Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have also received a number of letters from individual Attorneys General from a number of states, and my colleague from Alabama, who himself was a distinguished State Attorney General before coming to the United States Senate, will discuss these at more length. This letter is also supported by the National League of Cities. I would like to quote from this letter of endorsement. This is from the National League of Cities representing the cities and towns across our Nation. While further legislation is required to remove the power of the Interior Secretary to administratively create enclaves exempt from state and local regulatory authority, passage of this amendment would be a first step in this process. Because passage of the Enzi/Sessions amendment would slow the creation of new trust land in one narrow set of circumstances, NLC urges support of this amendment as a first step. The concept of allowing an appointed federal official to overrule and ignore state and local land use and taxation laws through the creation of trust lands flies in the face of federalism and intergovernmental comity. * * * * * The Supreme Court has ruled that provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (IGRA) violate certain constitutional principles that establish the obligations, immunities and privileges of the states. The Interior Department appears to be determined to implement the remaining provisions of IGRA despite the fact that the Supreme Court decision really requires a congressional re- examination of the IGRA statute and the more general topic of trust land designation. For these reasons, the NLC strongly urges Congress to extend the current moratorium, as proposed in the Enzi/Sessions amendment, through fiscal year 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this amendment is also supported by the National Association of Attorneys General. I would like to read from the attorneys general letter of support. This is an excerpt. The Attorneys General believe that the Secretary lacks any statutory authority for the proposed procedures. Twenty-five state Attorneys General led by Attorney General Bob Butterworth filed a letter with the Secretary setting out our views at length. We believe the Secretary must seek statutory amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to achieve the authority he asserts and have encouraged him to engage in a dialogue with states and tribes to work toward that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also thank the other Senators who have addressed this along with me, and I want to make some comments on the things that were said. I would particularly like to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments. More particularly, I would like to thank him for all the education he gave me a year ago when we debated this amendment. That was one of the first amendments that I worked on, and I have to say it needed a lot of work. With his cooperation, and with the Senator from Hawaii, we came up with an amendment that protected the status quo. It was an amendment that we thought would keep things from moving forward and supplanting the States' ability to negotiate it. I found out later that there are even some more careful wordings that have to be done on bills that we work on around here. Had I done it more particularly about finalizing the rule itself, perhaps we would have avoided the need to bring it up again. I didn't. So we need to talk about it some more. I mentioned that what we are really trying to do with this amendment is to preclude the finalization of rules and regulations that would supplant the States. I will be one of the first to admit that at the present time the States have the bigger stick. Until the rules get approved and the bigger stick switches hands, and the tribes have the bigger stick and the control of that stick forever--if we leave the stick in the hands of the States, there is an easy way to change that in the interim and to make the kinds of exemptions that the Senator from New Mexico talked about. The way to do that is to have hearings by the Indian Affairs Committee--hearings that are balanced, hearings that take into account how difficult it is to properly negotiate between the States and the tribes. We can come up with a compromise piece of legislation. That piece of legislation would eliminate this amendment on an appropriations bill and this amendment in any future years. But we have to have that discussion. We have to see what the arguments are between the States and the tribes and get those resolved. I know there is common ground. We have hit around the edges of it today. But there have been statements on both sides that take it a little bit further each way than probably it ought to be. But I can tell you that we are not going to get it resolved and we will just give the whole stick to the tribes unless we put this amendment on the bill. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the care and concern with which he has spoken in every instance that we have debated this issue. This is the third time. I appreciate today particularly the 20 years of experience that he has on this and the tremendous knowledge that he has about the history of the tribes in the United States. I grew up in Sheridan, WY, 60 miles from the Crow Reservation, which is in Montana. But I have had the opportunity to work with them and the tribes in Wyoming before. This is not an attempt to take away from the Indian tribes. This is an attempt to get that fair playing field through hearings, through legislation--not through something by an unelected Secretary of the Federal Government to put it in the hands of Congress. We are the ones who ought to be making these kinds of decisions. If there are decisions left undone, we ought to go back and redo them so that they take care of all the problems. We need to have all of the interested parties. We need to have hearings on it. The comment was raised that on my amendment there haven't been hearings. I kind of have to contest that a little bit, because this is the third time we have debated it, which is a form of hearing among the Members. It is not my fault that there have been no hearings on this. The Indian Affairs Committee has not held hearings on this in spite of the requests last year, in spite of that being the primary way that we can bring everybody together to focus on the issue and to come up with a solution that will work for everybody. I don't think this is a death knell for the talks between people. Instead, it is the beginning of a process that can work with the Indian Affairs Committee to see that we have some hearings, reach a solution, and bring it to conclusion. It is in the hands of the Indian Affairs Committee. But there is only a need for them to meet on it, if we pass my amendment. I ask that you pass the amendment. I will briefly summarize some of the points. It maintains the status quo of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for one more year. It preserves the right of Congress to pass laws. It continues the incentive for tribes and States to pursue legislative changes to IGRA. It gives the Indian Affairs Committee time to hold the hearing and recommend the IGRA changes. It prevents Secretary Babbitt from bypassing Congress. It protects States rights without harming the Indian tribes. And it honors the advice of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission so that they can finish their work, as they requested. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent two members of my staff, Andrew Emrich and Chad Calvert, be granted floor privileges during the duration of the debate on the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank everybody involved for all of the great discussion this afternoon. I feel compelled to answer some of the questions that were raised during the course of the debate. I would like to particularly thank Senator Sessions and all of the other cosponsors who are on the bill cosponsoring the amendment with me. I would also like to thank Senator Sessions for the comments on behalf of attorneys general, since he is a former attorney general from Alabama. He gave me copies of letters. One is from my own attorney general, William Hill of Wyoming; another is from Mark Barnett of South Dakota; another is from Bill Pryor of Alabama; another individual letter is from Mr. Gale Norton, attorney general of Colorado; another is from the Honorable Carla Stovall, Topeka, KS; another letter is from Robert Butterworth of the State of Florida; another is from Don Stenberg of the State of Nebraska; another is from Frank Kelley of the State of Michigan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I want to point out that this amendment does not affect any existing tribal-State compact. It does not in any way prevent States and tribes from entering into compacts where both parties are willing to disagree on class 3 gambling on tribal lands within a State's borders. The amendment does ensure that all stakeholders must be involved in the process--Congress, tribes, States, the administration. Mr. President, a few short years ago, the big casinos thought Wyoming would be a good place to gamble. The casinos gambled on it. They spent a lot of money. They even got an initiative on the ballot. They spent a lot more money trying to get the initiative passed. I became the spokesman for the opposition. When we first got our meager organization together, the polls showed over 60 percent of the people were in favor of gambling. When the election was held, the casino gambling lost by over 62 percent, and it lost in every single county of our State. The 40-point swing in public opinion happened as people came to understand the issue and the implications of casino gambling in Wyoming. That is a pretty solid message. We do not want casino gambling in Wyoming. The people who vote in my State have debated it and made their choice. Any Federal bureaucracy that tries to force casino gambling on us will obviously inject animosity. Why did we have that decisive a vote? We used a couple of our neighboring States to review the effects of limited casino gambling. We found that a few people--a few people--make an awful lot of money at the expense of everyone else. When casino gambling comes into a State, communities are changed forever and everyone agrees there are costs to the State. There are material costs, with a need for new law enforcement and public services. Worse yet, there are social costs. And not only is gambling addictive to some folks, but once it is instituted, the revenues can be addictive, too. But I am not here to debate the pros and cons of gambling. I am just trying to maintain the status quo so we can develop a legislative solution rather than a bureaucratic mandate. Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is simple. Society as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A State's law enforcement, social services, communities, and families are seriously impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. Therefore, a State's popularly elected representatives should have a say in the decision about whether or not to allow casino gambling on Indian lands. This decision should not be made unilaterally by an unelected Cabinet official. Passing the Enzi-Sessions amendment will keep all the interested parties at the bargaining table. By keeping all the parties at the table, the Indian Affairs Committee will have the time it needs to hear all the sides and work on the legislation to fix any problems that exist in the current system. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the constitutional role of Congress and for the rights of all 50 States by supporting this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is a growing number of groups, including the Christian Coalition which is very concerned about the explosion of unregulated gaming in America. I have a letter from the Christian Coalition. I share with you a paragraph from that. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, every State has the right to be directly involved in tribal-state compacts without Federal interference. Every state also has the right, as upheld by the Supreme Court in the Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida decision, to raise its 11th Amendment defense of southern immunity if a tribe tries to sue the state for not approving a casino compact. However, in the wake of the Seminole decision, the Department of Interior has created new rules whereby a tribe can negotiate directly with the Secretary of Interior on casino gambling compacts and bypass a state's rights to be involved. These new rules are a gross violation of states' rights. An unelected cabinet member should not be given sole authority to direct the internal activities of a state, especially with regards to casino gambling contracts. Christian Coalition is also very concerned with the severe social consequences of casino gambling. There is much evidence that the rise of casino gambling leads to a rise in family breakdown, crime, drug addiction, and alcoholism. With such staggering repercussions, it is vital that tribal-state gambling contracts remain within each individual state and not be commandeered by an unelected Federal official. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I rise to introduce this amendment to the Interior appropriations bill with my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions. This amendment has one very important purpose: to ensure that the rights of this Congress and all 50 States are not trampled on by an unelected Cabinet official. The amendment is simple and straightforward. It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from approving any tribal-State gambling agreement which has not first been approved by the tribe and the State in question. It would also prohibit the Secretary from finalizing the rules that were published this past January 22. If these rules are finalized, the Secretary of the Interior would have the ability to bypass all 50 State governments in approving casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. Mr. President, this is the third time in 2 years the Senate has had to deal with this issue of Indian gambling. I regret that an amendment is, once again, necessary on this year's Interior appropriations bill. However, until we understand the need for legislative action and effect hearings by the Indian Affairs Committee to resolve differences and reach a reasonable compromise in the Indian gambling process, this amendment is essential. Last year, I offered an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that prohibited Secretary Babbitt from approving any new tribal-State gambling compacts which had not first been approved by the State in accordance with State law. Although that amendment provided for only a 1-year moratorium, the intent of that amendment was clear. Congress does not believe it is appropriate for the Secretary of the Interior to bypass Congress and the States on an issue as important as to whether or not casino gambling would be allowed within State borders. Unfortunately, the Secretary did not think Congress was serious when we passed the amendment last year. On January 22 of this year, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, published proposed regulations which would allow the Secretary of the Interior to bypass the States in the compacting process. In effect, these proposed regulations would allow Secretary Babbitt to approve casino gambling agreements with the Indian tribes without the consent or approval of the States. This action by the Secretary is a very big stick that encourages the tribes enough that they are not interested in any compromise. That is precisely why Congress was willing to place the amendment in last year's appropriations bill. Evidently, Secretary Babbitt did not think Congress was serious. We also debated the issue of blocking the Secretary's proposed rules in February, and we had an amendment accepted to the supplemental appropriations bill by a voice vote. When speaking with House conferees who attended the conference to the supplemental, several lobbyists painted our amendment as a Las Vegas protection bill. There are some lobbying groups that are trying that same tactic again this year. I want everyone to be perfectly clear on this point. This amendment is designed primarily for those States that do not allow gambling-- particularly those that do not allow electronic gambling and especially those States that do not allow slot