Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I intend to oppose S. 1087, the Department of Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1996. Although I recognize the need to provide for a strong national defense, I cannot support this legislation because it spends too much money. The cold war is over, the Soviet Union has collapsed, and we already spend more money than the next nine biggest military spenders combined. If we are serious about balancing the budget without unnecessary cuts in programs that benefit average American families, it simply does not make sense to spend more money than the administration requested for defense. Earlier this year, when we debated the budget in the Senate there was broad bipartisan agreement that we should freeze defense spending at the administration's request. On most issues, I disagreed with the priorities in the budget put forward by the Republican majority, and I offered an alternative that was both fairer and more ambitious than the Republican proposal. But on defense my fair share plan contained a hard freeze at the administration's fiscal year 1996 request just like the Republican proposal. Unfortunately, the budget that came back from conference increased defense spending by more than $7 billion in fiscal year 1996 alone over the level in my fair share plan and the Senate-passed budget. This increase in defense spending comes at the expense of greater cuts in other areas important to hard working American families, such as agriculture, Medicare, and student loans. Where does the extra $7 billion added to the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations act go? Does it go to fund the priorities of our military leaders, such as ongoing operations in Iraq, Bosnia, and Haiti where we know we will have added expenses this year? Does it go to improving readiness through increased operations and maintenance funding? Or does it go toward closing the bomber gap between the number of bombers the military estimates it will need to fight one major regional conflict and the bombers actually funded in the President's budget? No, no, and again no. The extra funding above the amounts our military leadership requested goes largely to fund major new weapons procurement of questionable value to our immediate national security. The appropriators have added $1.4 billion for two extra DDG-51 Aegis destroyers, an extra $1.3 billion for one LHD-7 amphibious ship, $600 million for ballistic missile defenses, and $575 million for F-18 fighters. These weapons are not needed this year, and this wave of new procurement sets the stage for future increases to the defense budget because this pace will be unsustainable in the outyears unless we dramatically cut funding for readiness. I am especially concerned that, despite this added funding for procuring new weapons, the bill does nothing to close the bomber gap. This bill funds only 93 deployable bombers, but the Pentagon's Bottom- Up Review concluded that 100 deployable bombers are needed to fight just one major regional conflict, let alone a second nearly simultaneous conflict. The Air Force estimates that a mere $130 million would be sufficient to maintain a fourth combat coded squadron of B-52 bombers, six additional trainers and all remaining B-52's in attrition reserve. Although the Senate defense authorization bill contains language prohibiting the retirement of B-52 bombers--the most capable bombers in our inventory and a vital element in our strategy to win two nearly simultaneous conflicts--the appropriations bill fails to [[Page S 12567]] fund additional B-52 operations and maintenance. Although I cannot support the bill as a whole, I do want to note the provision in the bill maintaining the size of Air National Guard fighter wings at 15 aircraft. In view of the increasing importance of air power in our warfighting capabilities and the enhanced role for the Guard in light of overall military downsizing, I believe it is very important to maintain our ANG assets. I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for their attention to this issue. But when I look at the bill as a whole, the bottom line is that it spend too much money. I cannot support it.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the distinguished ranking member for that assurance.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the national security implications of the Administration's decisions with regard to strategic bombers under the Nuclear Posture Review. The Nuclear Posture Review recommends retiring 28 B-52H bombers during the coming fiscal year. I believe it would be a serious mistake to unilaterally send a large number of dual capable bombers to the boneyard. B-52s provide combat-proven conventional capability and a credible nuclear deterrent--something no other weapon system can now match. I understand that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was working under very tight budgetary constraints this year. Nonetheless, I am very concerned that the bill before us does not contain additional funding above the Administration's request to ensure that we maintain four combat squadrons of B-52s. At a time when bombers have become increasingly important to our conventional warfighting strategy, we need every bomber we have. A strong B-52 force helps us retain a ready defense that can quickly project power around an increasingly uncertain world, and has been vigorously supported by senior military officers. It is my understanding that the House bill contains an additional $180 million to meet B-52 mission requirements. Consequently, I expect that this issue will be addressed in conference. I know my friend from Hawaii, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, shares my view that a strong bomber force is essential to our national security. I was wondering whether he would be willing to discuss his view of how funding for B-52s should be resolved in the conference?