Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Amendments of 1996. The current Jacob Wetterling Act is an effective and responsible way to keep track of sexually violent predators, especially those who prey on our children. This act requires States to implement a program through which these types of offenders, once on parole, must register their places of residence with State and local law enforcement agencies. I have always supported the premise behind this provision in the 1994 crime bill, as I believe it provides law enforcement with the information necessary to locate prior offenders, should they strike again. I was particularly pleased to support this provision because New Hampshire has had an exemplary sex offender registration program for several years. In fact, the Department of Justice has complimented the Granite State's program as one of the best in the Nation. Despite my support of the Jacob Wetterling Act, I call on the Senate to amend this legislation because it has come to my attention that this act has established parameters for compliance that are too restrictive. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, while most States have established successful sex offender registration programs, not one is in compliance with the narrowly drawn provisions outlined in the bill. This fact is particularly distressing considering that the penalty for non-compliance is the loss of 10 percent of that State's Edward Byrne Memorial Grant funds. States that already run successful registration programs do not deserve such a penalty. The amendments that I propose will allow States to be in compliance with Jacob Wetterling while retaining their own unique system of registering sexually violent offenders. First, this legislation would allow States to devise their own way of registering paroled offenders. Current law requires States to conduct a mail registration system, which is costly. In New Hampshire and other States, the current system requires offenders to register in person at their local police departments. My amendments would allow these States to retain their current, successful systems. Second, my bill would amend the current provision that requires States to create a board of experts, whose purpose is to determine whether an offender should be labeled as sexually violent and required to register. My amendment would allow States to make this determination through an assessment of the individual for purposes of a sentencing enhancement determination. My own State of New Hampshire is an example of the latter situation in that all people required to register have been designated as sexually violent by a psychiatrist at the time of sentencing. In New Hampshire, no State board needs to be created. Finally, my bill would allow sex offenders to first register with local law enforcement agencies, who then pass the information to the State, the FBI, and other appropriate agencies. These amendments simply recognize that it is not the role of the Federal Government to devise each State's system for dealing with its paroled offenders. Each State's methods and needs are different. The Federal Government should not mandate that each of them conduct identical programs. I ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Amendments of 1996. The current Jacob Wetterling Act is an effective and responsible way to keep track of sexually violent predators, especially those who prey on our children. This act requires States to implement a program through which these types of offenders, once on parole, must register their places of residence with State and local law enforcement agencies. I have always supported the premise behind this provision in the 1994 crime bill, as I believe it provides law enforcement with the information necessary to locate prior offenders, should they strike again. I was particularly pleased to support this provision because New Hampshire has had an exemplary sex offender registration program for several years. In fact, the Department of Justice has complimented the Granite State's program as one of the best in the Nation. Despite my support of the Jacob Wetterling Act, I call on the Senate to amend this legislation because it has come to my attention that this act has established parameters for compliance that are too restrictive. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, while most States have established successful sex offender registration programs, not one is in compliance with the narrowly drawn provisions outlined in the bill. This fact is particularly distressing considering that the penalty for non-compliance is the loss of 10 percent of that State's Edward Byrne Memorial Grant funds. States that already run successful registration programs do not deserve such a penalty. The amendments that I propose will allow States to be in compliance with Jacob Wetterling while retaining their own unique system of registering sexually violent offenders. First, this legislation would allow States to devise their own way of registering paroled offenders. Current law requires States to conduct a mail registration system, which is costly. In New Hampshire and other States, the current system requires offenders to register in person at their local police departments. My amendments would allow these States to retain their current, successful systems. Second, my bill would amend the current provision that requires States to create a board of experts, whose purpose is to determine whether an offender should be labeled as sexually violent and required to register. My amendment would allow States to make this determination through an assessment of the individual for purposes of a sentencing enhancement determination. My own State of New Hampshire is an example of the latter situation in that all people required to register have been designated as sexually violent by a psychiatrist at the time of sentencing. In New Hampshire, no State board needs to be created. Finally, my bill would allow sex offenders to first register with local law enforcement agencies, who then pass the information to the State, the FBI, and other appropriate agencies. These amendments simply recognize that it is not the role of the Federal Government to devise each State's system for dealing with its paroled offenders. Each State's methods and needs are different. The Federal Government should not mandate that each of them conduct identical programs. I ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the National Crime Information Center [NCIC] Database Protection Act of 1996. This legislation will make it a Federal offense to purposely misuse the NCIC data base. The NCIC was originally established in order to centralize information about outstanding warrants and criminal history of citizens of the United States. This data-base allows law enforcement agencies across the United States to have access to any information regarding suspected criminals within their jurisdictions. It is an indisputable fact that the NCIC has helped apprehend thousands of criminals over the years, including Timothy McVeigh, who allegedly bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building. By providing instantaneous and accurate information about individuals with criminal pasts, NCIC has helped reduce recidivism and identify those people who are dangerous to society. It also is an indisputable fact that those individuals whose names are included on the data-base have a right to privacy. They have a right to feel secure that their information will be available only to law enforcement and that the information will be accessed only when it is necessary for law enforcement to perform their prescribed duties. Over the past several years, there have been instances when the NCIC has been used by individuals other than law enforcement officers to check the backgrounds of individuals who are not having a routine background check or under suspicion of a crime. In some cases, law enforcement officers themselves have used the data-base improperly. For instance, NCIC was used by a drug gang in Pennsylvania to identify narcotics agents. The gang got the NCIC information through a corrupt police officer. NCIC was used by an Arizona law enforcement official to locate his ex-girlfriend and kill her. The data-base has also been used by private detectives doing background investigations on political candidates. Unfortunately, these chilling tales are becoming far too common and there is no ready mechanism under which the perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted for misusing the NCIC data-base. There is an obvious need for a law that states in no uncertain terms that the NCIC should not be readily available to any non-law enforcement officers or for any unofficial purposes. We need to send a message that those who are caught violating the privacy of others through NCIC will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I urge my fellow Senators to support this legislation and join in my outrage at the ease with which NCIC information is available to criminals. Our Nation's private citizens are not safe from those who would exploit their personal information. I ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the National Crime Information Center [NCIC] Database Protection Act of 1996. This legislation will make it a Federal offense to purposely misuse the NCIC data base. The NCIC was originally established in order to centralize information about outstanding warrants and criminal history of citizens of the United States. This data-base allows law enforcement agencies across the United States to have access to any information regarding suspected criminals within their jurisdictions. It is an indisputable fact that the NCIC has helped apprehend thousands of criminals over the years, including Timothy McVeigh, who allegedly bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building. By providing instantaneous and accurate information about individuals with criminal pasts, NCIC has helped reduce recidivism and identify those people who are dangerous to society. It also is an indisputable fact that those individuals whose names are included on the data-base have a right to privacy. They have a right to feel secure that their information will be available only to law enforcement and that the information will be accessed only when it is necessary for law enforcement to perform their prescribed duties. Over the past several years, there have been instances when the NCIC has been used by individuals other than law enforcement officers to check the backgrounds of individuals who are not having a routine background check or under suspicion of a crime. In some cases, law enforcement officers themselves have used the data-base improperly. For instance, NCIC was used by a drug gang in Pennsylvania to identify narcotics agents. The gang got the NCIC information through a corrupt police officer. NCIC was used by an Arizona law enforcement official to locate his ex-girlfriend and kill her. The data-base has also been used by private detectives doing background investigations on political candidates. Unfortunately, these chilling tales are becoming far too common and there is no ready mechanism under which the perpetrators of these crimes can be prosecuted for misusing the NCIC data-base. There is an obvious need for a law that states in no uncertain terms that the NCIC should not be readily available to any non-law enforcement officers or for any unofficial purposes. We need to send a message that those who are caught violating the privacy of others through NCIC will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I urge my fellow Senators to support this legislation and join in my outrage at the ease with which NCIC information is available to criminals. Our Nation's private citizens are not safe from those who would exploit their personal information. I ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that the Senate will pass a bill today, S. 1879, that reauthorizes funding for the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. The NIH is one of the few Federal Government agencies that truly receives bipartisan support as it works to respond to the challenges posed by the medical mysteries of our times. I share the overwhelming support for the work generally being done at, and funded by, the NIH with my constituents in New Hampshire who have contacted me about this legislation. The NIH is composed of 24 separate Institutes that conduct basic biomedical research; our investment in the NIH represents over one- third of the total nondefense research and development funding in the Federal Government. Institutes like the National Center for Human Genome Research, which