years. How can rapidly growing States like Nevada possibly provide for their increasing number of people in need based on yesterday's funding levels? And into the next 5 years? And how does the block grant proposal help States face economic recessions? Economic slowdowns impact welfare assistance programs immediately. Working families lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and it can be a long time before a job is available again. These people need help. And yet Nevada and the other States are expected to provide for these people on an already inadequate level of Federal funding. Work First also recognizes that the inability to pay for child care is a major hurdle for the many single mothers with children who want to work. It is also a problem for low-income working couples who are at risk of losing their jobs because they cannot afford to pay child care on the wages they receive. Earlier this year, I observed a welfare eligibility determination interview which involved a young woman, who was working, and married with two young children. Both she and her husband had jobs paying above the minimum wage, yet they could not provide a living wage for their family of four. Her employer kept her work hours to no more than 20 hours per week, so she was ineligible for job provided health care benefits. One of her children had a preexisting medical condition, so medical care was a necessity. The cost of child care for the two children was making it impossible for both her and her husband to continue to work, and still have enough earned income left to live on. Here is a couple trying to make it on their own, and they cannot. Work First recognizes the vital importance of child care assistance to help welfare recipients get off welfare and get to work. It also recognizes that the many working poor, like the family I just described, also need child care help--for awhile--to enable them to stay in the workforce. The Republican welfare reform proposal, however, deals with this issue by repealing child care assistance programs which today serve approximately 640,000 children. There is no guarantee that any State will provide funds to implement a child care assistance program. If it is truly our goal to get people into the workforce permanently, then we must give these people the help--for a limited time--that will enable them to get there. Repealing the very programs that provide this assistance is not the answer. This June, I introduced my Child Support Enforcement Act legislation modified from my bill last Congress to help further strengthen our ability to get dead beat parents to responsibly provide for their children. I am pleased Work First includes many of the same provisions. No one who shares the responsibility for bringing children into this world should be allowed to shirk that responsibility later by refusing to admit paternity or by failing to pay child support. We all lament the increasing number of unwed teenage girls who have children. This situation is particularly disheartening when these young mothers are themselves mere children. But too often in the past, our public policies to try to stem this increase have focused solely on the mother and ignored the responsibility of the father. Those fathers, who many times have already walked away before their children are even born, must face the reality of their parental and financial responsibilities. Although Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation, its population is comparatively small with about 1.6 million people. Yet its State Child Support Enforcement Program had 66,385 cases in fiscal year 1994, and collected $62.7 million of child support. Unfortunately, the total owed was almost $352 million, leaving an uncollected balance of almost $290 million. Already by April this year, Nevada's caseload had grown to over 69,000 cases. These cases represent only those children whose families are receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or who are using the services of the county district attorney offices to enforce child support. The many Nevadans using private attorneys are not [[Page S 12790]] included. This scenario is repeated in every State across the country. The facts are simple. Nationally, one in four children live in a single-parent household. But one of the most startling statistics is that only half of these single parents have sought and obtained child support orders. This means 50 percent of these single mothers either have been unable to track down the father, have not pursued support, or are unaware of their legal child support enforcement rights. Of the parents who have sought out and obtained child support, only half receive the full amount to which they are entitled. This means 25 percent of the single parents who have child support orders actually receive nothing at all. These facts should concern us. It is all too true that many single parents must seek public welfare assistance in order to be able to support their children. When we taxpayers are asked to lend a helping hand to these children, we should be assured every effort is being made to require absent deadbeat parents meet their financial responsibilities to those same children. Public assistance should not be the escape valve relied upon by those parents who want to walk away from their children. My child support enforcement legislation and Work First provide the means to help shut that escape valve. Both provide States the authority to withhold or suspend occupational and professional licenses; Work First also includes drivers' licenses. Both allow the denial of passports to noncustodial parents for nonpayment of child support. Both provide for the reporting of child support arrearages to credit bureaus. Both require custodial parents cooperate with paternity establishment and enforcement of child support as a condition of receiving cash assistance. The authority to collect child support from Federal employees and members of the Armed Services is enhanced by both measures. Full faith and credit of child support orders is improved, and States are required to adopt laws to void fraudulent transfers by a person owing child support. Work First also allows States to prohibit noncustodial parents--the parents who owe the child support--from receiving food stamp assistance. So much of our efforts to establish and collect child support fall on the custodial parent--the parent who cares for the children and tries to make ends meet. This provision provides another way to find noncustodial parents and ensure they meet their child support obligations. We must give our courts and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to crack down on delinquent parents. The goal is not to drive those who want to meet their obligations to their children away, but rather to make sure those ignoring their children understand that society will not tolerate their irresponsible behavior. We must assure taxpayers who lend the helping hand to impoverished single mothers and their children that every effort is being made to get deadbeat parents to pay up. We must ensure the children receive adequate and consistent child support, so they are able to have the opportunity to become successful, productive, and healthy adults. For many single parent families, if they could receive the child support payments they are entitled to, it would make the difference between being able to maintain their financial independence, and having to seek welfare assistance. I do support the Republican welfare reform requirement that all food stamp recipients, both the custodial and the noncustodial parent, participate in child support enforcement efforts as a condition of food stamp eligibility. This requirement to participate in child support enforcement efforts needs to be extended to all welfare and public assistance programs. During my visits with Nevada eligibility workers, over and over again I heard about problems with the Food Stamp Program eligibility criteria. Work First deals with those problems. People eligible for food stamps, without children, are required to work or get training to work as a condition of receiving benefits. Although the Food Stamp Program is criticized, it has provided the most basic safety net--food--for those in need, particularly in times of recession. The Republican proposal, however, would give States the irrevocable option to put their food stamp funds into a block grant. This option requires States spend 80 percent of these funds on food assistance. The other 20 percent is left to the States to use as they wish. Again States are held to the higher of either their fiscal year 1994, or the average of their fiscal year 1992-94 expenditures as their funding level under the block grant approach. How can this option possibly provide a dependable minimal safety net for those who are most vulnerable to economic downturns? food stamp funds should go for food; that is too basic a human need to play with. Good as Work