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I would also like to indicate to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee my interest in this issue. I am pleased to hear of the chairman's intention. Would the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd, tell us whether he agrees with Senator Gorton on this issue?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to ask the authors of the amendment about an offset item in the amendment. Regarding the reduction in funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is my understanding that, consistent with the committee report, the 11 fish hatcheries proposed by the administration for transfer to States and tribes will be operated during fiscal year 1996, and that the working group to be formed to plan the future of the hatcheries will carry out its mission. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on this issue, I have always opposed Federal funding of abortion. I have also supported restrictions on Federal health insurance with respect to Federal employees and the funding of abortion but only with restrictions or exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Mr. President, I will oppose Senator Nickles' proposal for that reason. The proposal before us has no exception for rape and incest. Let me just personalize why that makes a huge difference. Several years ago, my wife was attacked eight blocks from where we are this morning by a vicious rapist. He put a gun to her head and tried to get her into our car. My wife was able to evade that vicious rapist, somebody with a record as long as your arm of rape, brutal rape. And yet what we have before us this morning is an amendment that says if my wife had been raped, her health insurance could not pay for the appropriate medical treatment. She would be expected to carry that baby. Mr. President, I am opposed to Federal funding for abortion, but I say to you anybody that would say to my wife, if she had been raped by that vicious criminal, that she ought to carry that baby, that is vicious and monstrous. How can anybody stand in this Chamber and say that somebody who is victimized ought to be victimized a second time? Something is radically wrong, I say to my friends, that anybody would say to my wife ``You carry that baby to term.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. At 8:40 the votes would start. I thank the leader. I thank the managers.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, will the manager yield for a question? We have colleagues who are anticipating a vote at 8:10, and understandably that schedule slipped somewhat. In order to advise colleagues what they might anticipate, is there any up-to-date estimate on when the three votes might be held?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have reluctantly decided that I cannot vote in support of the version of S. 240 that is in front of us today. As a cosponsor of S. 240, this was a difficult decision. But the changes that have been made in this legislation make this a completely different bill from the version I cosponsored. In my view, this version of S. 240 goes too far and will make it too difficult for innocent investors to recover in legitimate cases of securities fraud. Mr. President, there is no question that we need to reform the current securities litigation system. Too often when a stock drops suddenly for reasons completely beyond the control of a corporation, the corporation finds itself the subject of a so-called strike suit. These strike suits border on legal extortion: The cost of defending the suit and the risk of huge damages create a strong incentive to settle the case even when the corporation has done nothing wrong. Moreover, these suits have targeted not just the corporation whose stock has dropped, but also the accountants, lawyers and others who participated in the preparation of documents for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the public. These businesses, which often played only a marginal role in the alleged fraud, can nonetheless be held fully liable. Finally, the current system does not serve investors well. In too many cases, lawyers walk away with millions of dollars in legal fees while the plaintiffs whose interests the lawyers are supposed to be serving recover only a small portion of their losses. In short, the current system does not work. It imposes a burden on entrepreneurial activity and impedes the efficient functioning of our capital markets. As a result, all investors--and the economy as a whole--suffer. That is why I cosponsored S. 240. I wanted to send a strong signal that we need to reform the current system and put an end to frivolous, speculative lawsuits that serve little purpose but to enrich the lawyers who bring them. At the same time, however, I fully recognize that there are legitimate instances of securities fraud, and we must ensure that we preserve the rights of investors to seek redress in cases of true fraud. We should not protect Charles Keating, Ivan Boesky, or Michael Milken from the investors who lost their life savings as a result of sophisticated swindles. I believed, when I cosponsored S. 240, that it achieved this balance. And I was given assurances that--in a few areas where I thought the bill might go too far in curtailing the rights of investors--modifications would be made to ensure that legitimate suits were fully