has recently received a tremendous amount of attention for its undertaking of mapping and sequencing human genes to find the genetic bases for disease, continue to change the way we look at science. I think that we have to be aware, however, that each time the science improves, a number of the factors come into play: How to update the standard of ethics; how to manage the flow of information; how to ensure that coordination is being optimized between Centers and Institutes internally at the NIH; how to encourage public/private partnership in the funding of these developments; and how to best prioritize the Federal funding in relation to the pursuit of such critical medical discoveries. Mr. President, I am not certain that, in our role as the overseers of this important Federal agency, we have been as attentive as we need to be to these issue in the reauthorization process; and that is why I am especially pleased that the decision was make to make this a 1-year reauthorization. I believe we need to revisit a number of important items on the NIH agenda next session, and I look forward to being involved in those efforts. For example, the last NIH reauthorization included authority for a foundation which NIH can use to raise funds. Its purposes was to increase coordination with universities and the private sector and make it possible to solicit funds for special projects. I remain uncertain that the foundation is being utilized. It is time to recognize that Federal dollars must function as a means to an end--the appropriations we are able to provide to the NIH will never be enough. But before we begin to craft new schemes to raise additional funds for the NIH, we need to be sure that the mechanisms we have already put in place are functioning as intended. Therefore, I believe the NIH must use their authority to appropriately levy additional funds, to maximize their available resources. In this way, a dedicated effort can be made to increase the awareness of, involvement in, and contributions to our premiere biomedical research facility, rather than continue to rely on the limited taxpayer funds were able to appropriate to the Institutes. In other areas, the NIH receives very high marks. Their support of both intramural clinical research and extramural research funded through grants and is conducted outside NIH, at such premiere facilities as Dartmouth College and the University of New Hampshire, demonstrates their understanding of the need to utilize every resource we have in fighting the diseases which face Americans. I applaud the NIH's efforts to ensure that funding is provided to scientists conducting research beyond the NIH campus. Too often we see Federal agencies adopt the attitude that they have a lock on the science they practice; I believe our Government science administrators need to adopt the attitude of openness and the spirit of cooperation demonstrated at NIH toward their colleagues in academia and the private sector. I am pleased to note that we have included a provision that has long been championed by Senator Hatfield, who has demonstrated a devoted dedication to supporting the research and vision of the NIH. It is a program designed to ensure that young people are encouraged to enter the field of basic clinical research by providing needed financial assistance. It is the students of science who represent our hope for the future, and I am hopeful that this program will provide them the necessary support to take on a career in this critical field. So I am pleased to offer my support for this legislation today, realizing that several outstanding issues remain before us in relation to this reauthorization. I am hopeful, Mr. President, that when we return in 1997, we will turn to this legislation early in the opening days of the 105th Congress, and make a bipartisan effort to further improve this agency that offers so much to so many.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I have a question for the chairman Senator Bond. I congratulate him for tackling the difficult problem of renewal of section 8 contracts in a comprehensive manner, providing for renewal of all contracts with rents less than 120 percent of fair market rent at the existing contract rent and permitting FHA-insured projects with rents over 120 percent of fair market rents either to accept rents at 120 percent of fair market rents, or to enter the demonstration. The Senator also permits projects financed or insured by State or local agencies, or under section 202, 811, and 515, to be renewed at current rents. However, there is an omission, with regard to conventionally financed contracts with rents over 120 percent of fair market rent, which are not explicitly covered by the legislation. Many of these projects, including some in New Hampshire, were developed in the early years of section 8, and I assume that the conferees did not intend to exclude them.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the demise of one very important piece of legislation--the 1996 FDA reform bill--and what I hope will be the success of another--the animal drug availability reform bill. These bills represent important Republican priorities: American patients and consumers, innovation in medicine and consumer products, and a smaller role for the Federal Government. Republicans put forth an FDA reform bill, supported in the Labor Committee by three of our Democratic colleagues, that puts the needs of our citizens first. Our goal in developing this legislation was clearly to expedite the bureaucratic review process at the Food and Drug Administration, while still recognizing their role in ensuring the safety of products such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and food additives being introduced into domestic and international commerce. In the Labor Committee, our discussions focused on the reprioritization of Agency resources and attitudes in order to achieve this goal. And while some have characterized these provisions as extreme, I believe that it is important to recognize that a number of provisions in the bill that our chairman, the senior Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] assembled simply recodify current law--albeit not current practice--by the FDA. In addition, this legislation contained a number of incremental improvements to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. While I will freely admit that many of these provisions do not go as far as the changes that I advocate, I recognize the balance that Senator Kassebaum was attempting to strike; that is why I voted in favor of this legislation in Committee. I also would like to mention the spirit of the negotiations that I observed Senator Kassebaum engaged in with our Democratic colleagues and the administration. I thought her approach to this important issue was eminently fair, balanced, and accommodating. Mr. President, FDA reform is not a new idea. Like so many of the issues we take on, discussion and debate about FDA reform has been going on for many years. For example, the Edwards Commission was established by charter in 1989 and authorized by then Secretary of Health and Human Service Dr. Louis Sullivan. This task force was formed in response to a growing perception that FDA was in crisis. Serious questions had been raised about the agency's ability to do its job. After a year of public testimony and study, they published a report in May, 1991--a detailed analysis of the FDA's inner workings. The report concluded that the FDA was an agency in crisis. A large part of the report focused on internal structure, organization and management; the report recommended individual center adopt mission statements and that paper work flow studies be conducted agencywide. As a result of the report, Congress gave FDA substantially more money and staff--but I think that we all now understand that simply providing the FDA more resources does not solve the problems they have at the Agency. Mr. President, I originally had high hopes for FDA reform this Congress. On March 16, 1995, in a speech at an environmental facility in Virginia announcing phase II of the Reinventing Government initiative, the President even acknowledged that FDA reform was a vital issue. In RE-GO II, the administration issued specific recommendations for the reform of the FDA to be achieved through legislative and regulatory changes. However, I was concerned by the quotation used from the President's rhetoric on the first page of the follow up white paper: ``The Food and Drug Administration has made American drugs and medical devices the envy of the world and in demaind all over the world.'' I believe that it is this sort of perception that has gotten us to the point where we are today: a regulatory system that no longer has clear boundaries or delineated goals, is anticompetitive, and has an attitude that we must function as ``the FDA to the world.'' Former Commissioner Dr. Charles Edwards put it more appropriately when he said that, ``The mission of the FDA is consumer protection. Unfortunately, the FDA has tended to confuse its mission with the power to promote what it deems to be appropriate personal and professional behavior.'' No matter--the administration's white paper of reforms proved to be more of a red herring than anything else. The FDA has demonstrated a lack of investment on their part in the private sectors' efforts to bring cutting edge medicine to American patients. Businesses do not engage in activities lightly, especially small business making substantial investments in their own future. The FDA has also indicated an unwillingness to let scientists determine the standard of science, to let doctors freely practice medicine, and to allow patients to be informed about their range of options. To the FDA, it all seems to be about money. The authorized user fees--or taxes placed on the backs of companies working to provide innovative health care solutions--in the Administration's budget request continue to grow. The Administration also continues to annually request two unauthorized user fees: one would levy a new tax on medical device manufacturers and another would be an important inspection fee. Increasing taxes will not solve the problems that persist at the Food and Drug Administration. Peter Barton Hutt, former FDA General Counsel, summed this up well in a speech before the Utah International Medical Device Congress in 1993. He stated, ``User fees is a false issue. If we do not change the philosophy of the FDA reviewers about the criteria for approving either Section 510(k) notifications or PMA applications, we can triple the number of people in the FDA and not get one additional application approved.'' It is these sort of changes in philosophy, as well as corrections to the fiscal priorities, that we are seeking at the FDA through our reform efforts. But, unfortunately, Congress cannot legislate attitude. I also remain unconvinced that new user fees would ever be sunset, even if the application backlog is cleared. I think the discussion we will soon begin in regard to the renegotiation of PDUFA will be revealing on this count. I also have yet to see any proposal that would refund user fees to any company if the product review was not completed within the statutory timeline--this is an agency that wants to function like a business without regard to the rules of business--``Get what you pay for.'' I don't see why businesses should be expected to tolerate this. In recent years, there also seems to have been a marked shift from product approval to enforcement at FDA. While there is no clear cut cause for this sea change, the intimidation that has resulted from these actions is great. There is, of course, no way to accurately measure the chilling effect this may be having on relevant industries. But this police state mentality has spilled over into the appropriate regulation of product safety. Companies are terrified that they will be made the victim of a public campaign in the media. The FDA is reputed for its role in propagating widespread fear of retaliation against any company that would cooperate with Congress in its examination of the FDA's mission and regulatory practices. We have found that a number of individuals and companies fear retribution in the form of delayed FDA product reviews and regulatory discrimination if they should criticize the agency. This fear has led to hesitancy on the part of potential witnesses to provide committees with the testimony that they need in order to make an informed judgment on the policies and practices of the agency. Commissioner Kessler has argued that the industry perceives issues to be something other than what they actually are, such as the Reference List being viewed as a ``black list.'' While we appreciated the assurances made to the Labor Committee by the Commissioner that such fears are unfounded, I have yet to learn what affirmative steps the FDA has taken to reassure those regulated by the agency that they may feel completely comfortable exercising their right to speak freely to the Congress, without threat of retribution or retaliation from the agency. I have to wonder how many stories continue to go untold, how many problems go unexplored, how many questions remain unanswered. However, Mr. President, I am pleased to note that a couple of FDA- related problems have been resolved this Congress. One dealt with the untenable restrictions placed on U.S. manufacturers regarding their ability to export products approved for use in other countries, but not yet approved for domestic commerce. Working closely with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, we engaged in a lengthy dialog with ranking minority member of the Labor Committee, Mr. Kennedy. The result was passage of reform of sections 801 and 802 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, provisions which govern the import and export of FDA- regulated products. Subsequently, these provisions were signed into law, a major victory for U.S. manufacturers who are no longer obligated to build factories and send jobs and investment capital overseas. A second major issue that was partially resolved dealt with the ridiculously unscientific Delaney Clause. Countless experts and virtually every former Commissioner have stated the fact that a ``zero risk'' standard is not only unscientific, but virtually immeasurable. As analytical examinations have improved, science has been able to detect ever-shrinking amounts of trace chemicals in our food supply-- excellent science means that minute, formerly undetectable amounts of pesticides and chemicals can be detected, and even though they pose no threat over a human lifetime, would be banned under the unrealistic Delaney scheme. Fortunately, this Congress had the bipartisan wisdom to institute a realistic, scientifically based standard in place of the Delaney Clause as it related to the regulation of pesticides. Congress recognized that in this day and age ``zero risk'' would come close to meaning ``zero food.'' The Delaney reform signed into law takes us out of the realm of the theory of a health treat, and into a food safety realm that balances health considerations with an abundant, affordable food supply. And, Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will add this animal drug reform compromise to the list of items we have accomplished this Congress. I understand from my colleague from Kansas that this legislation is the result of a real effort on the part of the FDA, the relevant industry, and her staff. I also understand that the House has taken action on this matter, so there is a realistic chance for these provisions to become law--the type of all that we can all feel good about, a law that balances consumer safety with an appropriate level of Federal regulation. I also hope that we will have an opportunity to clear the way for one other related measure before Congress adjourns--the biomaterials bill that Senators Gorton, Lieberman, and McCain have been championing for many months. This legislation, which provides reasonable relief to the suppliers of critical raw materials. This relief is necessary to ensure that life-sustaining and life-enhancing devices will remain readily available to American patients. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that the discussion of FDA reform will continue into the next Congress. This is a high priority for many of us, as it is such a high priority for American patients and consumers on a daily basis. We will continue to work hard to define an appropriate role for the Federal Government--for the FDA-- in the lives of our citizens.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my thanks to Prodigy Service Corp. for responding promptly to the letter sent out by 19 Senators and myself on August 1, 1996. In the letter, my colleagues and I urged Prodigy and several other Internet service providers and search engines to adopt company policies to block access to bomb-making information through their services. Prodigy is the first of these companies to respond and I am pleased to announce that letter provides some hope in our efforts to curb the availability of bomb construction information on the Internet. This outstanding company has already begun to offer its customers free installment of the CyberPatrol access control software program, which blocks access to bomb-making information. This generous contribution to our Nation's safety and well-being is commendable. While Prodigy's efforts help solve the problem of the wide availability of dangerous bomb construction information, the CyberPatrol program also demonstrates that blocking bomb-making instructions on the Internet is possible. At this time, I ask that the Senate join me in urging other Internet service providers to adopt similar policies. I ask that Prodigy's response be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Prodigy, New York, NY, August 27, 1996. Hon. Judd Gregg, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Gregg: Thank you for your letter of August 1, regarding bomb-making information on the Internet. We, too, are outraged by the cowardly, senseless acts of terrorism that have victimized so many innocent individuals and families. We are repulsed by the twisted minds of people who disseminate bomb-making information for reasons known only to them. As you know, bomb-making information is available widely and publicly today through a large number of channels, including bookstores and libraries, and governmental attempts to restrict the availability of otherwise lawful information raise serious First Amendment concerns. Nevertheless, Prodigy tries to strike a responsible balance, providing a safe environment for users to openly exchange valuable information, while enabling them to insure they won't come in contact with inappropriate material. Unlike other media, the online environment does offer an effective way for consumers to exercise control. Earlier this year, Prodigy began offering our members the CyberPatrol access control software program, which they can install on their family's personal computer at no extra charge (Prodigy picks up the cost of the program). This easy-to-use program automatically filters and blocks access to bomb-making information and other inappropriate content on the Internet. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Marc Jacobson, Vice President and General Counsel.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, which is not about rich and poor, but about marketplace economies and capitalism, which made this country great. Basically, what we have here is a program which essentially allows people to take advantage at an extraordinarily low rate, a subsidized interest, paid for by the taxpayers of America. Mr. President, $58 million a year is spent on this land. The United States gets back $14 million. What we are suggesting is that for those people who use this land excessively, who have a large number of AUM's that exceed the 97 percent of the people who are not going to be impacted, just the top 3 percent of the people using this land, who use it to such an extensive rate, that those people should pay a rate that is a higher rate. Today's rate is 43 percent less than what was paid in 1980. What we are suggesting is a rate which does not even account for what the inflation increase would be had that 1980 rate not been brought forward. It is a reduced rate, even by the simple terms of reflecting back to the 1980's and adding inflation. We are suggesting a rate much closer to fairness, to equity, that gives to the taxpayers of this country, all of whom happen to own this land--it is not just owned by folks in the West--a reasonable return on the investment they are making. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first, I wish to recognize the fine statement given by the Senator from Wyoming who expresses well his thoughts and purposes on this issue. I am not in agreement, but I have the highest regard for him as a Senator and respect the fact his position is one sincerely and thoughtfully reached. However, I join with my colleague from Arkansas in supporting his amendment and my amendment to address this issue of how we bring into balance the cost of grazing on public lands relative to the needs of the cattlemen and the needs of the taxpayer. First of all, it should be stressed that this is not a local issue solely. It is a national issue. It is not even a western issue. It is a national issue. The 270 million acres of land that are subject to grazing permits belong to all Americans. They are America's heritage, all Americans' heritage. The current grazing fee formula produces a fee that covers only a small part of the costs of Federal grazing programs and is far below the rate charged by Western States and private lessors. The current Federal fee, as has been stated, is $1.35 animal unit month, AUM. This level mirrors the floor set by Executive order during the Reagan administration. The Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service predicts the $1.35 fee will remain the fee charged by the Federal Government through the year 2005. The current fee, $1.35, means it costs less to feed a 600-pound cow on public lands than it costs to feed your pet dog, your pet cat or even your parakeet, thanks to the subsidy paid for by the American taxpayers. Two percent--2 percent--of the 22,000 permittees control 50 percent of the BLM acreage that is grazed. Two percent control 50 percent. So we are not talking here about the small farmer, which was referred to by the Senator from Wyoming. We are talking about the large cattlemen. Additionally, it should be pointed out that the wealthiest 9 percent of the ranchers graze cattle on public lands controlling 60 percent of the grange land. So what this amendment does is try to address that disproportionate allocation of assets to a very small number of ranchers. According to the Department of Agriculture, the Economic Research Service again, under S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Managements Act, which passed the Senate but unfortunately has stalled in the House, the fee paid by ranchers would have increased to $1.63. I heard it mentioned by the Senator from Arkansas that it actually might have been $2.18. Whatever, it would have increased, and that is, obviously, a significantly higher number than the $1.35 which is being paid this year. This increase, however, is still less than the Federal fee paid between the years 1989 and 1994. We are actually working at a fee base which is less than what was paid to ranchers back in the period 1989 to 1994, and even if the increases were put in place, it would still be less than those fees that were charged just a few years ago. The amendment which has been offered is a very simple amendment. It raises the fee charged by the Federal Government to the country's wealthiest ranchers--and I think this is important to stress--we are talking about 9 percent who own--control--60 percent of the range. They don't own it, it is owned by the taxpayers, those who graze more than 2,000 AUM's on Federal lands. It also maintains the current fee--and this is important--the current fee which, remember, as we just mentioned, is less than was charged a few years ago for a 5-year period. It maintains that current fee for ranchers who have less than 2,000 AUM. So, for the smaller and the moderate-size rancher, he stays the same, $1.35. For the larger rancher, it grows to a reasonable number. Under this amendment, therefore, 9 percent of the ranchers, those operating 2,000 or more AUM's, would see an increase in the fee paid to graze cattle on public lands, while 91 percent of the family ranchers, the ones referred to by the Senator from Wyoming, their livestock fee on Federal lands would remain the same, $1.35 AUM's. Those companies and corporations which would be impacted are significant, and the Senator from Arkansas went through a long list of some of them. There is the billionaire rancher who owns more than 50,000 AUM's in Iowa, Oregon, and Nevada. There is Newmont Mining Co., a wealthy gold mining company, which controls 12,000 AUM's, and there is Anheuser-Busch which controls 8,000 AUM's, the Japanese company, Zenchiku which is involved here. It is ironic, the American taxpayers end up subsidizing a Japanese company which owns Japanese farming rights in the United States to ship beef back to Japan when we are already running a significant