First is, there are some problem areas of the current welfare system that it does not address. I will be proposing a welfare fraud amendment to prohibit welfare recipients who commit welfare fraud from being unjustly enriched because of that fraud. There are times when an individual, whose benefits are reduced because of an act of fraud, games the system by using his reduced monthly income to generate additional benefits from other assistance programs. When welfare recipients are overpaid benefits, we need to allow the welfare system to intercept Federal income tax refunds to recover such benefit amounts. We need a welfare system that does not allow people to think that receiving welfare assistance is an option they can choose to take when it is convenient. We all read in the Washington Post of the young, unmarried, working woman who made a conscious decision to have a child, voluntarily left her job, and then applied for and received welfare assistance. Her rationale was that she had worked, and now the system owed her support while she stayed home to care for the child for its first 3 years. Millions of single mothers get up every morning, get their children ready for school or child care, and go off to work, and we should expect no less from those receiving welfare assistance. No one should ever think welfare assistance is going to be there for them because they voluntarily leave their jobs, or decide to have a child and want to stay home to care for it. Americans are a compassionate people. They are always there to help people who are genuinely in need. They care deeply about our country's children. The outpouring from the hearts of Americans across this country in response to the Oklahoma Federal building bombing verified that compassionate nature a thousand fold. But most Americans are a hard-working lot, too. The vast majority of Americans are out there every day going to work--doing their best to provide for their families on their own. And many of these hard-working Americans are single mothers who are the sole breadwinner for their children, who pay for their own child care, and who struggle to make it by themselves. It should come as no surprise when these hard-working people feel a bit taken advantage of when they see able-bodied people relying on the welfare assistance program. The welfare system must be substantially changed. On that we all agree. We all agree too that there will always be people who will need the safety net welfare assistance provides at some time in their lives. But the net should be there only for a limited time, so people get back on their feet and permanently into the workforce. Work First will change the welfare system. It lets hard-working Americans know that we recognize their frustration with those who abuse the welfare system. It lets Americans in need know that conditional, time-limited assistance is there to help them if they meet their responsibilities to get to work as soon as possible. And it does this compassionately by protecting our most vulnerable citizens. Work First may not have all the answers, but it will get us well down the road to a more fair welfare assistance system.

Mr. BRYAN

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I am proud to endorse the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho. The issue of mining law has been before us each and every year since I have come to the U.S. Senate, and each and every year, the industry is subject to the usual criticism: You are not for changing the mining law of 1872. This is an act of Congress that was enacted at the time that Ulysses S. Grant was President, and you all just simply do not want to change. Mr. President, for my colleagues who are listening, there are four issues involved in mining law reform: Fair market value for the surface estate, a reasonable royalty, reclamation provisions, and a provision that the land shall revert back to the Federal Government if it is no longer used for mineral exploration and development purposes. We agree with those changes. In the last session of the Congress, the Senate passed out such a bill authored by the senior Senator from Idaho and which I was proud to cosponsor. What is at issue in this debate is jobs, good jobs for us in Nevada which [[Page S 11876]] produces more gold than all of the other States combined. It is 12,000 jobs. The average salary is $43,000 a year. What is at issue for America is the loss of an industry that last year recorded a 13-percent decline in mineral development and exploration and, correspondingly, so many of these companies are now moving to Latin America where mineral exploration has more than doubled in the past year. So what we are seeking is reason and fairness. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, there are some whose unstated agenda is to prevent mineral development and exploration on the public lands, and it is with that unreasonable element we have been unable to reach an accord, even though we share a common agreement that fair market value, a reasonable royalty, reclamation and reversionary provisions ought to be part of the fundamental changes to the mining law of 1872. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the floor manager of this issue, the distinguished Senator from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, several days ago a bomb exploded at the home of Guy Pence, a U.S. Forest Service ranger who lives and works in Carson City, NV. Fortunately, no one was injured, although Mr. Pence's wife and three children were in the house at the time of the explosion. My colleagues might recall that the Forest Service's Carson City office, where Mr. Pence works, was also bombed several months ago. Needless to say, the recent incidents of violent, terrorist activity directed at Federal employees and Federal land management agencies in the State of Nevada and elsewhere represent a disturbing trend that will undoubtedly result in the loss of life if the perpetrators are not apprehended. Mr. President, I want to make it clear at the outset that I do not claim or represent to know who or whom is behind these bombings; no one has been arrested or claimed responsibility to date. What I can tell you, though, is that by every indication, the person or persons responsible for these acts are riding a wave of anti-Federal Government sentiment. Clearly, the controversy over the role of two Federal law enforcement agencies, the ATF and FBI, in both the Randy Weaver incident and the Waco tragedy, has heightened public cynicism toward the Federal Government--the rise of militia groups in many States is evidence of this. Perhaps more relevant to the bombings in Nevada, however, is the rise of the county supremacy movement. People associated with this movement are upset with what they view as the Federal Government's overly intrusive role in grazing, mining, and other activities on public lands. They would like to see responsibilities for managing these lands delegated to local governmental entities. Mr. President, it is apparent that the incendiary rhetoric espoused by some of those in the county supremacy movement has created an atmosphere that promotes extremism. What began as a legitimate philosophical difference of opinion over the management of Federal land has been transformed into a call to battle for many. Last March the Justice Department was forced to life a lawsuit against Nye County, primarily in response to physical threats made against Forest Service employees by county officials. While the lawsuit may settle the legal issue of who has jurisdiction over public lands, I am skeptical that the fringe elements of the county supremacy movement will abide by the rule of law. I would hope that the Members of this body, particularly my colleagues from the West, would recognize that unless efforts are made to tone down the rhetoric on public land issues, it is only a matter of time before someone, most likely a Federal employee in Nevada, is seriously injured or even killed.