protected. Unfortunately, during the Banking Committee markup, S. 240 was significantly changed to the detriment of investors. As reported from the committee, the delicate balance in the original bill was destroyed. Instead of a relatively narrow set of changes targeted directly at frivolous strike suits, the bill that came to the Senate floor contained radical changes that will make it far more difficult to bring any suit, including a legitimate suit where real fraud has occurred. First, the new version of S. 240 contains a huge expansion of the safe harbor for forward looking statements. S. 240 as introduced directed the SEC to develop an expanded safe harbor to encourage companies to provide more information to the market on their expected future performance. Most observers expected this to result in a relatively modest expansion of the safe harbor. In committee, this provision was amended to provide a statutory safe harbor for forward looking statements unless they are ``knowingly made with the purpose and actual intent of misleading investors.'' SEC Chairman Levitt has expressed the view that this safe harbor will protect knowingly made false, misleading, and fraudulent statements. This will reduce confidence in information and impede the efficiency of capital markets. This is a significant, and potentially dangerous, change from the version of S. 240 I cosponsored. It would make it extremely difficult to prosecute even the most outrageous of statements about expected future performance. Second, the new version of S. 240 does not contain a necessary, modest expansion of the statute of limitations in securities fraud cases. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Lampf decision, the statute of limitations in fraud cases is now 1 year from when the fraud was discovered but in no case longer than 3 years from the date the fraud occurred. S. 240 originally proposed to extend the statute of limitations to 2 and 5 years because in sophisticated swindles it may take longer than 1 and 3 years for a fraud to be sufficiently understood to bring suit. This was the most important unambiguously pro-investor provision in the bill. However, during mark-up this provision was deleted. This is a significant change; it will leave many plaintiffs with strong, legitimate complaints unable to bring suit if a fraud is uncovered too later for them to sue. Third, the new version of the bill gives control of fraud suits to the biggest investors, virtually excluding small investors from consideration. Under the original bill, the court was required to appoint a plaintiff steering committee that held in aggregate at least 5 percent of the securities involved or securities with a market value of $10 million, whichever is smaller, unless the judge decided a lower threshold was appropriate. This formulation would have allowed a group of small investors to join together to control the lawsuit. But in committee this provision was dropped. In the new version, the court is required to appoint a single lead plaintiff, and there is a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff will be the class member with the largest financial interest in the case, unless he cannot adequately represent the interests of the class. Unfortunately, in many cases the member with the biggest financial interest will be an institutional investor with interests, for example, holdings of stock in the corporation that are not subject to the suit or strong ties to the board of directors, that may not mirror the interests of most other class members. This provision could lead to significant litigation on whether the presumed most adequate plaintiffs other interests disqualify him and/or to settlements that do not always best serve the interests of the majority of the class members. Fourth, the new version of the bill for the first time imposes a cap on the damages that an investor can recover. The provision limits damages to no more than the difference between the purchase price of the stock and the value of the security during the 90-day period after information correcting the fraudulent misstatement or omission is made public. Although this may appear reasonable, it creates a strong incentive for the issuer to use the safe harbor for forward-looking statements to puff the stock during this 90-day period and otherwise abuse the system by waiting to correct the misinformation until a stream of positive news can be released simultaneously. Finally, the new version of S. 240 does not contain a provision restoring liability for aiding and abetting a fraud. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the securities statute does not cover private actions for aiding and abetting. The Chairman of the SEC has testified that aiding and abetting liability should be restored. Although the original version of S. 240 similarly failed to address this issue, when I cosponsored S. 240 it was my understanding that this issue would be addressed before the bill came to the floor. However, the new version of S. 240 restores aiding and abetting liability only for individuals who act knowingly. It does not fully restore liability for other participants in a fraud. During floor debate, a series of amendments was offered to restore the balance in the original bill. I voted for these amendments. Unfortunately, not one of these important changes was reversed. Thus, the bill that we now have before us remains significantly different from the bill that I cosponsored. In its attempt to root out frivolous lawsuits, this version of the bill will make it far too difficult for small investors to prevail when they have been defrauded by unscrupulous Wall Street dealmakers. I cannot support this unbalanced version of the bill. It is my hope that the conferees will revisit these issues. We need securities litigation reform, and I would like to vote for a balanced conference report that fixes the many problems in the current system without creating new problems for small investors who have been fleeced by crooks on Wall Street.