trade surplus with Japan. That is the way it works. Remember, this amendment does not impact the small or moderate-size family farmer, it impacts the big guys, that 9 percent that controls more than 2,000 AUM's. This amendment cannot and should not be construed as being a threat, therefore, to the small rancher. Under this amendment, small ranches, whose operating AUM's are less than 2,000, will continue to have this $1.35 fee. Under the amendment, these small ranchers will pay 43 percent less per AUM in 1997, and each year thereafter, than they paid if they were ranching back in 1980. Remember this, under this amendment, those small ranchers, medium-sized ranchers, in fact, will be paying 43 percent less to ranch on Federal lands than they paid in 1980. The point, however, is that the large ranchers should not also be paying 43 percent less. Thus, this amendment assures that the wealthier ranchers, those with more than 2,000 AUM's, that billionaire rancher up in Idaho, Anheuser- Busch, that Japanese company, will pay a fair fee for the right to ranch on what is public land. This chart I have here, ``Public Land Grazing Fees, 1980-1996,'' highlights a point I have just been making, that those ranchers on Federal land in 1980 were paying $2.36. And with an inflation-adjusted rate, it would have been $4.60, but actually today they are paying $1.35. So, the difference between these two prices, if you have it adjusted for inflation, would be the real difference in what we are now spending to subsidize people on Federal lands as versus the 1980 rate. What we are saying is that the small rancher can keep paying $1.35, which is almost $1 less than what they paid in 1980, and we are not suggesting that even the large ranchers should pay the inflation- adjusted rate, $4.60; we are just saying that the larger ranchers should have to pay a fairer rate. In many instances, that fair rate would be significantly less than the $4.60 that should be charged if there was an inflation adjustment from the 1980 rate. The argument is often made by individuals who oppose this amendment, the Federal Government should be able to set such a low rate with regard to the use of Federal land for grazing due to the low quality of the Federal land, if the Federal land on which the sheep and cattle are grazing has little or no investment value and is of little value generally. I have another chart which I think pretty much dispels that argument. This chart shows exactly the opposite. In 1996, the Federal Government collected receipts worth $14.5 million based upon $1.35 AUM paid by all ranchers. However, according to the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Government spent--spent--$58 million on rangeland management and improvement. That is a net windfall of $43 million for all ranches using the public lands. This funding for ranchland management improvement has a direct effect upon the land improvements. Improvements that are involved here include the seeding, weeding, fencing, water collection on public land used by wealthy ranchers. These are very conservative numbers taken straight from the BLM. Some estimates of the annual loss to the Treasury, using the current fee system, range up to $150 million. In fact, there was one estimate of $400 million done by the Cato Institute. But the practical implications of this is, if the land were worth less, it has clearly got to be worth at least what you are investing. If you are investing $58 million in it and you are only getting $14 million for that investment, first, you are not doing very well on your return for investment, but, second, it is fairly obvious that the value of the land is approximately 4 times, 3\1/2\ times the value that is being charged for it. So the argument that this is valueless land or land of less value than States' lands or private lands simply does not hold up to the numbers, to the very simple numbers which come from the BLM. Grazing fees are decreasing, even though the Federal Government collects only a fraction of the moneys spent for rangeland improvement. This chart here, which was referred to, I believe, by the Senator from Arkansas, illustrates that only about 25 percent of grazing fees' receipts collected go to the General Treasury. In fact, 50 percent of these funds go back to rangeland improvement. That was mentioned extensively by the Senator from Arkansas. So not only do farmers, cattle ranchers receive a subsidized rate, the fee does not even cover the cost of the Federal upkeep. These ranchers pay much too little, causing the rest of the American taxpayers to pick up the price, which is much too high. The average private land fee charged per AUM since 1981 has increased 32 percent. I have another chart which shows this. The average private land fee charged per AUM since 1981 has increased 32 percent, from $7.88 in 1981 to $10.30, in 1995. The average State fee charged for people to put cattle on State land has increased 49 percent, from $2.53 to $3.76. The payment for leasing Federal land during this same timeframe, 1981 to 1996, has, as I mentioned before, decreased--decreased--43 percent. That, simply, is not fair to the general taxpayer. Private grazing land lease rates continue to remain substantially higher than the price charged by the Federal Government, and, as I mentioned before, this is not necessarily a function of the land being more valuable. Or, if it is a function of the land being more valuable, it is not the fact that the Federal land has not had a significant amount of investment put into it--in fact, an investment which is about 3\1/2\ times the amount of the fees raised. This chart here shows the difference between the private and the public grazing fee rate. The chart shows the amount of money the Federal Government receives in grazing fees receipts over the last 6 years, $178 million, versus the amount of money the Federal Government will receive in the grazing fees over the next 6 years. That is $178 versus $133 million. The Federal Government is estimating that it will receive $45 million less, therefore, in grazing fee receipts over the next 6 years than it received over the prior 6 years. Is this for less grazing? I do not think so. It is because, for a period in there, we were charging a rate that was much closer to what is reasonable, and that rate has been cut. Obviously, again, the taxpayers are taking the short end of the stick. This makes absolutely no sense. In a time of tightening budgets and higher deficits, we are on a pattern to collect less money from these huge ranchers, and, unfortunately, the giveaway to the wealthy ranchers is growing. Why should the American taxpayers continue to subsidize only a select few? Three percent of the Nation's cattle operators and 5 percent of the sheep producers have Federal grazing permits. So 97 percent of America's cattle operators, 95 percent of America's sheep producers do not use Federal lands, so they are not getting the benefit of this subsidy. Every other rancher, except those grazing cattle on public lands, has had to keep up with the cost of inflation, paying higher prices for corn, for grain used to feed their cattle. But the cost of using the taxpayers' Federal rangeland is estimated to remain at an all-time low, $1.35 per AUM, through the year 2005. This chart, which is another way of stating the chart table that the Senator from Arkansas displayed, shows the difference between what is paid on private land and State land fees versus the $1.35 AUM's. While the Federal Government allows ranchers to graze for $1.35, this chart shows the Western States breakdown of the fees charged, and in every case it far exceeds what we get at the Federal level. Again, we heard the argument that is because this land is better land; maybe it is better land. But the fact is, this chart shows beyond any question of logic or debate, when you are putting $58 million back into the Federal land for the $14 million you are taking out, you clearly have an investment in the land which far exceeds the value that is being charged for the lands, and thus you should at least try to return a better investment of that for the taxpayer. The land may not be as good for grazing, but at least from a standpoint of investment, the dollar figure is 3\1/2\ times that rate. This amendment seeks to increase the fee charged by the Federal Government, to bring it in line with what the fair market value of land should be. Under this amendment the largest ranchers--remember, we are dealing with just the largest ranchers, that 9 percent of the ranchers who control the large acreage, who control more than 2,000 AUM's--will be charged the higher of the average State fee in which the Federal Government is located or the Federal fee plus 25 percent. Small ranchers and moderate-sized ranchers will continue to get the $1.35 rate, which rate remains 43 percent less than what they were paying. This amendment is done on a sliding scale, meaning either the large ranchers--the billionaire cattlemen, Anheuser-Busch, and the Japanese corporation--get the first 2,000 AUM's at a lower rate, $1.35, and they do not start to pay more until they exceed the 2,000, so if they have 2,050, only the last 50 will be charged the increased fee, which of course will be some additional money. In the instance of Anheuser-Busch where they have 8,000 AUM's, 6,000 of those additional AUM's exceed the 2,000, and will be subject to the higher fee. Is that unfair to Anheuser-Busch? No, it is not, because the taxpayer, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, is already dramatically subsidizing the cost of Anheuser-Busch running its cattle on public land or that Japanese company which has the 6,000 AUM's. Yes, on the additional 4,000 AUM's they will have to pay a higher fee. Is that unfair to the Japanese company? No, it is not, because the taxpayer is already substantially subsidizing that Japanese company's running of cattle on Federal lands. What we are suggesting is that the taxpayer receive a percentage of a better return on the investment that it is making in that public land for the benefit of those cattle. It is not asking that a better return come from the smaller or moderate-sized company, but is only asking that the better return come from the larger--the millionaire cattlemen, actually the multimillionaire cattlemen in this instance--and the international companies. Some of the other companies that are involved in this are Texaco, Hewlett-Packard, Getty, Union Oil, Hunt Oil, and the Newmont Mining Corp. The amendment is estimated to save the American people about $8 million in 1997 and $40 million over 6 years. By Federal standards in this Senate that is not a dramatic amount of money. It is a lot of money in New Hampshire. In fact, we could run a State government for a considerable amount of time on $48 million. The fact is it is important that we make this statement. These are public lands. The taxpayer does have a right to expect a reasonable return on their investment in these public lands. The fact that we have targeted this amendment so it will just affect the wealthy, those who have the wherewithal to pay the higher fee, does, I think on its face, make it a fair amendment. Thus, I join with the Senator from Arkansas and hope that the Senate will favorably consider this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to raise the issue today of how we, as a nation, are continuing to address the question of terrorism. Yesterday, the committee which I chair, the Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce, a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, had the chance to hear from the Attorney General, Janet Reno, who is, I think, doing a very admirable and effective job as Attorney General, on what the policies are of the administration relative to the issue of addressing in a strategic way the threats of terrorist acts directed at Americans, not only in the United States but overseas. Clearly, I think we now understand, America understands that this is our primary international threat to American lives and American interests. We may have instances going on in Iraq today which are significant. We may have wars going on in Bosnia which are significant. But as it relates to the threat to America, nothing right now is more significant than the threat of terrorist actions. Coming out of the cold war, I think we, as a nation, decided to become a little more complacent. We felt we had gotten past one of the great hurdles of history: a confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, a confrontation which was always overlaying with the issue of nuclear annihilation and confrontation on a variety of fronts, but, most important, the possibility