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we have heard what essentially are three arguments by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. One is that it has been there for 45 years, and therefore it should continue in perpetuity for 45 years. Mr. President, I think the answer to that question is self-evident. We are considering prospectively what is the best location for the tritium production facility in the future. That is the entire purpose of the problematic environmental impact statement. Indeed, they may make and come to the same conclusion that our friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina made. But that is not an analytical or rational argument for a policy that has always been there, always been that way, and therefore we should continue that way forever in the future. The second argument that my friend made was to suggest that somehow the recycling operation has been at Savannah River and that by colocating the new production facility, somehow we would ease or eliminate the transportation of tritium. Mr. President, that is simply not true. As my colleagues, I am sure, know, we do not move nuclear bombs around the country, to have the tritium components of them added in second. When we are talking about retrofitting or adding the tritium component, you are talking about doing that at a facility that has the capability of doing that. That is, first and foremost, the facility at Pantex. No one should have the impression that by having a recycling and production facility in South Carolina that we eliminate the necessity of transporting that new tritium product to either Pantex, or there is a facility at the Nevada test site that could handle the disassembly. My friend makes the argument of sacrifice. While I am sure he recites the history, nobody quarrels with the senior Senator from South Carolina when he describes the history of the state that he has represented so long and so ably, and which I know he has great personal affection. If we are talking about sacrifice, he is talking about the few thousand acres at Savannah River. Nevada is the mother of all sacrifices--the mother of all sacrifices. The Nevada test site alone is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island. Just the Nevada test site. If you want to talk about Federal sacrifice, 87 percent of the entire land mass of the State of Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, either the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service. I must say that I do not think any of those three arguments are compelling. Finally, I return very briefly to, I think, the argument that my senior colleague makes so ably. That is, we started the process in 1994. We said, ``Let's look, see how we should handle future tritium production. Let's have a problematic EIS.'' Added into that mix is the fact there is a new technology we want to take a look at, the linear accelerator technology. There are different types of reactor technologies that we want to consider, as well, some four technologies within the rubric of the reactor option, which is the other option other than the accelerator. All of those ought to be considered rationally as part of an evaluation process and ought not to be the subject of micromanagement by the Congress. Let this process work its course. We in Nevada have a vested interest. We would like to see it in Nevada. I would like to see the linear accelerator, but I am willing to take my chance. I think that is the best policy. I urge the Congress and this Senate to allow that course to work its way, as well, and let the experts make the decision. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2114 to Amendment No. 2111

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my senior colleague for his leadership in providing this amendment, which I strongly support. Mr. President, as Senator Reid has indicated, he and I clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of this amendment. The Nevada test site is also being considered as the location for a new tritium source. Frankly, our view is it is far superior to any other location that is being considered. But I hope, Mr. President, my colleagues will understand that this is not just a battle between two States that seek to acquire a new major project which Senator Reid has indicated is of the magnitude of several billions of dollars. The Department of Energy's efforts to build a new tritium supply is probably one of the most important current programs to ensure our continued confidence in our nuclear stockpile. The tritium supply program is absolutely essential to our national security program. Senator Reid alluded to it, but I would like to embellish on it a little bit. Tritium is a radioactive gas and tritium is used in almost all of our nuclear weapons to achieve a so-called booster effect; that is, to magnify or to amplify the full impact of the nuclear yields. And our national defense planners, strategists, have come to rely [[Page S 11374]] upon those projections. So the premise undergirding our national defense strategic deterrence is predicated upon yields that can be achieved only with the use of tritium. Tritium, however, has a relatively short half life, a little over 12 years, which means that it decays at a rate of about 5 percent a year and needs to be replenished on a regular basis. Recent reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile have allowed us during this interim period of time to recycle tritium from retired weapons and has reduced the pressure to build a new tritium supply somewhat. But the need in terms of a long-range supply is still quite critical. Even if we take advantage of the tritium made available by retiring weapons, if we do not have a new tritium supply on line by the year 2011--that is just 16 years away--we will need to start to dip into our tritium reserve. By 2016, even using the reserve, it will not be adequate to meet our needs. Mr. President, since I think most everybody acknowledges it will take about 15 years or more to get a tritium supply facility up and operational, we need to act now to make sure we will have a viable nuclear deterrent capability after the year 2011. There are two ways, as I understand it, that you can produce tritium. There is the traditional way that we have produced it in the past with a nuclear reactor, and there is a new way which offers considerable hope and promise. It is a linear accelerator. Scientists tell us that either way is feasible, and the Department of Energy is in the process of evaluating these two options, including an evaluation of numerous options within the nuclear reactor category. A decision on which technology will provide us the most confidence and will be the most fiscally responsible is to be announced soon by the Department of Energy. In addition to evaluating the technology options, the Department is going to decide where to site this new tritium facility. Several sites are considered including one in Idaho, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Pantex, and the Nevada test site. This will be primarily research oriented. I do not consider the naming of the site at this time an urgent matter. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Energy is committed to the announcing of a preferred site for the tritium supply technology in the near future. The Department recognizes the seriousness of this decision and has devoted a considerable amount of time and a great many resources to ensuring that the final decision will result in a viable cost-effective tritium supply program. Mr. President, this is not the time for Congress to meddle in what is essentially a technical and scientific decision process. I realize that some of my colleagues may be frustrated with what they perceive to be delays in moving forward with the tritium supply decision, and given the Department's track record in a number of programs, it is all too easy to place the blame for delays in a program on the Department of Energy. In this instance, however, I simply do not believe the criticism is justified. Since 1988, when the New Production Reactor Office was established to develop a new supply for tritium, there have been incredible changes in the environment in which the Department is acting: The Soviet Union has imploded. The cold war is over, and President Bush's three announcements during 1991 and 1992 of significant reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile program has dramatically changed the picture with regard to a new tritium supply. When the Bush administration, under Secretary of Energy Watkins, decided not to pursue the new production reactor, an entire new plan had to be developed for the production of a tritium resource. The Secretary of Energy was required under the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement by March 1, 1995. This draft PEIS for tritium supply and recycling issued by the Department last February complied with the requirement and is the latest product of a 7-year process to develop a rational, cost-effective, scientifically based program to ensure the capability of our nuclear weapons well into the next century. No preferred site or technology was identified by the February 1995 document, nor is one required under the NEPA process. At that point, the Secretary of Energy committed to executing a record of decision by November of this year. By Government standards, that is a reasonably quick turnaround. The Secretary also made it clear that a decision on the preferred technology or site may be announced prior to the November record of decision. That is where we stand today, Mr. President. The PEIS is on the street and the Secretary is committed to a decision by November of this year. The Secretary, clearly feeling she did not have sufficient basis to make a decision on site or technology prior to March 1, is currently evaluating the technical and scientific evidence gathered through the NEPA process. That is as it should be. To give you some indication of the magnitude of the PEIS, this indicates the voluminous nature of the information that is being compiled, that is currently being reviewed and analyzed by the Department. These are two volumes entitled ``The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling.'' It is my view that the Secretary ought to be permitted to move forward in that evaluating process. It is hard to understand how Congress, on a matter of such importance to our national defense, could even consider substituting its judgment on a parochial basis for the scientific and technical expertise that is being considered by the Department of Energy. I realize that the language our amendment seeks to strike only specifies the site for the new tritium source. The language presumes to leave the technology choice to the Secretary of Energy and only identifies the site for the new facility. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it is not quite that simple. In order to obtain the most reliable and cost-effective results, the Department of Energy must maintain the flexibility it needs to determine both the site and the technology for the new tritium resource. As the draft PEIS makes abundantly clear, each of the sites being considered for the new tritium source has its own advantages and disadvantages. Should the DOE decide to build a new reactor, whether it is a so- called triple-play reactor, advocated by the senior Senator from South Carolina, or any other type of reactor, Savannah River appears to be the most likely site. The Nevada test site is less suitable and, parenthetically, I would oppose building a reactor anywhere in Nevada. On the other hand, given the freedom to make the most rational decision, the Nevada test site would be the preferred alternate, if the chosen technology turns out to be an accelerator. Others would disagree, and I acknowledge this is a debatable proposition, but at this point, the best course we in Congress can pursue is simply let the NEPA process run its course. In supporting the Reid-Bryan amendment, that is what the Senate is pursuing: To allow the course which the Congress set in motion in 1994 by directing that a programmatic EIS be developed to make the determination as to site and technology for the new tritium supply. That is what we allow to occur. By leaving the language in the bill as it currently is, we preempt that process, and in the interest of a parochial decisionmaking process, foreclose the Department from making a determination both, in my view, on technology as well as site. Mr. President, I yield my time back to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, the senior Senator from Nebraska. During the course of the debate this morning, references have been made to the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and later Nagasaki. Let me say, I think those references have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about today. We are not debating whether we should resume underground testing, as it has been historically known at the Nevada test site. That is not the issue before us today. We are not debating about the prospect of developing new nuclear weapons. The issue, I think, that was framed so artfully by the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona, the question today is the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal. No scenario that I am familiar with contemplates a future in terms of our armed service deterrent that does not include our nuclear arsenal. So safety and reliability is essential and critical. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have joined my colleagues on a number of occasions questioning the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense officials regarding our plans to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. In hearing after hearing, the answer came back that we simply do not know. Mr. President, no one in this body can state with categorical certainty that our nuclear weapons arsenal has suddenly become safe and reliable for the foreseeable future, and that there is no need to continue to ascertain the safety and reliability of that nuclear stockpile. Nuclear weapons, by their very nature, are extraordinarily complex systems. We simply do not understand the effects of aging on many components that make up each nuclear device. Those who designed the nuclear weapons planned for our enduring stockpile did not contemplate the maintenance of these systems past their designed life. Our national labs, which are ultimately responsible for certifying the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons systems, have initiated a science- based stockpile stewardship program, which aims to give us the information we need to know about the nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing. Many of my colleagues are familiar with these new strategies, including the National Ignition Facility, the ATLAS, the DAHRT, and many others. Once these facilities are up and running, the labs anticipate the ability to obtain much of the data previously gathered through nuclear testing without performing nuclear tests. But science- based stockpile stewardship has never been considered as a complete substitute for all types of nuclear tests or experiments for a number of reasons. Even when the science-based stockpile stewardship program is fully implemented, there will still be gaps in the type of knowledge our labs need to gather. It is a common misperception that the new simulator technology, anticipated to become available soon, will, in effect, simply simulate nuclear tests and allow us to gather all of the same data that a nuclear test may provide. Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. Each of the components of the science-based stockpile management program will provide some of the data, which are issues of concern, such as certifying the safety and effectiveness of our weapons system. None will provide all the data, and even the combination of all of the new technologies currently being considered will not eliminate the need for certain types of actual testing with nuclear materials. Given the high level of uncertainty that remains regarding science- based stockpile stewardship, the Senate Armed Services Committee has taken a very reasonable and responsible approach in the legislation currently before the Senate. The committee directs preparations to conduct nuclear testing should this type of testing become necessary. The bill does not direct hydronuclear testing, and hydronu- clear tests would still have to be approved by the President of the United States under current law. It is, in my judgment, reckless for our Nation to hold thousands of the most powerful and dangerous weapons known to mankind and not have the knowledge or understanding of how to maintain them. Another concern regarding this amendment is its affect on the Nevada test site and the unique capabilities this complex brings to the U.S. national security effort. The DOE stated its intention to allow the readiness of the Nevada test site to slip from 6 months up to 3 years. The Nevada testing facility is a unique resource, and [[Page S 11366]] the Nation's investment in it must be protected. Personnel at the Nevada test site are a small community of highly specialized workers with expertise found nowhere else in the world. This capability is irreplaceable and must not be risked. The combination of an aging stockpile and the decaying nuclear weapons expertise at the Nevada test site and at the labs pose a direct threat to the safety and reliability of our stockpile. It is important to note that hydronuclear testing would not lead the United States on a path to violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as has been suggested by some of our colleagues. While negotiation positions are generally regarded as classified, it has been reported in the media that the United States favors a limit under the CTB of hydronuclear tests with less than 4 pounds of nuclear yield. Other nations apparently want a much higher yield. It has been reported in the press that Great Britain wants up to 100 pounds, Russia wants tests up to 10 tons, and France wants tests allowed up to 100 to 200 tons. At this point, there is simply no way to predict how the final CTB may be negotiated. Even with the hydro- nuclear testing program, the United States can remain in full compliance with all current international agreements and the likely future provisions of any CTB. In fact, the Armed Services Committee report language specifies ``treaty complaint'' hydronuclear tests. We must remember that even if START II is ratified, the United States will continue to maintain a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons. The reliability of these weapons forms the basis of their existence as a strategic deterrence. As our stockpile of nuclear weapons is reduced, the reliability