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey, and I thank my colleagues. Let me first say that a balanced budget should be our goal. In fact, I offered an alternative budget resolution during debate on the budget in the Senate that balanced the budget, and did so by 2004, without counting Social Security surpluses, and did so with a different set of priorities contained in the budget before us today. I think it is fair to say that the Republican budget resolution before us today is a fraud. Over and over, we have heard it stated on the floor of the Senate and in the news media that they have balanced the budget. Apparently, nobody has bothered to look at the budget resolution, because if you look at the budget resolution, you find out they have not balanced the budget. Here it is. Here is the conference report that we are debating today, and on page 3 of conference report, under ``Deficits,'' it says: For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows: And we go to the year 2002, in which they are claiming they have balanced the budget. Do you know what one finds? It is the dirty little secret of this budget. There is not a zero by ``deficits'' in the year 2002. That is what we would have if they balanced the budget. It does not say zero. It says the deficit in fiscal year 2002 is $108.4 billion. That is not a balanced budget. That is not within hailing distance of a balanced budget. That is a budget that is not anywhere close to balancing, a $108 billion deficit in the year 2002. How is it the Republicans claim they have balanced the budget? They claim it because they are looting and raiding the Social Security trust funds of every dime of surplus that is in those accounts. That is their plan. That is what they have in mind for America, to take every penny, every dime of the Social Security surplus, more than $600 billion over the next 7 years, take it all, spend it on other things, use it to give tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. That is the plan that is before us. It is a giant fraud. It is a huge hoax. That is what is before the American people today. This is the biggest transfer-of-wealth scheme ever in the history of this country. They are going out there and taking money from people from their payroll taxes--and by the way, 73 percent of the American people pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes--and they are taking that money from them on the promise that it will be used to fund their Social Security retirement. That is not what they are doing. They are taking that money and they are spending every dime of the Social Security surpluses. Just in the year 2002, they are taking $108 billion of Social Security trust fund surpluses. They are using that to spend on other parts of the budget, and they are using it to give giant tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. That is their plan. If the American people are hoodwinked on this one, at some point they will find the bill coming due, because last year the Entitlements Commission told us precisely what will happen if such a plan goes forward. We will face either an 85-percent tax increase or a 50-percent cut in benefits in order to fund those entitlement programs, because it does not add up. Mr. President, this Republican budget is a monument to misguided priorities. It is unfair and just plain wrong. There are draconian reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, education, agriculture, and public investments that benefit average Americans. And why? So they can give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. This budget, make no mistake, is a return to trickle-down economics. It gives the wealthy a massive tax reduction and asks the middle class to pay the bill. One middle-class program after another is reduced in order to finance a tax break for those that have the most. For example, the Republicans are reducing Medicare $270 billion over this 7-year period; Medicaid by $182 billion. Make no mistake, rural hospitals all across America will close. I have dozens of such hospitals in my State. I have talked to the administrators. I have asked them the effect of these budget plans, and they have said to me, ``Senator, we will close our doors. We will have no option.'' Our Republican friends say they are for welfare reform, they want people to work. They are right about that, people should work. But with the budget cuts that they have outlined, people will not be working. The Congressional Budget Office told the Finance Committee, under the Senate Republican plan that 44 of the 50 States in this country will not have a work requirement. They will not be able to have a work requirement. They will be better off taking a 5-percent penalty and not having any work requirement in 44 of the 50 States of this country because there will not be enough funds for child care and for job training. What a fraud, but the wealthy will get their tax cut. The Republicans take domestic spending, spending in this country on infrastructure, spending on education, spending on research and development--the very things that are critical to our future--and they cut those $190 billion below a hard freeze. In the budget plan I offered, we froze those programs for 7 years. Their program cuts $190 billion below a freeze, tough, harsh cuts in