that mankind might end up in a nuclear war. With the end of the cold war, there was a great sigh of relief, obviously, and appropriately so. We, as a nation, went back to looking after problems which are American problems and our perspective became one of looking at our internal issues. But in the process, we couldn't step out of the world arena, and the fact is that the United States remains the single most influential nation in the world. As would be expected, because we maintain that position of influence, we obtain enemies and people use us as their foil and they use us as their rallying point as they try to gin up, or generate, their concerns and their own issues in other parts of the world. We have, therefore, become targeted by large groups, a large number of groups, disparate in nature, as the opposition. Many of these groups are motivated for religious reasons, fanatical religious reasons. Many of them are motivated for reasons that they see themselves as oppressed and they see the capitalist marketplace approach that we take to the world as being an oppressive approach, which, of course, is wrong, but it is their attitude. We view ourselves as a generous people, and we are a generous people and a people that has a history of not seeking any territorial gain, not using our military forces for the purposes of exploiting other nations. We have been through two major world wars where we have been left as the most powerful nation on Earth and have not used that for any purposes of aggrandizement of the American situation, but have rather, in a most generous way, rebuilt our enemies and allowed them to proceed on a course which has improved the lifestyle of our enemies we confronted in past wars. So it comes as a surprise to the American people that there are people out there, that there are interest groups out there, that there are actually even nations out there that view us as their enemy and wish to exercise against the American people horrific acts, acts that involve the killing of innocent individuals--children, people who have no involvement in the military. Yet, that is the way it is in today's world, and we must be realistic about it, and we must acknowledge the fact that as we move into the next century, and certainly in the beginning of the next century, that our most significant threat to Americans is going to be generated by terrorist action. It is not only terrorist action which may involve a bomb placed on an airplane, it is terrorist action which could well go beyond that. It is terrorist action which could involve, of course, a threat of chemical activity, biological activity and, of course, even of nuclear activity. So the issue for us as a Government must be: How do we reorient ourselves as a nation, which for years structured its defensive mechanisms for the purposes of confronting the Soviet Union, a definable threat, a threat which, although huge, massive and awesome, was at least able to be brought into focus because the Soviet Union was a definable entity, how do we shift from that sort of a threat to a threat which is so amorphous, to a threat which comes at us from so many different directions, and a threat which is so much more difficult to tie to rational thought, and respond to it in a rational way? That becomes the main issue for us as a nation relative to how we structure our defensive policies over the next few years. So the hearing which we held yesterday was for the purposes of trying to get an idea as to how the White House and the administration is approaching this issue. The way that they appear to be approaching it is that they are going to put more money into certain agencies which have responsibilities for addressing questions of terrorist threat. They have sent up a supplemental package of spending which represents about $1.1 billion. They sent it up about a week ago. Many have asked whether or not the package was structured for political purposes or whether it was structured for substantive purposes. And that is probably a very legitimate question in the middle of a Presidential campaign, because the fact is that over a year ago the President set, theoretically set in place, an Executive order which should have led to the definition of the policy which would have then led to the commitment of resources. It is ironic that it has taken a year for that policy to evolve to the point where money comes forward--or a proposal to spend money comes forward just a few weeks before an election, whereas, clearly, one would have presumed that if there was a need for more dollars to be spent, and you had a 1-year lead time, that you would have requested those additional dollars at the beginning of the appropriating process, which occurred back in March and April of this year. But independent of that question of whether or not it was a primarily political motivation for bringing this forward at this time, there is a question of whether or not the request comes in the terms of a strategy or whether it comes in the terms of a haphazard response to the issue, to the threat of a terrorist action against the United States. For the part of these dollars which are under the jurisdiction of the committee on which I serve, which is the State, Commerce and Justice Committee, of the $1.1 billion that the President requested, about $300 million of that comes under my committee's jurisdiction. Our committee, about 5 months ago, took a look at the way we were approaching terrorism and responding to terrorism, and decided we were not doing enough. Our committee has jurisdiction over the FBI, over the State Department, over the DEA, over the INS, over a number of agencies which clearly have front-line responsibility on the issue of terrorism. So we set up a proposal which essentially outlined a number of basic approaches to how we could better address the issue of terrorism. First, we asked that the White House give us a strategic plan by November 15. We picked November 15 because we did not want it to end up being a political plan. We wanted it to end up being a substantive plan. Thus, we pushed it past the election so that it would not end up in the political whirlwind that occurs before every Presidential election.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. It is absolutely critical that we get such a proposal. Second, we felt that if we were going to adequately address the terrorist issue, we should do it in an orderly manner, that first we should address what the threats are. And that means we have to beef up a number of functions in the Federal agencies that have responsibilities, specifically the FBI area. We need to put more agents on-site on this issue. We need to also be improving our ability to respond to a chemical and biological attack. In the international arena, we need to make sure that our personnel who are serving overseas are protected from attack, and, therefore, we need to significantly increase the security, physical security of people who are serving overseas, not only the people who are serving, but the physical security for their families, which is very important. We should not be putting at risk either an individual who works for the Government or the family of that individual who has gone overseas to live with that individual. Fourth, we addressed the interrelationship of the Federal agencies and the State agencies, because although this is a uniquely Federal role, the role of protecting this country against terrorist action, there are tremendous strengths which can be drawn by a coordinated policy of State agencies. So we took all this together and had a package that I think was put together in a fairly thoughtful and concise way. We came up with a need for additional dollars, about $150 million. And we took money out of other accounts--other accounts--and moved them into the spending accounts which were necessary to pay for these additional resources to improve our efforts relative to terrorists. Now the White House comes along, and they increase that number from $150 million to $300-plus million. There is some overlap here. We are not absolutely sure what the dollar difference is, but let us presume the dollar difference is over $100 million. Yet, in doing this, they have suggested no offsets; they have not suggested where we should take this money from. They said simply, let us put more money into this and that and more money into something else. That is not really a responsible way to do this. To the extent more dollars are needed than the package which we put together, it should be paid for. We should recognize that the priority in protecting this country from terrorism is high enough so that those dollars that we are going to allocate to terrorism should represent a reallocation and should not just be used to aggravate the deficit. That is the first thing. Second, if the White House's decision is to spend this additional money to expand those accounts, they have to do it in a coordinated way. This, I guess, is where I have my greatest concern. I asked the Attorney General about this, and, of course, the Attorney General feels there is coordination. But as you look at what is going on, and how the different instances of terrorism that we have seen so far have occurred and how they have been reacted to, you sense maybe there is not as much coordination as there should be. For example, has the President of the United States ever sat down with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State around the table, and said, ``What is our strategy on approaching international terrorism? How do we get about anticipating a terrorist act against the United States?'' We are very good, I believe, once a terrorist act has occurred, in reacting and investigating. And the FBI, I am absolutely confident, will reach the bottom as to what happened, find out what happened in the TWA situation and in the Atlanta situation and in the Saudi situation. But we should be ahead of that as much as possible, ahead of that curve. To be ahead of that curve, you simply have to have cooperation at the top, with the senior officials within the Government, and it has to be made a priority with the President. The President actually has to physically sit in that room for at least a few meetings and drive the process so that we get a substantive strategy, the purpose of which is to anticipate where the terrorist threat is coming from and be ready to take action prior to the incident occurring. My sense is that although strides have been made in this area, and although there is a sincere effort on the part of all the major players, certainly in the Defense Department, the intelligence agency, the CIA, in the State Department, and at Justice, my sense still is that there is not an attitudinal approach which says, we intend to anticipate, we intend to coordinate, and we intend to have an effort which tries to strategically position ourselves to be ahead of the curve in the area of addressing the terrorist threat. We should be approaching this with the same thought process that we used relative to the Soviet Union when we considered it to be a threat. When we saw the Soviet Union as a threat, basically the Defense Department spent an inordinate amount of time--not inordinate, an appropriate amount of time, a huge amount of time, dollars, resources and people on developing scenarios anticipating various events. We do not have that type of structure. We do not have that type of dollar commitment or personnel commitment yet in the area of strategic planning. We have it in the area of reactive planning. It is improving. Just yesterday, the FBI asked that they be able to move 200 senior agents into the Terrorism Activist Unit, which is a very appropriate action to take, not putting green new agents into this area. We are putting our best into this area. That is a good decision by the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. We are going to increase the terrorism functions within the FBI by 5 percent, so basically 10 percent of the FBI effort would be directed toward counterterrorism. The fact is that we still do not have a strategic structure overlaying this. That strategic structure and how it gets overlayed and how the process gets evolved really has to come from the White House with the President. We are going to see, unfortunately, that the failure to have this type of a structure probably was one of the problems in Saudi Arabia. There will be a report coming out sometime next week that will point out that there was not adequate anticipation of the threat, even though there was knowledge of the threat, there was not adequate participation and anticipation of the threat, and that the senior officials within the Government simply