of each nuclear weapon becomes even more critical to an effective deterrence. It is possible that only through hydronuclear testing at the Nevada test site can we have adequate assurance that our nuclear weapons will function as expected if a time should ever be needed to use them in a crisis. Almost one-half of the nuclear weapons systems developed since 1970 have needed nuclear testing to correct or evaluate defects. Clearly, this amendment could seriously hamper our confidence in our nuclear weapons stockpile. Mr. President, I am afraid this amendment may, in some part, be motivated by a misunderstanding of what the committee hoped to accomplish by adding funding to the stockpile stewardship account for hydronuclear testing. While the terminology may be confusing, the committee does not envision a resumption of the type of nuclear tests that we have become familiar with over the years. These are not full-scale tests of nuclear weapons, nor are they intended to test for new weapon designs. Very small hydronuclear tests may, for example, test whether dropping a weapon would result in a nuclear detonation--a test that, I suggest, should hardly raise nonproliferation concerns. Such tests are not designed to improve our ability to use nuclear weapons against any future enemy. They are designed to protect those in the Armed Forces or the general public who may be put at risk by an unsafe or deteriorated weapon. Other experiments, slightly larger, but still nowhere near the level of a full-scale test, and still completely consistent with our treaty obligations, could test the so-called ``boost'' provided by the tritium components of a weapon. Some have argued that such tests are largely irrelevant; the claim is made that it makes little difference if the yield of the nuclear weapon deteriorates only slightly over the period of time. The answer to that, Mr. President, is that we simply have no assurance, however, that an old weapon will experience only a slight reduction in yield. While everyone hopes and assumes that we will never use a nuclear weapon again, it is simply unconscionable not to provide our military planners the confidence they need in the anticipated yields of our nuclear weapon systems. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Nebraska. I yield the floor and the remainder of my time to the able chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Seventy, Mr. Leader, under the control of Senator Thurmond.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, on July 28, Senator Harry Reid and I introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 Amendment Act of 1995. In 1993, during consideration of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Senator Reid and I introduced our amendment to establish a different legal standard for judicial review of religious freedom cases brought by prison inmates. This bill proposes again to establish an exception for prisoner-generated free-exercise lawsuits challenging prison regulations. I supported and voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. However, I continue to be very concerned about the act's impact on increasing prisoner lawsuits. This bill will retain the current U.S. Supreme Court standard for the evaluation of prison actions affecting religious activities. That standard focuses on whether or not prison officials, in light of security, discipline, and safety concerns, have acted reasonably in the measures they have taken which may impact religious activities. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has required courts to give great difference to decisions made by prison officials regarding how their prisons are administered. Without such a prison exception provision in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it is not clear such deference will continue. Many attorneys general, including Nevada's attorney general, Frankie Sue Del Papa, support this prison exception. Without this provision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has overturned judicial review standards for prison settings that have existed for approximately 45 years. The result is not only increased numbers of prisoner-generated lawsuits. Courts now are also able to second-guess prison administrators' decisionmaking by looking beyond concerns for security and conditions of confinement in the prisons. For example, the Santeria religion case upholding religious ritual animal sacrifices could create immense problems should such sacrifices be upheld in a prison setting. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as enacted, would require prison officials to justify any actions involving prisoners' exercise of their religious belief by showing there was a compelling governmental interest for the action, and that any action taken was the least restrictive alternative in burdening the prisoner's exercise of religion. Nevada's attorney general, Frankie Sue Del Papa, recently cited her top-10 frivolous prison lawsuits. Among the top 10 are two religious freedom claims. One inmate claimed the prison chaplain wrongly denied a marriage ceremony between the male inmate and his male friend. Another inmate claimed the prison rule prohibiting inmates from receiving stamps in the mail violated his right as an indigent to engage in the Universal Life Church practice of writing letters to others. As a former attorney general, I am well aware of the amount of prisoner-generated litigation that engulfs attorney general offices across this Nation. Oftentimes amounting to purely frivolous claims, these prisoner lawsuits tie up our already stretched State and Federal legal resources. [[Page S 11341]] As a former Governor, I am also well aware of the difficult decisions facing our prison administrators day in and day out as they strive to maintain the security of their facilities, for both staff and inmates. Also as a member of the Nevada State Prisons Board during my tenures as Governor and attorney general, I experienced first hand the burdens placed on State governments as a result of Federal court actions. This burden continues to impact State governments' monetarily and administratively through increased costs, time, and effort expended to comply with required legal holdings. The National Governors' Association during its annual meeting this past weekend addressed the impact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has had on State prison inmate claims. By voice vote, the NGA accepted a policy position resolution that provides: The Governors strongly support First Amendment rights that protect an individuals freedom to worship. Governors also recognize the importance of balancing the interests of prison administrators responsible for running safe and secure facilities with the legitimate claim of prisoners to exercise their right to worship and practice according to their individual religious faiths. Recently enacted federal legislation disrupts this delicate balance and threatens the ability of prison officials to effectively manage state and local correctional institutions. Under current Federal law, prison regulations governing religious practices are subjected to strict legal scrutiny. This effectively interferes with prison management on a day- to-day basis. For example, correctional institutions can be prohibited from regulating certain types of garments claimed to be religious clothing, which may conceal weapons, narcotics, and other contraband. In addition to the concerns for safety within our prison facilities, extensive litigation and an explosion of frivolous petitions by prisoners demanding accommodations for specific religious activities has a detrimental impact on the costs of operating correctional institutions. Additional guards, new physical structures, legal expenses, and other additional costs are being incurred at a time when states can least afford expenditures of this nature. The Governors strongly believe that prison officials require necessary flexibility to enact regulations that allow religious worship, but that also preserve institutional order and safety. For these reasons, the Governors believe Congress should enact legislation without delay that would: Exclude prison and jail inmates or any person held or incarcerated as a pretrial detainee from provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and Eliminate any liability that may have accrued to State and local governments as a result of the misapplication of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to individuals who are incarcerated in a State or local correctional detention, or penal facility. I ask my colleagues to join with the Governors across this country in supporting this bill to ensure our prisons and their administrators are allowed to exercise their judgment to maintain the security and of their facilities, and to have that judgment given due deference by our court system.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. May I have 3 more minutes?