machines. The interest in this amendment from gambling States stems simply from their sincere desire to have the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, enforced. This amendment does not in any way minimize the serious need for proper enforcement of existing law. In February, in an attempt to kill our amendment, which was only a continuation of the status quo, the Indian Affairs Committee sent out a notice that the amendment should be defeated because hearings had been scheduled. What happened to those hearings? By passing this amendment, we will ensure that the promises about the future won't change the current law. We will make sure that the unelected Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, won't single-handedly change current law. This amendment will ensure that any change in IGRA is done in the right way--legislatively. Mr. President, this amendment will ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the tribal-State compacting process. Some people have argued that changes need to be made in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I don't necessarily disagree with my colleagues on that point. In fact, I would welcome an opportunity to review a number of provisions in IGRA in the proper context. However, if any changes are to be made to IGRA, those changes must come from Congress, not from the administration. By even proposing these regulations, the Secretary of the Interior has shown an amazing disregard for the constitutional role of Congress and the statutory prerogatives of all 50 States. Actually, Mr. President, the timing of Secretary Babbitt's actions is rather ironic. In March, just 6 months ago, Attorney General Janet Reno requested an independent counsel to investigate Secretary Babbitt's involvement in denying a tribal-State gambling license to an Indian tribe in Wisconsin. Although we will have to wait for independent counsel Carol Elder Bruce to complete her investigation before any final conclusions can be drawn, it is evident that serious questions have been raised about Secretary Babbitt's judgment and objectivity in approving Indian gambling compacts. The very fact that Attorney General Janet Reno believed there was specific and credible evidence to warrant an investigation should be sufficient to make this Congress hesitant to allow Secretary Babbitt to grant himself new trust powers that are designed to bypass the States in the area of tribal-State gambling compacts. Moreover, this investigation should have taught us an important lesson: We in Congress should not allow Secretary Babbitt, or any other Secretary of the Interior, to usurp the rightful role of Congress and the States in addressing the difficult question of casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. As this controversial issue has developed, we have been promised hearings in the Indian Affairs Committee. A year ago, I was given the offer to even invite some of the witnesses. From my perspective, if the promise of those proposed hearings had caused us to back off this amendment, the effect would have been that Secretary Babbitt would have had his way today. This sentiment has been confirmed by lobbyists from the various tribes which have made it abundantly clear that Secretary Babbitt fully intends to finalize his proposed rules. Our only way to stop this effort is to attach another amendment to this year's Interior appropriations bill. Let me assure you, if Secretary Babbitt has his way, there will be no need for the tribes to resolve problems at all involving gambling and IGRA in and with their States. I do believe that this issue could be resolved with hearings and a bill--actual legislation from us, from Congress. But those hearings won't happen as long as the tribes anticipate the clout of the Secretary's rule that bypasses the process, bypasses the States. Yes, the courts have ruled that the current law--which was passed by Congress, not an appointed Secretary--gives an edge in the bargaining process to the States. But that process has worked. If there is a need to change that process, it should be changed only by a bill passed by Congress--not by rule and regulation. I must stress that if we do not maintain the status quo, there will never be an essential involvement by the States in the final decision of whether to allow casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. There will be no compromise reached. The Secretary will be given the right to bypass us, the Congress of the United States, and to run roughshod over the States. Again, I want to stress that this amendment does not amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, but holds the status quo for another year so Congress can review the situation. Two years ago, Congress voted to establish a national commission to study the social and economic impacts of legalized gambling in the United States. One of the aspects the commission is analyzing is the impact of gambling on tribal communities. As my colleagues know, this commission just began its work last year and most likely will not complete its study for another year. It is significant that this commission--the very commission that was created by Congress for the purpose of studying gambling--has now sent a letter to Secretary Babbitt asking him not to go forward with his proposed rules. I would like to read this letter for the benefit of my colleagues. Dear Secretary Babbitt: As you are aware, the 104th Congress created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission to study the social and economic impacts of legalized gambling in the United States. Part of our study concerns the policies and practices of tribal governments and the social and economic impacts of gambling on tribal communities. During our July 30 meeting in Tempe, Arizona the Commission discussed the Department's ``by-pass'' provision for tribes who allege that a state had not negotiated for a gaming compact in good faith. The Commission voted to formally request the Secretary of the Interior to stay the issuance of a final rule on Indian compacting pending completion of our final report. On behalf of the Commission, I formally request such a stay, and trust you will honor this request until you have had an opportunity to review the report which we intend to release on June 20, 1999. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kay C. James, Chair. Mr. President, I think it would be wise for this body to follow the advice of the very commission that we created to study the issue of legalized gambling. I want to emphasize again that we are the body that asked for this commission. We created the commission to look at all gambling. The American taxpayers are already paying for the study. The commission is already doing its work. We need to let them finish. They have asked that neither we, nor Secretary Babbitt, make any changes while they do their work. My amendment would give them that time. The judicial branch has already preserved the integrity of current law. This amendment supports that. The President approved my amendment last year by signing the 1998 Interior appropriations bill. I'm asking my colleagues to take the same ``non-action'' once again. The Committee on Indian Affairs must play a very important role here. They need to hold hearings and write legislation which specifically addresses this issue and then put it through the process. They will have time to do that if this amendment is agreed to. This amendment would support giving the Indian Affairs Committee and Congress, as a whole, time to develop an appropriate policy. Mr. President, the Enzi-Sessions amendment is strongly endorsed by the National Governor's Association. I would like to read a letter written on behalf of the Governors and which is signed by the entire executive committee. Listen to this very bipartisan appeal. Here is the letter: As members of the Executive Committee of the National Governors' Association, we urge you on behalf of all governors to adopt the Indian gaming-relating amendment to the Interior Department Appropriations bill sponsored by Sen. Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). This amendment would extend the current moratorium preventing the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior from using federal funds to approve tribal-state compacts that have not first been approved by the state, as required by law. The amendment would also prohibit the secretary from promulgating a regulation or implementing a procedure that could result in tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state compact or from going forward with any proposed rule on this matter in fiscal 1999. The U.S. Secretary of the Interior has published a proposed rule in which he asserts authority to establish such procedures, and he has indicated his intent to issue a final rule. The nation's Governors strongly believe that no statute or court decision provides the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior with authority to intervene in disputes over compacts between Indian tribes and states about casino gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute an attempt by the secretary to preempt states' authority under existing laws and recent court decisions and would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating gambling compacts with states. The secretary's inherent authority includes a responsibility to protect the interests of Indian tribes, making it impossible for the secretary to avoid a conflict of interest or exercise objective judgment in disputes between states and tribes. Governors have submitted comments to the department outlining these and other objections to the proposed rule. The Governors have agreed to enter negotiations with Indian tribes and the U.S. Departments of Interior and Justice to achieve consensus regarding amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Preliminary staff discussions will take place in August or September in preparation for a meeting of principals in November. To avoid protracted litigation, provide Congress with time to determine the proper scope of the secretary's authority in this area, and permit the negotiations among tribes, states, and the federal government to progress, the nation's Governors respectfully urge Congress to adopt the Enzi/ Sessions amendment to extend the current moratorium through the end of fiscal 1999 and prohibit the secretary from issuing a final rule. Thank you for your support of the Enzi/Sessions amendment. The nation's Governors look forward to working with you. It is signed by Governor George Voinovich, the chairman; Tom Carper of Delaware, the vice chairman; Governor Romer of Colorado; Governor Lawton Chiles of Florida; Governor Bob Miller of Nevada; Governor David Beasley of South Carolina; Governor Howard Dean of Vermont; and Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin. It is definitely a bipartisan list.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky, and I rise in opposition to the McCain-Feingold amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. Rather than ``reform'' the way campaigns are financed, this amendment would infringe on the first amendment rights of millions of American citizens and place enormous burdens on candidates running for office, and one of our primary obligations here is to preserve the Constitution of the United States. While the McCain-Feingold amendment claims to ``clean up'' elections, it does so by placing unconstitutional restrictions on citizens' ability to participate in the political process. We have heard several Members of the Senate bemoan the fact that various citizen groups and individuals have taken out ads criticizing them during their elections. I must admit that I can sympathize with my colleagues who have been the object of often pointed and critical campaign ads. In fact, during my last campaign, some ads were aired against me that were downright false. I do support truth in advertising. Even that, I am told, is an infringement on freedom of speech, and the Washington Supreme Court just ruled that it is OK to lie in campaign advertising. How do you counter that? During my campaign, my opponent ran a series of ads that said I put a tax on Girl Scout cookies. Fortunately, Girl Scout cookies were delivered during the campaign, and those poor little girls had to say, ``No, he didn't put a sales tax on Girl Scout cookies.'' Had it not been for the delivery of those cookies, I would have had to find a lot of money to counter the false advertising done against me. If we can't get truth in advertising, we don't have campaign reform, and that is an infringement on freedom of speech. At the same time, I believe in a free society it is essential that citizens have a right to articulate their positions on issues and candidates in a public forum. The first amendment to our Constitution was drafted to ensure that future generations will have the right to engage in public political discourse that is vigorous and unfettered. Throughout even the darkest chapters of our Nation's history, our first amendment has provided an essential protection against inclinations to tyranny. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the first amendment to protect the right of individual citizens and organizations to express their views through issue advocacy. The Court has maintained for over two decades that individuals and organizations do not fall within the restrictions of the Federal election code simply by engaging in this advocacy. Issue advocacy includes the right to promote any candidate for office and his views as long as the communication does not ``in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.'' As long as independent communication does not cross the bright line of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, individuals and groups are free to spend as much as they want promoting or criticizing a candidate and his or her views. While these holdings may not always be welcome to those of us running in campaigns, they represent a logical outgrowth of the first amendment's historic protection of core political speech. Mr. President, this amendment, which parades under the disguise of ``reform,'' would violate these clear first amendment protections. The amendment impermissibly expands the definition of ``express advocacy'' to cover a whole host of communications by independent organizations. The McCain-Feingold amendment attempts to expand bright-line tests for issue advocacy to include communications which, ``in context,'' advocate election or defeat of a given candidate. Are we comfortable with giving a Federal regulatory agency the power to determine what constitutes acceptable political speech--a Federal regulatory agency the power to determine what constitutes acceptable political speech? This amendment gives expansive new powers to the Federal Election Commission. This is one Federal agency which has abused the power it already has to regulate Federal elections. Just last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals strongly criticized the Federal Election Commission for its ``unsupportable'' enforcement action against the Christian Action Network. The network's only crime was engaging in protected political speech. The Court of Appeals required the Federal Election Commission to pay the network's attorney fees and court costs since the FEC's prosecution had been unjustified. Congress should not condone flagrant administrative abuses by giving the FEC expanded new powers and responsibilities. The McCain-Feingold substitute also includes within its new definition of ``express advocacy'' any communication that refers to one or more clearly identified candidates within 60 calendar days preceding an election. These provisions would allow the speech police to regulate core political speech during the most crucial part of an election cycle. They would also place an economic burden on thousands of small radio and television stations which carry those ads. I don't think we in Washington should be placing any more restrictions on America's small businesses. Our Founding Fathers drafted the first amendment to protect against attempts such as these to prohibit free citizens from entering into public discourse on issues that greatly affect them. I cannot support legislation that stifles the free speech of American citizens and gives expanded new powers to a Federal bureaucracy. For these reasons, I must oppose the McCain-Feingold amendment. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the first amendment and opposing the McCain-Feingold substitute and any other amendment that would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of citizens to participate in the democratic process. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment on land mines to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill offered by my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma. This amendment, which seeks to preserve for our military commanders a weapons system which, among other things, mitigates the manpower disadvantage American forces routinely suffer, is needed now more than ever. Every day seems to bring fresh evidence of two facts we have known to be true for some time: First, that our military is currently too small and stretched too thin for the many missions assigned to it; and second, that the international security situation is more volatile than it has been in a generation. Both situations argue heavily in favor of this amendment. Even the most ardent defenders of our ongoing defense drawdowns cannot help but be alarmed at the sudden lack of trained manpower in our military. Recruiting goals are not being met and our long serving leaders--both officer and enlisted--are leaving the military in droves. One government report after another finds that our front line units are chronically undermanned. Next to these disturbing facts, we see that the situation in North Korea has recently taken a most frightening turn with their launch of a two-stage ballistic missile directly over the Japanese Islands. Japan has pulled out of the Light Water Reactor agreement which was our only real hope of keeping North Korea from resuming their nuclear weapons development program. Between our under strength military, and the new tension on the Korean Peninsula, it could be said that it has been many years since our military forces in South Korea have been in such an insecure and tenuous position. It is not idle hyperbole to say that South Koreans, and the forty thousand American troops who live at the pointy end of the spear in that country, depend on land mines for their lives. In light of these developments, I cannot think of a worse time to pass a Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that includes a provision which would facilitate the signing of the Convention of the Prohibition of anti-personnel land mines, quote--``as soon as practicable.''-- unquote. A harmless sounding passage to be sure, but one which, in the hands of an administration prone to trading our national security for parchment, could be interpreted as clearance to sign that dangerous piece of paper. Senator Inhofe's amendment would simply require that, before the administration signed any treaty that would take this critically important weapons system from our military, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the Commanders in Chief of the various Combat Commands, certify that they can accomplish their missions without it. Not in the last two decades have tensions been so high in that part of the world, Mr. President. It would seem that every possible factor is now conspiring to place our troops on the precipice: Our military is undermanned and underfunded; our diplomatic initiatives with the world's totalitarian regimes are breaking down everywhere; ballistic missile and nuclear weapons technology is proliferating at breakneck speed; and in Asia, the terrible economic situation there only serves to raise tensions and reduce available peaceful alternatives. I cannot envision a worse time to be taking military options away from our commanders in the field. But let me be clear: Even under the best of circumstances I would be against any attempt to take away military options from those commanders. And I will feel this way with particular regard to anti-personnel land mines until the proponents of this ban can give me a cogent answer to a simple question: How will taking self- destructing, self-deactivating land mines away from the United States military save one life in Angola, Cambodia or Afghanistan? Until I get a clear answer to that question, I will continue to defend our military from these misguided attempts to eliminate the means by which they accomplish the missions America deems fit to assign them, in the safest possible way. I support this amendment from the Senator from Oklahoma, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this bill that was just passed by the Senate will dramatically improve workplace safety and health for more than 800,000 U.S. Postal Service employees. Senate bill 2112, the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act, will bring the Postal Service under the full jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It is my firm belief that government must play by its own rules, that all Federal agencies must comply with the 1970 occupational safety and health statute. They are not required to pay penalties issued to them by OSHA. They will be under this bill. The lack of any enforcement tool renders compliance requirements for the subsector ineffective, at best. My first look at this occurred when I noticed that Yellowstone National Park had been cited for over 600 violations. Ninety of them were serious. One of them was failure to report a death. It occurred to me, though, that they may not be the worst violators, so I checked on the Federal Government and found that the agency that we needed to start with was the U.S. Postal Service. What is most troubling about the Postal Service's safety record is its annual workers' compensation payments. From 1992 to 1997, the Postal Service paid an average of $505 million in workers' compensation costs, placing them once again at the top of the Federal Government's list. Moreover, the Postal Service's annual contribution to workers' compensation amounts to almost one-third of the Federal Government's $1.8 billion price tag. In 1970, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization Act, eliminating the old Postal Department status as a Cabinet office. Twelve years later, the Postal Service became fiscally self-sufficient and is to be congratulated on that. After carefully listening to the perspectives of the Post Office and the unions representing its employees, I have concluded that the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act is necessary legislation. S. 2112 addresses specialized problems in a specialized business by permitting OSHA to fully regulate the Postal Service the way it does private businesses. In addition, the bill would prevent the Postal Service from closing or consolidating rural post offices or services simply because it is required to comply with OSHA. Service to all areas in the Nation, rural or urban, was made a part of the Postal Service's mission by the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act. The quality of service it provides should not decrease because of efforts to protect and ensure employee safety and health. Along this same premise, the bill would prevent the Postal Rate Commission from raising the price of stamps to help the Postal Service pay for potential OSHA fines. Rather, the Postal Service should offset the potential for the fines by improving the workplace conditions. That is what we have been trying to do on all OSHA work that we have done-- to get more safety and health in the workplace. That would decrease the Postal Service annual $505 million expenditure on workers' comp claims, and, more importantly, it would keep those employees safe. That is why the money won't have to be spent. I do not believe that this incremental bill should be looked on as an expansion of regulatory enforcement. For years OSHA has been inspecting the Federal work sites and issuing citations to those who are not in compliance. This will continue, whether this bill is signed into law or not. S. 2112 would simply require the Postal Service to pay any fine issued by OSHA to the General Treasury, expediting abatement of safety and health hazard. Abating occupational safety and health hazards should be a top priority of any employer. Now, the U.S. Postal Service recently announced a $100 million program to entice kids to collect stamps. I don't question the validity of such a program or the benefit it would have on the Nation's kids. However, I do question whether this program should be a priority while workers' compensation claims and