education, in infrastructure and research, in the things that matter to the future of our country, but the wealthy will get their tax cut. The Republican budget agreement also makes draconian and drastic cuts in agriculture programs. Many people do not understand agriculture outside of the heartland of the country. But I tell you, our farmers work every day competing not only against the French farmer and the German farmer, but against the French Government and the German Government, and this budget signals unilateral disarmament; we are going to give up in this trade battle; we are going to leave that playing field to our European competitors; and we are going to back away from one more market where the United States has been dominant; we are going to raise the white flag of surrender in this trade battle and give up these agricultural markets. Make no mistake, that is precisely what is going to happen under this plan. Middle-class program after middle-class program will be devastated, but the wealthy will get their tax cut. Those priorities do not make sense, and they certainly do not benefit the middle class. The tax cuts that our friends have in mind are tax cuts that benefit disproportionately those who are the wealthiest among us. This chart shows an analysis of the House plan. We do not yet have the Senate plan. The House plan is very clear in terms of who benefits from the Republican tax bill. If you are a family of four earning over $200,000 a year, you get an $11,000 tax break. If you are a family of four earning $30,000 a year, you get $124. That is 100 times as much to the family of four earning $200,000 as to the family of four earning $30,000. That is the Republican idea of targeting tax relief: Give the crumbs to the middle class; give the cake to the wealthy. That is the Republican plan that is before us today. This budget resolution is nothing more than a repeat of the failed trickle-down economics of the 1980's. We learned a lesson in the 1980's that some have forgotten. We learned then that wealth does not trickle down, it gets sucked up. That is precisely what the plan before us today will do: Big bucks for the big guys and crumbs for the middle class. That is the plan that is before us. I say to my colleagues and friends that if these policies are enacted, we will witness an even larger redistribution of wealth than the one that took place in the early 1980's. I remind my colleagues what happened. From 1983 to 1989, the last time the Republicans had control, this is what happened to growth in financial wealth in this country. The top 1 percent got 66 percent of the increased wealth in that period--the top 1 percent got 66 percent of the increased wealth. The bottom 80 percent--the vast majority of the people in this country--went backward. They saw their wealth reduced by 3 percent. Mr. President, the Republican commentator, Kevin Phillips, had an interesting comment on National Public Radio several weeks ago. He said: If the budget deficit were really a national crisis . . . we'd be talking about shared sacrifice, with business, Wall Street, and the rich--the people who have the big money-- making the biggest sacrifice. Instead, the richest 1 or 2 percent--far from making sacrifices--actually get new benefits and tax reductions. That is the plan that is before us--an enormous transfer of wealth, from the middle class and the lower income people to those who are the highest on the income scale in this country. That is not fair, that is not right, and that is not an economic plan for the future of America. During Senate debate on the budget resolution, I and a number of my colleagues offered an alternative balanced budget, one that balanced the budget by the year 2004, without counting Social Security surpluses. And we had much different priorities. Yes, we reduced the rate of increase in Medicare and Medicaid, because that must be done-- but not in the draconian fashion contained in this budget resolution. We also had reductions in the rate of growth for nutrition programs, and others--but not the draconian reductions that we see here. We were able to do that by going to the wealthiest among us and asking them to participate in a plan to restore America's fiscal health. Shared sacrifice; everybody has to play a part. That is the American way. That is the way we ought to do what needs to be done.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly right. I think they are hoping nobody actually reads the document. So far, they have been wildly successful in that. The news media have not bothered to read the source document either. If they do, they will see under ``deficits'' in the year 2002, it does not say zero; it does not say they have reached a balanced budget. It shows a deficit of $108 billion in the year 2002. That is because they have looted every penny of the Social Security surplus trust funds during this period.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. May we have order, Mr. President, so we can hear.