did not react properly. Why did they not act properly? I think probably because there was not a protocol in place because there had been no strategic planning put in place for how to get ahead of the curb. We still are taking the view that we wait until the act occurs rather than taking the view that we go on the offensive. I recognize that the White House is trying hard in this area and the administration is trying hard. I greatly admire the efforts of the Attorney General in this area. I think the effort is incomplete. We have recognized but have not yet absorbed the nature of this, its significance to us, and the fact that we as a nation are going to have to use all our resources, all our creativity and our imagination in order to address it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, earlier this year the Vice-President of the United States, Albert Gore, directed the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to make available to the Federal Employees' Union the home addresses of all Federal employees regardless of their affiliation with the Federal Employee Union. The Administration claims this is just a step to enable the unions to communicate with employees in an emergency. Subsequently, on March 8, 1996, OPM published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking which raises considerable privacy concerns and in my opinion severely undermines the Privacy Act of 1974. Citing as its reason for the new rulemaking--the confusion and turmoil caused by the Government shutdowns--OPM proposed permitting Federal agencies to release employee addresses to recognized Federal labor organizations. This notice went on to state that, ``OPM has determined that the most current home addresses of OPM employees are contained in the payroll system records. Because this system is updated for changes annually by OPM employees and is automated, it is the most efficient, as well as the most accurate, mechanism for releasing this information.'' What perplexes me is that if the Federal Employee Union is interested in obtaining the addresses of all Federal employees, the union itself should ask for the addresses. The idea of mandating the availability of Federal employee addresses is outrageous and a direct violation of the Privacy Act of 1974. The Federal Government cannot and should not make available to the Federal labor unions the addresses of all Federal employees regardless of their union or non-union affiliation. This would not be permitted under my amendment. My amendment is a simple one. It states that no Federal funds will be made available to the OPM or any other Federal Government agency to provide Federal Government employee addresses to anyone unless authorized by that given employee or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. I ask unanimous consent that a July 28, 1996 Washington Post article, and a subsequent letter to the editor appearing in the Washington Post on August 12, 1996, be printed in the record following my remarks. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for making my amendment part of their managers' amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit today about an issue which is on everyone's mind in America, which is the question of terrorism. I spoke briefly yesterday on this matter, but I wanted to expand on those comments because there is a great deal happening within this body and the other body and in the Government generally on how we react to this new world, which has brought this threat to us with such immediacy, as we see in Atlanta, as we see in flight 800. I think it is important to review what is happening here in the Federal response to it, where we should go from here, and also to talk a little bit about other areas that need to be addressed. First off, the scope of the problem, I think, cannot be overestimated. The immediacy of the problem cannot be overstated. The fact is, we have stepped out of the cold war into a very hot war, and it is a hot war that involves people who have targeted Americans and American institutions with the intention of bringing physical harm to those institutions and to our citizens. We should not be naive about this. We are a nation which has some wonderful characteristics. One of the great characteristics of our Nation is that we always believe in the best in people. We always give people the benefit of the doubt. We are an optimistic and upbeat country. It is our nature to think positively, not only about ourselves but about our neighbors throughout the world. That is a wonderful characteristic, and, hopefully, nothing will ever cause us to lose that better nature which makes up the American personality. But it is time, also, for us to be realistic. There are evil people out there. Unfortunately, there are also governments out there which fund, support, and endorse those evil individuals. There are people out there whose intention it is to kill Americans, to destroy American institutions simply because we are Americans. Some of this terrorist threat is obviously domestic. But the domestic threat is a manageable threat. It is a containable threat, and it is one which I believe our institutions are well structured to address already. The FBI and the various State agencies which do law enforcement are well-tooled and well-experienced in how to address, to meet, to obtain intelligence on and to respond to, domestic terrorism and acts of violence. We, as a nation, have had this happen in the past. I remember in the 1960's we had a group called the Weathermen, in New York. We have been able to respond. I do not have any question in my mind but that we will find the perpetrator of the bombing in Atlanta and we will prosecute that person, and we will do likewise relative to Oklahoma in the prosecution area and obtain a conviction, hopefully, if that is what the jury finds appropriate. So, domestic terrorism is a very severe problem, but it is not the core threat that we face as a nation. The core threat that we face as a nation is internationally sponsored terrorist acts, because here you have individuals who are backed up by governments or by institutions or large groups of people who have the physical and economic capacity to wreak incredible harm on our country and our citizens. This international terrorism is a new breed of threat. It is something we as a country have not faced before. As a result, we need to take a new look from a different view of how we approach the prevention, anticipation, and, hopefully, termination of this threat. It was reported in the press today that there are actually functions camps in Iran that may have as many as 5,000 individuals who are specifically being trained for the purposes of executing terrorist acts, killing of Americans, killing of people from other cultures around this world that these fanatics, these criminals disagree with. Now, whether that report is accurate, I do not know, but it is legitimate enough to have been put on the wire by a reasonable news source, and it is clearly reflective of the concern which we, as a nation, must be ready to address. So, how do we address it? How do we address this new international threat, this new cold war which is now a hot war for us? I think we have to begin by recognizing that as of right now, the Federal Government is not ready to address it. We have to acknowledge our weakness in this area. We have very good people at the heads of the agencies which are charged with the responsibility for anticipating and developing a response to international terrorism directed at the United States. There are four primary agencies involved: the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department. There are also a lot of ancillary agencies that have a role in this--the Treasury Department, for example--but the four primary agencies are headed by good people, in my opinion, and they are all committed to doing something on this issue. But the problem is that there isn't a comprehensive, systematic plan in place. There are, on paper, some systematic plans. For example, the National Security Council is, by law, charged very appropriately with the responsibility of organizing, orchestrating, anticipating the threat of terrorism and the response to the threat of terrorism. But it doesn't really do it in practice. In practice, it does very little, actually. If you talk to each of the heads of the different Departments in charge here, they will tell you of their sincere interest in pursuing this and what their Department is doing. You can ask them, ``How are you interfacing with the other Department?'' And they say, ``Well, we're occasionally speaking on this point and speaking occasionally on this point,'' and it is almost always a personal-relationship-type exchange. There is no system in place, no management structure in place, no comprehensive plan in place which directs the response to the international terrorist threat. That has to be changed. Now, in a bill that was reported out of the Appropriations Committee yesterday, the Commerce, State, Justice bill, which is the subcommittee I chair, we put in place a series of new initiatives in the area of fighting terrorism. Not new in some instances; in some instances, they were supportive of initiatives which were already in place. But the most important part of this proposal was that we have developed by the Attorney General a comprehensive plan which will be reported back to the Congress by November 15 and which will outline how we are going to get these different agencies to work together. I don't know if this proposal is going to go anywhere, because that bill, which subcommittee I happen to chair, is sort of at the end of the trail here as we move down the appropriations path, and it may not even get up until the end of September. As a practical matter, we really shouldn't have to have a law passed to tell the administration to do this. As a practical matter--and I don't say this to be derogatory because I don't intend to be, I hope it is constructive--as a practical matter, the President should meet with the Secretary of State, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, and the Defense Secretary and require them to develop such a plan. And those meetings should continue on a regular basis with the heads of those agencies over a series of weeks and months until that plan is not only developed but being executed. As a practical matter, we are not going to accomplish the goal of putting in place a systematic response from the Federal Government to the threat of international terrorism until we have the President of the United States driving his Department heads to accomplish just that in an organized way. Having served as a chief executive at a State level--and it doesn't really work much differently at the Federal level; in fact, it probably is even worse at the Federal level as far as getting coordination going--I know from experience that unless the chief executive physically participates and demands a physical participation of the key department heads, then issues like this then get lost either, one, to inattention, or, more significantly and more often is the case, get undermined by the battles over turf. An equally important initiative to having the President drive this process with his Department heads is that there must be put in place a system which accomplishes the follow-on followup that is necessary to produce results so that it doesn't depend on individuals in the end, but it is functioning as an element of an organized plan which can be executed by people no matter who is sitting in the key seats around the table. Unfortunately, none of that has occurred to date. I hope that it will occur soon. In the meetings that have been going on this week on the special task force on terrorism that was set up where Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and the White House were meeting, along with the Justice Department, it was suggested we have a blue ribbon panel. I believe the House today will appoint a blue ribbon panel. Now, I like blue ribbon panels as well as the next person, and I am sure a blue ribbon panel could be useful here to some degree, but the lead time for such a group is considerable, and we don't have to wait to get things started, to hear back from a commission, as good as it may be and as constructive as it may be. There is a tremendous amount of coordination and planning that can begin now. It is not occurring now. There is a lot of planning and effort going on right now, I don't want to underestimate that. These Departments individually are doing a superior job in trying to get up to speed in their area of responsibility. But so often, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and