injuries, illness, lost time, and fatality rates remain so high. We must ensure the safety and health of all employees because they are the most important asset of any business. The success or failure of any business, including the Post Office, rests on their ability to provide efficient care and service to their customers. In my capacity as a Senator, I have committed much of my time to the advancement of workplace safety and health by advocating commonsense, incremental legislation. While it is important for OSHA to retain its ability to enforce the law and respond to employee complaints in a timely fashion, the agency must also begin to broaden its preventive initiatives in an effort to bring more workplaces into compliance before accidents and fatalities occur. I want to extend my sincere thanks to Senator Bingaman for coauthoring the Postal Employees Safety Advancement Act. I believe all stakeholder meetings have paid off--producing a balanced, incremental piece of legislation. Chairman Jeffords of the Senate Labor Committee and ranking member, Senator Kennedy, are to be commended for their steady commitment to advancing occupational safety and health. I also thank their staffs for all of the time that they spent on it. I particularly congratulate and express my appreciation to Chris Spear of my staff, and the other people on my team in the office who have been helping on a day-by-day, grind-it-out basis to work on all occupational safety and health. I am thankful for all the time that everyone has spent discussing this important issue with me. I also want to thank all of the cosponsors. This is a very bipartisan bill. Their support is greatly appreciated. Finally, I want to thank Congressman Greenwood for authoring the House version and subcommittee chairmen Ballenger and McHugh for their careful consideration in their respective subcommittees. Their work has helped to make this a real team effort.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 501, S. 2112.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, even if the Office of White House Counsel doesn't think so, they should have a chance to see who is playing with their livelihoods. In spite of the White House position, the Secretary of Interior had the nerve to call energy companies ``un-American in their attempts to mislead the American public.'' Remember, they are the only ones disclosing figures. They are the only ones from whom you can get the model, all of the math, and an explanation. They are the ones sharing data. The Secretary of Interior had the nerve to call them ``un-American in their attempts to mislead the American people.'' He further asserted that they were engaged in ``a conspiracy to distort the facts.'' They are the only ones sharing facts. I will repeat that. They were called ``un-American in their attempts to mislead the American people.'' There are a lot of people working in coal and oil fields in my State, over 20,000 of them. Mr. President, 20,000 people is 6 percent of all the people working in Wyoming. More important, it is over 10 percent of the private sector employees. These are the people who work for energy companies. These are the people Mr. Babbitt claims are ``un-American.'' I think they are worried about their jobs. They are worried about laying off their employees. They are worried about their own families and all the other families who survive in our towns because of energy production. As an industry, these people are worried about a treaty that can force them to lay off over a million Americans. It could force industry to lay off half of their employees in Wyoming. On the other hand, the Executive Office of the President finds that, ``public disclosure would set an unfortunate precedent'' and that it ``is not necessary for purposes of Congressional oversight.'' I ask just who is misleading the American people? There is something else I want to bring to the attention of this body. In spite of the fact that the President has firmly stated that this treaty will not be implemented before ratification, right now the Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken an effort to manipulate the Clean Air Act to enact it. I think we deserve to know what other branches of Government are currently working behind the scenes, behind our back, to make changes through Executive orders or rules and regulations that put a treaty into place that this body would not ratify. If it were brought here today, it would not be ratified. It violates everything in the resolution that we adopted, sending signals to the people who went to Kyoto to negotiate on behalf of the United States. There has been no public input. I think the administration does not want public input on climate change. I know they don't want to look at the science, but I think they also don't want public input. If they wanted input, this letter from the Executive Office wouldn't say what it does. If the White House wanted the public to know all the details about the treaty, they would send it to the Senate and America, and they would let us debate it. They would tell the American people what they are planning to do. My only experience in the executive branch was as mayor of a boom town. But I can tell you, when I was trying to pass the smallest bond issue or when I was working on negotiations on industrial siting, figuring out what the companies that were coming to our counties would have to do to participate in the growth of our town so we could have orderly growth, if I would not have shared on a regular basis more information, more detail, more explanation for those little things than what the President is doing with us on this big thing, I would not have been able to do any of them, and I should not have been able to do any of them. It is the duty of the executive branch to inform the people who make the decisions legislatively, to provide them with all of the information that can possibly be provided and not just to send out a group of numbers with no explanation, a bunch of abbreviations with no explanation. We don't need a table of contents. We don't need a bunch of math. We need answers. We need to know the formulas, and we need to be able to have people who understand those numbers take a look at them. This is not national security. This is a need for the American public to know, and the American public in this case probably ought to start with the U.S. Senate. We do have the kind of authority that we should be able to get the numbers, and if the President wants cooperation from us, he will provide those numbers. We can take them the way he wants. We can take them in secret, but I hope they will share them with us and with the American public.

Mr. ENZI. I do disagree with that. I think the public does have a right to know. What is the point in hiding the information? What is the White House afraid that people might find out? I have a hunch it is all about jobs. The study conducted by DRI-McGraw-Hill estimated Kyoto could cost us 1.5 million jobs. Charles River Associates puts that figure as high as 3.1 million jobs by 2010. Even the Argonne National Laboratory pointed to job losses in a study on the impact of higher energy prices on energy-intensive industries. Argonne concluded that 200,000 American chemical workers could lose their jobs. All of the American aluminum plants could close, putting another 20,000 workers out of work. Cement companies would move another 6,000 jobs overseas. And nearly 100,000 United States steelworkers would be out of work. Americans have a right to know what is going on. They have a right to know if it is going to cost them their job. Mr. President, I ask for a few additional minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about global warming and about where we are in the process of getting information from the administration about the Kyoto Treaty. Last year, when we were doing appropriations, the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment to the Foreign Operations spending bill. That amendment directed the White House to describe exactly the amounts and locations of all its planned expenditures for domestic and international climate change activities for 1997, 1998, and thereafter. The President signed that bill. What I hoped to get was a list, by agency, with their expected costs and objectives. I thought the Office of Management and Budget would be able to easily locate the pots of money involved in something as critical to the administration as global warming. But the President's response was a 2-page letter describing the Climate Change Technology Initiative and the Global Change Research Program. I have gotten more information out of any issue of the newspaper. No numbers were included in the global change research section. No numbers were included showing the money the Department of State has spent negotiating climate change or supporting the U.N.'s scientific bodies. No numbers were included telling us how much ``indirect programs'' would cost. The administration's letter was an unacceptable response to our request, and it took a year to get it. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Since that time, other Members of Congress have been trying diligently to track down these budget numbers. I have tried to get questions answered. I have followed up on administration statements. It has not been easy. The House Government Reform Committee has been forced to issue three subpoenas and has threatened a fourth. In response to those, the administration has made some documents available, but some are still waiting for White House Counsel approval. I, too, have encountered obstacles in trying to see those cost numbers. Earlier this year, Janet Yellen, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, testified twice in the House that Kyoto would cost American families only $90 per year--only $90 per year. Estimates from independent economic consulting firms, however, show vastly different numbers. These estimates put costs as high as $2,100 per household per year. Most people that I know think that $90 a year would be a lot of additional tax; $2,100 would be unconscionable. That is a $2,000 difference per year on what it will cost to solve the problem the administration says we have. The obvious question is, Why are they so far apart? Why are the White House numbers so low? The Department of Energy places the cost of reducing 1 ton of carbon emissions at $130 to $150, to cut to 1990 levels. The White House uses $171 per ton, to go 7 percent below 1990. If you add it up, the cost is over $100 billion per year, not adjusted for inflation. Factor in inflation and divide by households. The fact is, that $90 per family is not realistic. When Ms. Yellen was asked how they came up with the $90, her answer was that the assumptions and models were a national security secret. I asked for a copy of those documents. I was told that they were a national security secret. I pointed out that when you get elected to this body, you get a top secret clearance. You are supposed to be able to view all documents necessary to your work. I offered that, if they were so busy that they couldn't deliver those numbers to the Capitol, that I would be happy to go down to the White House and look at those numbers. After some weeks, they did say they might send a few numbers up. I asked the Counsel of Economic Advisers nominee, Rebecca Blank, if she could get me a copy. I held up the nomination until they could produce them. I got a series of runs and explanations, but certain critical parts were missing. In fact, what I got is a table of contents with formulas, and no explanation. I was also curious to know what part of these documents had been so secret. They were delivered by an intern from the White House to my office, not given to me personally, not stamped ``confidential.'' There was no stamp on them whatsoever to designate how important these were to national security. So I had to suspect that I had not gotten the documents that we had been talking about. I asked about it. I got an interesting response. I would like to share part of that with my colleagues. The White House Counsel's Office is concerned that public disclosure of these materials would set an unfortunate precedent that could chill the free flow of internal discussions essential to effective decision making. Counsel believes that such disclosure is not necessary for purposes of Congressional oversight. In other words, we don't deserve the information. We should not be a part of that. We don't need to know. And letting us know would damage the Executive's ability to make decisions. We are the policy body of the United States. Only with FDR did the President start traveling all over the country, and all over the world, trying to set legislation. That has gone on, on an ever-increasing basis, since that time. It is our job to pass the laws. The laws set the policy. The White House is the management branch of this Government. And they say that our information would interfere in their decisionmaking, it would have a chilling effect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from the Executive Office of the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the selection of an image of Sacajawea for the new one dollar coin. The Dollar Coin Design Advisory Committee recently recommended to the Treasury Secretary that the new dollar coin bear a design inspired by Sacajawea. On July 29th, the Treasury Secretary announced that he was accepting the Committee's recommendation. I am pleased that the committee and the Treasury Secretary have recognized the important role of Sacajawea in the history of our Nation. I do believe that it is important, however, that the coin explicitly honor and bear a likeness of Sacajawea. The actual language of the committee's recommendation is that the coin should bear a design of ``Liberty represented by a Native American woman, inspired by Sacajawea and other Native American women.'' This language is a bit vague, but it does make it clear that Sacajawea is their symbolic choice. I strongly urge the Treasury Secretary to approve a final design that is based on a historically accepted image of Sacajawea. There are several images that could be used, and I will be happy to share them with the Secretary. Mr. President, I am distressed to learn that a bill has been introduced in Congress that would overturn the recommendation and subsequent acceptance of the depiction of Sacajawea on the new one dollar coin. As we know, Congress specifically refrained from mandating a design for the coin when we passed the authorizing legislation. This was to ensure that political pressures would not affect the decision- making process. Instead, the Treasury Secretary appointed the Dollar Coin Design Advisory Committee, which was specifically charged with coming up with a design for the coin, subject to some general guidelines from the Secretary. The selection process of the advisory committee emphasized citizen participation. After a thorough and open debate, the committee voted 6-1 to recommend Sacajawea for the dollar coin. Unfortunately, that whole process could be undermined by the bill that has been introduced. We are beyond debating the merits of Sacajawea or the Statue of Liberty. Arguments against her image obviously were not persuasive. I see no reason for Congress to attempt to impose its will and reverse a decision that was made by an unbiased panel based on extensive input from the American people. Mr. President, I sent a letter to the Treasury Secretary earlier this month requesting that he accept the committee's recommendation of Sacajawea for the new one dollar coin. In that letter, I outlined some of the reasons that I think she would be a great choice for the coin. I would like to briefly discuss these reasons right now. As most Americans know, Sacajawea was an integral part of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the story of which is an incredible tale of adventure, determination, cooperation, and persistence. When Lewis and Clark set out for the West, they had no idea what they might find in the coming months or how long they would be gone. Anyone who has traveled through the West has to be in awe of what the Lewis and Clark expedition was able to accomplish. It is remarkable that Sacajawea was just a teenager with an infant when she endured the rigors of this trip into uncharted territory. The importance of Sacajawea to the Lewis and Clark expedition can not be understated. Her knowledge of the land and its resources helped the expedition survive the rugged terrain of the West. Her diplomatic and