Mr. BRYAN. Fourth, the credibility of the institution to deal with this issue is very much irreparably damaged without public hearings. Fifth, as I have indicated, I think each of us needs an opportunity to evaluate credibility. I will conclude by noting: What kind of message does the Senate want to send to the citizens we serve? This is really our opportunity to send a message to the American people that fits the message they sent to each of us last November. The public expects their Government to be open and to hold Members accountable to a proper standard of behavior. The message the Senate risks sending today, however, is that in disciplinary matters involving Members, we have chosen to retreat and to close the door tighter than it has ever been before.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator in California. My colleagues have spoken on both sides of this issue with eloquence and passion. For me, the central issue that we are debating today is the simple proposition of shall there be public hearings. A vote for the Boxer amendment commits this Senate to public hearings; a vote for the amendment of the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee votes not to have public hearings. There has been much comment made about this somehow disrupting the process, or that it portends that in the future the minority may be placed at some disadvantage. What this is all about, as far as I am concerned, is that in every case, whether a Member of the majority or the minority in which there is an ethical matter of this magnitude brought to the attention of the committee, there ought to be public hearings. It has been said that precedent will be violated, 31 years of precedent will be violated if, indeed, the amendment is offered and approved. That is true, but if we fail to support the amendment of the Senator from California, the Senate abandons nearly a century of precedent, a precedent which has said that in every case of a major ethics violation, public hearings have been held. If my colleagues have any question about that, simply call the ethics office, and they will tell you the same thing that they have told each and every one of us. I conclude, Mr. President, where I began, and that is: Why should this case be different? I am unable to reach a conclusion as to why this should be different. We have another precedent, and that is for the first time we have victims who seek to come forward and to present their testimony before the members of the committee. I think that we ought to reflect for a moment on what kind of a process we support----

Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield for a question. I only have a couple more minutes, so if I am abrupt with the Senator, I do not mean to be rude.

Mr. BRYAN. In terms of public statements, those would be for each Senator to interpret. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BRYAN. I do not believe--I think the answer to that is no.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me just respond as I have tried to do in my statement that I believe the Ethics Committee, the Senate, and the American people would be further enlightened if we heard the testimony of the witnesses. I cannot get into the specifics of the evidence, but I must say that this is not in my view a circumstance in which nothing is to be gained by holding public hearings because I believe there are points at issue that, indeed, would be clarified.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I firmly support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from California. For more than six decades, the U.S. Senate has held public hearings on all major ethics cases. The committee counsel again confirmed this fact to each member of the committee earlier this week at our Monday meeting. So there can be no misunderstanding, what Senator Boxer seeks to accomplish with the amendment she is offering this afternoon is to continue that unbroken precedent of public hearings. I embrace this position after considerable reflection. I can assure my colleagues that no one is more anxious than I to have this matter concluded without further delay. My service as chairman of the Ethics Committee for 2 years, and more recently my service as vice chairman over the past 7 months, has not been a pleasant experience. Yet, I am firmly convinced that public hearings are essential if the integrity of the Senate and of the ethics process are to be sustained. There are many reasons to hold public hearings. There is no credible reason to make an exception in this one case. On May 17, the Ethics Committee released the charges it was bringing against Senator Packwood. The Ethics Committee found substantial credible evidence providing substantial cause for the committee to conclude that Senator Packwood may have engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct between 1969 and 1990, and may have engaged in improper conduct and/or violated Federal law by intentionally altering evidentiary materials needed by the committee; and may have inappropriately linked personal financial gain to his official position by soliciting offers of financial assistance from persons who had legislative interests. Following its rules, the committee then offered Senator Packwood an opportunity to appear before the committee to make a statement and to answer committee questions. That occurred over a 3-day period, from June 27 to June 29. In addition, Senator Packwood was also offered his right to a hearing, which would involve cross-examination and appearances by those who had brought the charges against him. He declined this opportunity. When the Senate returned from the Fourth of July recess, it was the point in the process for the committee to make a decision on what else needed to be done in the final investigation and final stage, including the all-important question as to whether or not public hearings should be held; in other words, to complete the evidence phase. On July 31, the Ethics Committee voted on the question of holding public hearings. The committee was split, deadlocked at 3-3. So here we are today with a deadlock in the committee. In my view, it is entirely appropriate that the question now come before the full Senate for its determination. I want to address the question of delay which has been raised. There is, in my view, no delay or improper interference with the committee process for the Senate to debate and vote on an amendment as to whether public hearings should be held. In fact, this is the proper time for the Senate to make that decision. Otherwise, the committee will move ahead on making the decision on sanctions without holding customary and traditional and, in my opinion, needed hearings. As for the delay in completing this case, I am confident the committee can hold public hearings, bring this case to the Senate, and the Senate can resolve it without undue delay. I have suggested we put a time limit on the hearings, say, no more than 3 weeks. During those 3 weeks, we can call witnesses the committee needs to hear, we can hear from them in person, we can examine their demeanor, we can test their believability. We can attempt to resolve discrepancies in previous testimony and to give to the alleged victims--the point made by the distinguished Senator from California--the same opportunity that rightfully we extended to our colleague from Oregon, who faces these accusations; in effect, to give the victims their opportunity to be heard. I would like to put the process in some perspective, if I may. We deadlocked on the decision for public hearings. The committee, after that deadlock, did vote to release all relevant evidentiary materials to the public. Some have suggested this is an unprecedented action. I assure my colleagues, this is consistent with the practice followed in the past; namely, that all evidentiary material is released. I asked that this material be released as soon as possible, as opposed to waiting until after these proceedings are concluded, and the committee agreed. The committee counsel has told us it would take about a week to compile and print the documents. I fully support the release of all evidentiary materials, as did each and every member of the Ethics Committee. However, the release of all evidentiary materials is not and cannot be a substitute for public hearings. I can tell you