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I am very pleased my amendment was accepted by such a wide margin on the Senate floor. The choice chip could be a very important tool for parents to help protect their children from the violence that is all-too available on television. I am hopeful that the Senate-House conferees will see the value in this approach and retain my amendment. However, I deeply regret that I will have to vote against S. 652, even though it contains an amendment I sponsored. I have deep concerns about the approach this bill takes, in the name of competition, by removing protections that currently safeguard against media concentration. Diversity of opinions and voices is at the very heart of our democracy. I believe this bill creates the potential to stifle many of those voices in our media by greatly consolidating broadcast ownership in this country. My colleague, Senator Dorgan, offered an amendment earlier this week that would have prevented a single television owner from concentrating ownership above the current, reasonable limit of 25 percent of the national audience. This bill raises that limit, and initially the Senate agreed that was a dangerous precedent. Then politics took over and the Dorgan amendment was defeated. Today, an amendment by Senator Simon which would have restricted radio station ownership to a very reasonable limit of 50 AM and 50 FM stations was tabled. The bill, as it stands, eliminates virtually all ownership restrictions. That simply does not safeguard the diversity of voices that democracy requires. I am also concerned that cable television rates for consumers will rise under this bill. An amendment by Senator Lieberman to keep rates in check before real competition is in place was also tabled today. I believe it is a mistake to pass a bill that includes the word ``competition'' in the title but does not safeguard consumers in the absence of competition. Finally, I have concerns about rebuilding the telephone monopoly that the Department of Justice and the Federal courts rightly ended. Now, the Department of Justice, the very agency which protects Americans from antitrust practices, will not have a role beyond consultation in preventing a potential monopoly from being reestablished. I supported what I believed was a very reasonable amendment from Senator Dorgan and Thurmond to apply a time-honored antitrust standard to any application to enter long distance. That amendment was defeated. I hope that the final report from the Senate-House conference is a bill that truly promotes competition, while also safeguarding the interests of the consumers before competition arrives. I do not believe this bill meets that goal, and I regret that I cannot support it. Amendment No. 1421

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I do not either. I do not need a unanimous-consent agreement or anything of the kind. I just ask the chairman for his acknowledgment that we will have a chance to debate it.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President and chairman of the committee, I would be reluctant to agree to this request if we cannot get some agreement on when our amendment would be handled. We are the pending business, the Lieberman second-degree amendment to the Conrad amendment. We would like to get this matter resolved. We have had a lengthy discussion, and I [[Page S8241]] would hope that we could move to a vote on that. And so I would be constrained to object unless there was some meeting of the minds with respect to when we would get to our amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Is the pending business?

Mr. CONRAD. The Lieberman amendment or the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CONRAD. We will be happy to lay it aside. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I say to the chairman and the ranking member, I will not object, but I just want to say that I ask for the opportunity to answer Senator Simon if he makes a statement in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished managers of the bill, Senator Hollings and Senator Pressler, that we do intend to get a vote on this matter. We have many national organizations that have waited years to have Congress speak on this question. We have gone through draft after draft after draft to address the legitimate concerns of people to make this as reasonable and unintrusive as possible. I just say to the Senator from South Carolina, there is no fee in the underlying Conrad amendment. None. There is no fee here. The second- degree amendment has a fee. But the Conrad amendment has no fee; none, zero. As I say, we have done this in the least intrusive way possible. We are trying to respond to what is the legitimate concern voiced by the Senator from South Carolina. I might say, the Senator from South Carolina [Senator Hollings] has been a great leader on this issue. He has been someone who is concerned and has repeatedly raised the issue of violence in the media. He has said we ought to do something about it, and he has been willing to do that. The American people want something done, and the least intrusive way to do it is to have choice chips on the televisions. American people overwhelmingly want it. It costs less than $5 a television set, and industry representatives just told us this morning that when it is in mass production, they believe some of these chips will cost as little as 18 cents--18 cents--a television set, to provide parents the right to choose what their kids see. In addition, we create a rating system so that parents have some idea of what the programming will contain before they see it. Eighty-three percent of the American people say they want such a rating system. Again, we have done it in the least intrusive way possible. We do not let the Government decide it. We say, ``Industry, you meet with all industry parties, meet with the parents and teachers, meet with the school principals, meet with all the people who are concerned about this issue, meet with the church leaders and, on a voluntary basis, come up with a rating system and you have a year to do that without any Government interference or action.'' Again, I say to the chairman, who has the difficult challenge of managing this bill, we would like a vote. I, at this point, ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.