translation skills helped Lewis and Clark establish peaceful relations with the American Indians they met along the way, whose assistance was also vital to the expedition. Her bravery saved the expedition's valuable supplies, including the journals that would be used to record the trip, after a boat nearly capsized. Lewis and Clark's appreciation of her skills and resourcefulness led them to grant her a vote on the operation of the expedition that was equal to the other members of the group. In a very real sense, this is the first recorded instance of a woman being allowed to vote in America. I am proud to note that Wyoming, which typifies the landscape of their journey, also recognized the important role of women in overcoming the challenges of the West and was the first state to grant women the right to vote. I believe that the selection of Sacajawea to be represented on the dollar coin would not only celebrate her valuable contribution to the Lewis and Clark expedition, it would also celebrate the contributions of all American Indians during the expedition. In addition, it would honor all the American Indians of our nation; it would celebrate the greatest terrestrial exploration ever undertaken in U.S. history; and, it would commemorate the turning of our country's hearts and minds from Europe and the East--to the West and our future. Mr. President, I urge the Treasury Department to continue the process of selecting an image of Sacajawea for the dollar coin. I also urge the Treasury Department to specifically designate and honor Sacajawea as the person on the coin. And finally I encourage my colleagues to oppose any measure that would undermine the placement of Sacajawea on the dollar coin. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 486, S. 1700.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from Alabama. The amendment, which authorizes an exemption for banks with less than $250 million in assets, would allow small banks to escape the burdensome, federal government mandate of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, commonly known as CRA. In 1977, Congress felt that the regulated and insured financial institutions should be required to demonstrate that their deposit facilities help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered. However, I have seen the CRA become a burdensome federal government mandate on private financial institutions resulting in nothing more than excessive paperwork requirements. Small community banks naturally serve the needs of their communities, otherwise they would not survive. In Wyoming, where many towns have only one or two banks and maybe a credit union, the financial institutions must reach out to everyone in the community in order to be successful. We must also realize that several things have changed since the passage of the community Reinvestment Act became law in 1977. Until 1994, when Congress passed the Reigle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, banks were not allowed to acquire another bank in another state. The Reigle-Neal Act forced small community banks to be more aggressive to meet the needs of their community in order to compete with outside banks, thus supplanting the need for the CRA. Second, we now have less government intervention on the rate of interest payable on savings deposits and demand deposits. Before the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, there was a ceiling on the interest rates on savings deposits and a prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits to consumers. We do not have these restrictions now. These laws, passed after the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, have promoted a healthy competition for deposits and credit, thus causing financial institutions to increasingly reach out to the communities they serve. I believe it is prudent and right to exempt small banks from CRA requirements. They are the very institutions that comply every day with the Community Reinvestment Act just by the very nature of their business. And they are the institutions that are most burdened by the required paperwork because of their limited resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that is sponsored by the Senator from Nebraska. I support this amendment which would place limitations on the amount of commercial lending by credit unions. I am concerned that if the credit unions concentrate on commercial loans, they will lose their current individual customer focus. They may lose the special identity that separates them from banks and thrifts. I fear that if the special identity of the credit union is lost, Congress may feel the need to treat them identically to banks and thrifts. That could lead to levying taxes on credit unions. Currently, credit unions are tax exempt because they are considered cooperatives. In order for a credit union to effectively serve its members, particularly in light of H.R. 1151, which has the potential to greatly increase the membership of the credit unions, it should concentrate on consumer lending. This will encourage it to maintain focus on its member owners. Money loaned to businesses isn't available for consumer lending, meaning that there will be fewer mortgages, car loans and other forms of consumer credit for the members. I am particularly pleased that this amendment also includes the deletion of the exemption of a loan less than $50,000 from being defined as a member business loan. As an accountant, I am concerned about the consequences of not requiring full and complete disclosure of lending by credit unions. I place great emphasis and value on the accuracy of financial institutions' records. I have asked several credit unions how much commercial lending they engage in now, and none have been able to state precisely the amount because of this strange exemption that currently exists in the regulations. This causes me great concern, because the most stringent safety and soundness provisions are ineffective if accurate records and accurate recordkeeping practices do not exist. I feel it is of utmost importance to require that all member business loans be designated as such, not just those above $50,000. Markets and financial institutions perform best when there is transparency and accuracy of information. We have seen the consequences of that not being available. The United States has become the model for financial markets, in part because of the transparent accounting methods that are required of financial institutions and publicly traded companies. I believe credit unions should also be obligated to be transparent in their loan activities. It is only common sense to delete this exemption for commercial loans less than $50,000. There is absolutely no reason for inaccurate accounting. In conclusion, this amendment will require credit unions to remain focused on consumer lending. Credit unions were intended to serve the basic needs of families and individuals since the Federal Credit Union Act in the 1930s. This amendment will help credit unions remain unique institutions, setting them apart from other financial service providers. I believe a vote for this amendment is a vote for credit union members. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I oppose the Craig amendment, which will change gambling in the United States as we currently know it. It will give legal validity to the claims that the tribes have that they can provide gambling all over the United States. They cannot; it is illegal. This amendment would give them a monopoly on the Internet in every home in America, without any age discrimination. That is the reason we require it to be on premises, so we can check to see if kids are gambling. This will eliminate enforcement in States like mine where we have had a referendum on gambling. It was defeated 2-to-1 in every single county in our State. We do not want gambling in Wyoming. We defeated it soundly. This would allow gambling in Wyoming. This would give national legal validity. This will replace lotteries across the State, when they can finally advertise it to the extent that they really want to do it. This will provide for eventual, complete electronic gambling for every home in America, without any State being able to oppose it. I ask you to oppose the Craig amendment and support the Kyl amendment.