unequivocally that there is a world of difference between reading a transcript and holding a hearing. Release of the evidentiary material has been standard operating procedure in all previous major ethics cases, the same cases where public hearings were held. Release of all evidentiary material is the precedent. The release of all evidentiary material was done in the seven major ethics cases that the Senate has dealt with in this century. Indeed, if the Ethics Committee had not voted to do what it did yesterday, it would have broken yet another precedent in this one case. What was done by the decision of the Ethics Committee earlier this week to release the evidentiary materials is a minimum public disclosure standard. I do not believe that the U.S. Senate wants to be judged by a standard of minimum public disclosure. I believe the appropriate standard is public disclosure and is consistent with the history and the practice of the Ethics Committee. That requires public hearings. I would like to briefly run through some of the reasons why I think public hearings are important--indeed, necessary--in this case. And I would suggest to my colleagues that this will be one of the most important ethics votes that will be cast in this session of Congress, or perhaps in their congressional careers. First, the precedent of the ethics process has been to hold public hearings in every major ethics case in this century. As you know, those of you who have served on the Ethics Committee were often guided by precedent just as courts are in legal matters. Indeed, few decisions are made by the committee without first inquiring of the staff to state the precedent or case history. The precedent on the question of holding public hearings is clear. The committee has always held public hearings. Since 1929, seven Senators--Senators Bingham, McCarthy, Dodd, Talmadge, Williams, Durenberger, and Cranston--have been the subject of disciplinary proceedings on the floor of the U.S. Senate. All first faced public hearings. The pending case against Senator Packwood has now moved into the final investigative phase. Since the three-tiered ethics process was adopted in 1977 setting up the investigative phase, public hearings have been held in all four cases--Talmadge, Williams, Durenberger, and Cranston--matters which reached this very serious stage. Let me briefly review the major cases. In 1929, the Hiram Bingham hearings were held between October 15 and October 23 on charges of employing on his committee staff an employee of a trade association which had a direct interest in legislation then before the committee. In 1954, the celebrated Joe McCarthy hearings began August 31 and ended on September 13 on charges of obstructing the constitutional process. In 1966, the Dodd hearings of March 13 to 17 on charges of converting political contributions to personal use. In 1978, the Talmadge hearings, 27 days of hearings between April 30 and July 12 on charges of submitting false expense vouchers and misuse of campaign funds. In 1981, the Senator Harrison Williams hearings were held, July 14, 15 and 28, on the question of misuse of his official position to get Government contracts for a business venture in return for a financial interest. In 1989, Durenberger, June 12 and 13, hearings on charges of accepting excess honoraria and illegal reimbursement of personal living expenses. In 1991, in the Keating matter, in which only the Cranston case entered the investigative phase, had 26 days of hearings beginning on October 23, 1990, on conduct which linked campaign fundraising and official activities. There were no other ethics cases which entered the investigative phase or which came before the Senate for a proceeding. In short, there has been no exception in holding public hearings in any major ethics case in this century. I suggest that is the standard by which the Senate ought to act today in supporting the Boxer amendment which seeks to continue that unbroken precedent. Second, I ask myself: Is there some reason, some compelling or persuasive reason, as to why we ought not to hold a hearing in the Packwood case in light of the fact that there has been a clear and undeniable precedent? I have given that considerable thought. And I must say I can find no justifiable reason for not holding a hearing in this case. I have heard no credible reason offered from any of my Senate colleagues. I would ask you to ask yourself: Why would we make an exception in this one case? I do not think by and large you will be pleased with the only answer that I believe exists, and that is, the Senate does not want to hold public hearings in this case because it deals with sexual misconduct. In my view, that is not a persuasive reason to depart from our honored tradition of the past. Third, I think this case presents an even more compelling reason for holding public hearings because of the alleged victims. This, to the best of my ability to review the record of the ethics process in the Senate, is the first case in the history of the Senate in which there are alleged victims that have come forward and filed sworn charges against a U.S. Senator for actions that have been directed against them individually and personally. This is a case of first impression on two aspects--because they are alleged victims and because of the finding of substantial evidence of sexual misconduct. From a public credibility standpoint, there should be no doubt about the need to hold public hearings on a matter of this magnitude. What message will the Senate be sending to those who have come forward in this case or anyone who dares to come forward in the future? If there are victims, we do not want to hear from you, so we will close the door? Mr. President, that is the standard that we invite if we decline to hold public hearings in this case. Fourth, this is not just a question of the future of one Senator. This decision speaks to the fundamental question of whether the Senate as an institution is capable of disciplining its Members and itself in a manner which merits public confidence. This is far more important than any one of us individually. In the most recent serious ethics case before the Senate, the so- called Keating case, all six Ethics Committee members voted to hold public hearings--Senators Heflin, Pryor, Sanford, Rudman, Helms, and Lott. In the opening statements of the first day of those hearings, no Senator was more eloquent nor more persuasive nor more to the point than our colleague Senator Lott, who said it best in focusing on the need for hearings for the sake of public credibility of the institution, when he said: It may be necessary to hold these public hearings if for no other reason than to remove the cloud that has come over the Senate and to clarify the basis for decisions on whether violations of laws or rules have occurred. These proceedings will mean that the public will have a full opportunity to hear and view for itself the evidence in each case. I wish I were so eloquent. That is, in my view, a compelling and riveting reason for the public hearing process in this case and all cases which reach this stage in the ethics process. This debate is not based upon ideological division. Four Christian pro-family groups have called for hearings. Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council told the Hill, a newspaper publication, on June 7, and I quote: We are an organization that talks about values . . . I've urged my Republican friends that the party ought to err on the side of being aggressive in removing any cloud over it. These charges are serious enough to warrant full hearing and investigation. Eight women's law or advocacy groups have called for public hearings. Nine of the women who have made charges to the Ethics Committee have publicly called for hearings. Let me comment here on an objection which some have made to holding public hearings. I am afraid I think it is more of an excuse rather than a reason. It is argued by some that we should not hold public hearings because we need to protect the women who have filed charges. I point out again that 9 of the 17 women have called for hearings. I am not aware that any of the others have expressed opposition. I am not unmindful of the need to protect victims. In order to protect women who come forward with complaints of sexual misconduct I asked the committee to adopt the principles of the Federal rape shield law. As the author in 1975 of Nevada's State rape shield law, I feel strongly about these principles. Rape shield laws are designed to protect victims of sexual misconduct from unfair cross examination when there are attempts to inquire into the most personal and intimate relationships totally unrelated to the current allegation. There is no issue which should be before the committee or the Senate, nor should any other issue be referred to by any Senator or anyone involved in this case, except the issue of the specific allegation made by a woman against Senator Packwood. The issue of public hearings, some have tried to claim, is strictly an issue within the beltway. To the contrary, editorials from newspapers throughout the country, every geographical region, have called for public hearings. USA Today, July 14: Open the Packwood hearings; this isn't a personal matter read their headline. And the editorial went on to say, No doubt public testimony about such acts may prove embarrassing. But the Senate can be shamed only if it tried to deal with the allegations behind closed doors. Cincinnati Enquirer, July 1: So why the soft glove treatment and protection for Senator Packwood? Perhaps the mostly male, starched-shirt proper Senate is embarrassed or scared at being criticized and scrutinized over this matter. The way Packwood's alleged exploits are being treated by the Senate, there's room for suspicion--suspicion that could be quelled if the hearings were open. Charlotte Observer, May 26: As committee members move to the next phase of the Packwood case, the public is watching how they treat their own. San Francisco Chronicle, May 19: The system has worked and the process should now move to the final, necessary stage . . . the public forum for which Packwood has so often pleaded. Atlanta Constitution; June 10: Word has it around the Capitol that the Senate Ethics Committee is under considerable pressure to spare the upper Chamber, and perhaps Packwood himself, the embarrassment of a public inquiry. . . . Some Packwood allies are hopeful of arranging a settlement, presumably including some sort of penalty, so as to avoid a messy hearing and clamor for Packwood's ouster. . . . He's entitled to the best defense he can muster, but that must be a public defense if he is to minimize suspicions of favoritism. A fifth reason for public hearings is that the hearings will build upon the evidence already before the committee, and give committee members an opportunity to listen to and see the reactions of witnesses firsthand, not just read a report, and also ask questions to follow up on earlier interviews by our committee counsel. As a former prosecutor, I know a little about evidence. I know that sometimes when a witness faces a jury in person, he or she provides additional information or gives additional insight from what can be gathered from reading a written report. I know that if there are conflicting explanations, I want to question all parties in person about those conflicts. I am familiar with the depositions of the women who have made charges of sexual misconduct. However, in the interest of fairness and judicial prudence, they should be given the right to come before the committee, just as Senator Packwood was given that right. It is equal justice that we seek here. We are rightly concerned about being fair to our colleague who is being charged by others. We need to be fair to those who have come forward at considerable personal risk themselves and who have made very specific allegations and seek the opportunity for a public hearing. Some reports today are stating the committee hearings will be in private. Let me correct that impression. The committee voted to hold no hearings, public or private, not to hear in person from anyone involved in this case except Senator Packwood. So those are the reasons, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that public hearings should be held. First, it has been the precedent of this institution in major ethics violations for this century. Second, I know of no justifiable reason for not holding public hearings. The only answer that has been suggested is that somehow the Senate ought to avoid embarrassment because this issue deals with sexual misconduct. I believe that is unacceptable rationale. Third, this is a case of first impression in which we have victims coming before the Senate Ethics Committee and hopefully to be heard by the entire Senate and the American people who have made sworn charges against a U.S. Senator for actions directed against them. And this is also the first time the Senate will judge a Senator who has been charged by the Ethics Committee with sexual misconduct.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I will proceed for about 5 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN. Let me express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina and the floor leadership, who I realize are under very difficult time constraints.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to talk to my colleagues for a moment regarding the situation which has arisen on the question of holding public hearings on the charges brought by the Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Packwood, and as a result of remarks on the floor last Friday by the Ethics Committee chairman. First, I want to briefly tell Members of the Senate where the process now stands, in terms of the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee rules provide for a three-tier process. The first stage, preliminary inquiry; second stage, initial review; and the investigation phases. The Ethics Committee completed its preliminary inquiry and voted on May 16 of this year to skip the initial review phase and move into the final investigative phase. Since the three-tier process was created, only four other cases have gone to the final investigative stage. The committee found there is substantial credible evidence that a violation may have occurred in 18 incidents of alleged sexual misconduct, intentional tampering with the evidence, and improperly soliciting financial assistance. At that point, under our rules, the committee offered Senator Packwood an opportunity to appear before the committee, and he availed himself of that opportunity on June 27-29. As the media has reported, when the Senate returned from the July 4 recess, the committee began meeting again. At that point in the process, it was time for the committee to make a decision on what else needed to be done in the investigative phase, including the question of holding public hearings. That is where the process stood when the committee met on July 11 and 12; meetings which have been duly reported in the media. I went to the July 12 meeting thinking we would vote that day on the question of holding public hearings. The media has reported that the committee did not vote that day and that the meeting set for July 13 was canceled. The chairman of the Ethics Committee acknowledged on the floor last Friday that no other meetings are planned. One thing I want to make clear, without getting into a long debate at this time on the merits of public hearings, is that holding public hearings in this case would be consistent with a long and well- established precedent. Those of us who are advocating public hearings are not trying to change the rules of the game. All four other cases which went into the final investigative phase had public hearings. Indeed, every major ethics case this century has had public hearings. This would be the first case to be the exception. The process needs to move forward. I know of no reason the Ethics Committee has not met nor any reason why the committee has not voted on the question of holding public hearings. I am fully prepared to do so. We have now gone 2 weeks without a committee hearing. Today I wrote the chairman, appealing to him to call a meeting of the Ethics Committee this week for the purpose of voting on the question of holding public hearings. Whatever may happen or not happen on the floor is a separate issue. There is simply no reason for the committee to delay further, and I hope the chairman will establish a meeting time this week so the committee can proceed with its business. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. And I thank my colleagues for their accommodation.