the left hand doesn't tell the left foot what it is doing, and the left foot doesn't tell the right foot what it is doing, and we all end up in different directions, and we end up in a pretzel-like position. And that is, unfortunately, what is occurring, to some degree, to our response of the overall issue of a comprehensive initiative. So, yes, let's go forward with a blue ribbon commission, because I think it would be helpful to get outside review from people who are very knowledgeable on terrorism as to how to proceed. And yes, let's keep the energies going in the FBI, and the CIA, and in the State Department and in the Defense Department on various actions in their bailiwicks that can be taken to try to get their responsibilities in terrorism response proceeding effectively. But at the same time, we need to have this comprehensive approach coming from the top, from the President, through the Secretariats, to the departments so that we have an integrated, cooperative effort and one that is focused. That is the most critical thing we need to do right now to address the international terrorist threat, which is huge and extraordinarily dangerous. In addition to this comprehensive plan, within the bill that was passed out of the Appropriations Committee, we basically took five other steps, five other philosophical steps--or not philosophical because I think they are very tangible steps--steps to try to beef up the effort in fighting terrorists. First off, we have given significantly more resources to the FBI to help it monitor terrorist groups in the United States and overseas. Obviously, the best way to stop a terrorist attack on the United States is to know when it is going to come and who is going to pursue it. But to do that, you have to have people. You have to have intelligence- gathering. Unfortunately, the intelligence-gathering capability by human beings, which is the way you really have to do it in this area of terrorism, has been significantly reduced, especially at the CIA. However, the FBI, which our committee has jurisdiction over, is attempting to reach out to police forces around the world in order to use the resources of the police forces in various countries where terrorist groups may be organizing and to take advantage of their knowledge base, which is extraordinary, and thus multiply by hundreds if not thousands and actually tens of thousands their ability to obtain information. The FBI is attempting to expand that pool of information-gathering by moving agents into international posts. In this bill we propose to strongly support that initiative so that we can begin to better anticipate who and where the threat is coming from. It is an interesting thing. I met with President Mubarak yesterday, or Wednesday. There is a man who obviously understands and knows the threat of terrorism. One of his biggest concerns--and I would put it down almost as a gripe, and it is a legitimate one. Maybe I should not use the word ``gripe'' because it is a very legitimate frustration. His biggest frustration is that it is our democratic allies in Europe who have become the prime harborers of some of the most vicious murderers and terrorists. He points to England and to some of the European Continent countries as being nations which, for whatever reason, have decided to allow to live within their shores people who are known to have an intention of committing terrorist acts and who have a stated policy of doing so relative not only to Egypt and to other modern Arab states, but relative to America. So we are not talking about access to information in nations which maybe we have trouble dealing with. We are talking about getting access to information in nations who are our allies and maybe working with those allies to be a little more responsible in the manner in which they deal with individuals whom they have allowed into their countries and who may represent threats to our country. The third issue which we attempted to increase the effort here in our bill is to create a better capacity for response, both at the Federal level and at the State and local level, to a terrorist event. In this area we are very concerned about terrorist events that might involve biological or chemical threats. So that is something we really need to focus in on. This committee is trying to do that. We have created rapid response teams or increased the funding--they already exist--but increase the funding to allow us to have more capacity to move rapid response teams into positions where there is a local emergency. In addition, we have significantly increased the effort to break down communication barriers between the Federal Government and the State governments and the local governments. Once again, you have this unfortunate atmosphere which develops amongst bureaucracies, whether they are law enforcement bureaucracies or social services bureaucracies, that is known as turf. I remember when I was Governor of New Hampshire, one of my great frustrations was that we could not get the State police and the local police to even be on the same radio band so if a State police officer wanted to talk to a local police officer while they were chasing a car at a high speed, they basically had to call in to headquarters and have the headquarters call out to the other police car. They could not talk to each other. It was a turf issue. Unfortunately, that gets magnified hundreds and hundreds of times in innumerable circumstances. What we are trying to do is break down those barriers of communication so that we will have better communication between Federal, State, and local law enforcement on a two-way-street effort for information. Fifth, we have attempted to increase the technological information and capability of the FBI. This is very important. We all know that we are dealing in a technological world and there are in the area of communications, in the area of detection, in the area of crime prevention, huge technological advances being made, and we have to stay current. So we are going to significantly increase that effort. Sixth, it is our desire to make sure that our key facilities in the law enforcement and international community, international stage, are protected. So we have increased the funding for security at our courthouses, and, very important in my mind, we have increased the funding for security for our personnel who are serving overseas in our State Department. I cannot and will not tolerate--and I do not think anybody in this body would tolerate--putting American citizens who are working for our Government in a post that has a fair amount of risk to it at an unnecessary risk. There are simple things that need to be done to help these people and protect their security and, equally important, protect their family security. There is no reason why an American who is working for the State Department who has his or her family with him or her should feel that that family is not getting adequate protection from our Government if there is a threat occurring in that country to Americans. So we needed to increase that security effort. And we have done that. So this bill, this State-Commerce-Justice bill, is a major step, in my opinion, but not a final step, hardly even a midway step really. It is just a part of the beginning steps, but a major thrust in the beginning steps toward getting together our counterterrorism effort. But as I mentioned earlier, it all depends to a great extent on the capacity of the administration to pull together these various agencies. And that has to start at the top. Also in this bill were two pieces of language--three actually--that have been passed by the Senate relative to terrorism in order to give our police and law enforcement community more flexibility and more capability, which passed this body by 90 to 0. They were a multipoint wiretapping and another wiretapping right and also a study on taggants relative to tracing explosives and the institution of that. That language is also in this bill. So it is a bill that has a lot of activity in the area of trying to address the terrorist threat. Specifically, the international terrorist threat is, I mentioned, the true concern, should be our true concern, in the area of trying to get ahead of this wave of potential violence directed at the United States. Now, on that score, the Government cannot do everything. The Government has never been able to do everything, in my opinion. It certainly cannot do everything in this arena. It is the primary player. The agencies which we have responsibility for have been described as the Defense Department in this area of counterterrorism. But there still has to be a responsibility among the communities of our citizenship. There still has to be a responsibility in our corporate community. On that point, I have written, along with some of my colleagues who wish to join me, a letter to the companies who manage Internet access. As I mentioned yesterday, we all recognize that the Internet is the Wild West of information. I, for one, have absolutely no interest in regulating it. I think it would be a mistake. I think it would undermine the great potential of the new medium of education. The fact is certain people are abusing the Internet. When you punch in the word ``explosive'' and trace that word on the Internet, you come up with something like 32,000 designations, of which 6,000--6,000-- involve directions on how to make an explosive device, directions titled, such as, ``How to make a pipe bomb and leave it at your favorite airport or Federal office building.'' That is wrong. What I have suggested in writing the leaders of these various entrepreneurial groups who are driving the economy of information, the information economy which is doing so much for our country, what I suggest to them, maybe it is time they gave a little thought here as to what type of access they are affording people relative to the Internet. Maybe they should create some sort of self-policing mechanism which says if something is clearly, clearly, on the Net for the purpose of explaining how to kill people, such as making a pipe bomb and leaving it at your favorite airport or Federal office building, that accessing that information should not be easy. It should not just involve typing in the word ``explosive.'' When they index these items, maybe they decide not to index some items, recognizing that is a type of censorship they may not want to participate in. In this instance, it may be appropriate. In any event, when they index these systems, whether it is Yahoo, Magellan, or Netscape, generally, or America Online or CompuServe or some Microsoft system, they ought to make it more difficult to get that type of information, that you ought to go through more hoops before you can access. Granted, that might not stop the truly committed individual, but it will certainly make it more difficult for the casual pursuer of this information. That is why I am sending this letter. I am not sure what processes could be put in place. I think there ought to be some thought given. It should not come from the Government--in other words, the Government saying, ``You do this,'' as managers of the Internet, as people who create the access systems for the Internet. That will lead to all sorts of, in my opinion, more significant issues of freedom of speech and officiousness of Government. This should be a self-policing exercise. These folks should have the common sense and the civic attitude to proceed to try to develop something. These are creative and imaginative people that have come up with these systems. If put in a room, I suspect they could come up with creative and imaginative solutions to this problem. That is a brief summary--not that brief, actually--but a summary of where we stand in the counterterrorism exercise relative to the FBI, especially, but it is my concern relative to this administration and how it should pursue it and the Internet, and how it should be addressed in that arena. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, to our citizens outside of the beltway, Washington politics seem to be the cause of all that ails us. The disease is easy to diagnose: Washington politics getting in the way of real cures. However, I am pleased to stand up today and say that maybe--just maybe--the games have paused as Congress finally passes this incremental step in health care reform. Health care reform. Three words that have become part of many's vocabulary over the last 3\1/2\ years. Obviously, health care reform efforts have been going on since the delivery of health care became something of an organized system. But Federal health care reform has never seemed so necessary as it has in the past few years, and so viable as it is right now, for two critical reasons. First--because the American public has been bombarded with rhetoric about all of the things that are wrong with their health care system. Obviously, the U.S. health care system is not without flaws, but I think it is important that the treatment not be worse than the ailments. The ``shot in the arm'' posed by the Administration during the 103rd Congress in 1993 and 1994 was roundly rejected by the American public. The Health Security Act, drafted by the First Lady and her team of elite health care reform gurus, was 1,342 pages of promises for ``universal coverage'' for American citizens under a federal program of limited mandated benefits, price controls and tax increases. The tome sent up to Capitol Hill prescribed that centralized bureaucracies run this national program, that the Federal Government regulate medical schools, and that Washington decide what pharmaceuticals and medical procedures would be paid for. This proposal would have resulted in a further disconnect between the patient and the payer. We have seen through other Federal programs that separating those making demands on the system from those paying for the care ends up both driving up costs and limiting the availability of services. This is not what the American public had in mind as it got involved in asking Washington for positive change in federal policies. Once the glitter and hype was peeled away, Americans realized this proposal meant no choice in benefits or providers, higher taxes to generate revenue that would be shifted to pay for business subsidies and the like, and the inevitable result of government rationing of health care services. After a year of intense debate, the Health Security Act died a painful, but appropriate, death. Second, having determined during the debate over President Clinton's Health Security Act what the American public does not want, we were given the opportunity to provide the people with what they do need. And what they need is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996--the legislation that has become known as the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. This legislation grew out of the testimony that was heard in countless Senate hearings on health care reform. It grew out of the recognition that some basic flaws in the regulation of health care caused American families monumental problems: workers are unable to carry their health insurance from one job to the next--portability. Individuals are subject to unfair discrimination in their access to health insurance if they have a medical condition that has required treatment before they joined that health plan. These are simple, clear concepts. We know how to address them. However, we also know that it took us 3 years of policy development to get to the point where there was a bill that was appropriate in scope, and met the majority of needs our constituents told us they had. A long and arduous process had resulted in legislation that also obtained support from our Democratic colleagues--it looks as though we are close to allowing policy to triumph over politics. This legislation was further improved with cultivation. During consideration of the bill on the Floor of the Senate, Members decided to act on some other ideas that had been long discussed as part of health care reform on both sides of the aisle. Medical savings accounts are not a new idea. More favorable tax treatment of long term care insurance is not a new idea. Increasing the self-employed tax deduction to 80% to provide equity is not a new idea. But these are all important ideas, that have received support on both sides of the aisle during the last several years of debate. Why are important aspects of health insurance reform like MSA's suddenly so controversial? Because once again Washington politics got in the way of good policy work. Some Washington politicians have decided it is more important to score a political victory than to pass the type of health care policy that the American public wants: policy based on freedom of choice; policy that ends discrimination and promotes fairness and equity; and policy that forges a stronger relationship between patients, their physicians, and those who are payers for medical services, whether that payer be the individual controlling their own health care dollar, the Government, or an insurer who has offered a plan tailored to best meet the consumers' needs. Mr. President, I believe that through a great investment of time and a tremendous amount of research we have found a cure for a great deal of what ails the American health care insurance system, and American citizens can begin to benefit from these long sought after changes to the health care system in the United States.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent, then, to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, may I inquire of the Chair what the regular order is? Are we in morning business?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. GREGG. I can show the Senator a copy of the letter and have him be a cosponsor, as well as any other Senators.

Mr. GREGG. I wish to rise in support of this welfare proposal, and I congratulate the Members of the Senate who have worked so hard. I want to mention three reasons why I think this is an appropriate action to take. First, this is one of the five major programs which is weighing down the Federal budget and which is causing us to careen towards bankruptcy as a Nation in the beginning of the next century if we do not address the Federal spending patterns. The other four are the farm programs, the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, and Social Security. We have addressed the farm programs. Now we are addressing the welfare programs. That is two out of the five major entitlement programs that will be addressed as a result of this bill by this Congress. That is a major step forward. If this were a game of Myst-- which it is not, but it is as complicated as a game of Myst--we would have gotten through two levels. We have three levels to go and, hopefully, we will continue to pursue those aggressively. The bill involves returning to the States significant flexibility over managing the welfare accounts. This means better services for our citizens. It is that simple. There is a certain arrogance in this town, a certain elitism in this town that tends to believe all the ideas, all the feelings of goodness, all the compassion is confined within the corridors of Washington. Well, it is not true. The fact is, in our States at our State legislative level and in our cities and at our county level, there is not only great compassion but there is an extraordinary knowledge. That knowledge and compassion would be brought to bear on the welfare programs of this country as a result of this bill. I know, for example, that in New Hampshire we will get a lot more services for actually less dollars, and our people will be better taken care of as a result of this flexibility being returned to the States. Third, there is the cultural issue. This represents a significant cultural change in the way we address the issue of welfare in this country. We are no longer creating this atmosphere of dependency. We are no longer undermining generation after generation of individuals relative to their own self-worth. We are saying to people: ``You are important, you do have self-worth, you should have self-respect, you should be working and taking care of yourself and your families and obtaining the personal respect and confidence that comes from undertaking that approach.'' It is a cultural shift. Obviously, it will not impact the entire culture. Obviously, there are a lot of people on welfare who deserve to be there. For some percentage, and it will not be a dramatic percentage, I admit to that, they will be moving off the welfare rolls because they will have to go to work, something they have not done before. That will be very positive, I think, for them and for this society generally. So I believe this is a very good bill and something that takes us in the right direction in the area of fiscal solvency, in the area of managing government policy through flexibility at the State level, and in the area of how we approach the cultural issue of caring for people who are less fortunate or in hard times. I also want to address today just briefly, because it is a topic that I am intimately involved with as chairman of the Commerce, State, and Justice Committee, the issue of terrorism--one minor area, a secondary point to what is going on here today, but I want to raise this point at this time. We just reported out of the full Appropriations Committee a bill, the Commerce, State, Justice bill, which had a major initiative in the area of terrorism, countering terrorism, trying to get some comprehensive planning into the issue of how we approach it as a Federal Government, and beefing up those projects that are going on in those agencies, such as the FBI, that are trying to counter especially international terrorism. It is a major step forward. We have actually been working on this for months. It is ironic it came to fruition today, so soon after the Atlanta bombing, but it is a very important step. Second, we cannot do all this at the Federal level. The issue of countering terrorism cannot entirely be accomplished by the Government. There has to be a change of attitude within our population as to how we approach the terrorists. I made a proposal today which I think moves along that issue a little bit--not dramatically, but a little bit--but it is important. We see on the Internet today a massive amount of information about how to make weapons, how to make bombs, how to use instruments of death. Now, the Internet is a Wild West of information. I have no interest in regulating it. I think that would be a mistake. There are, today, developing a whole series of industries that develop the information and information access in the area of Internet, people like America Online, Comp USA, Yahoo, Netscape, Magellan--the list goes on and on. What I have done today is write a letter to the CEO's of these various organizations and asked them to exercise a little common sense and a little community value and to expunge from their database access capability of items which are clearly directed at creating bombs. I had my staff quickly run the Internet. I wanted to do it quickly, so I had my staff do it. They came up with, on their first test under the question of ``explosive,'' they came up with an identification of how to make a bomb, which was followed by ``leaving your bomb in your favorite airport and Government building.'' That is the type of information that should not be accessed easily through some sort of accessing agency. So I have asked the leaders of these various industries to think about it, to think about putting into their processes some sort of self-voluntary block that eliminates the ability to easily access this type of information which is so patently inappropriate. I hope they will take such action. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. As has been mentioned, I believe last year, the U.N. Secretary did state he intended to pursue the option of imposing a tax on airline tickets, currency exchanges, postage, energy sources and other programs in order to raise additional funds for the United Nations. Mr. Boutros Boutros- Ghali stated: ``It will be the role of the Secretary General''--and he, of course, is the Secretary General--``to bring this project to successful fruition in the 21st century.'' So we have an unequivocal statement of policy coming from the leader of the U.N. that it is the intention of the United Nations' leadership to pass a tax on, I guess, citizens of the world, but especially citizens of the United States. I join with my colleague from North Carolina and congratulate him on bringing forward this amendment to make it unalterably clear that we object strongly, and will resist in all ways available to us, the concept of the United Nations assessing a tax on any American citizen. The United Nations is an organization which has been mismanaged in the most grotesque ways. The chart that the Senator from North Carolina sets forth is only one example of the massive patronage and financial disarray that represents the United Nations. Just a few examples, so folks listening to this do not have to take me at my word. The average United Nations salary for a mid-level accountant is $84,500. The average salary for comparable non-United Nations individual would be $41,000, or half of it. The average U.N. computer analyst, that individual receives approximately $111,000. That is compared with a counterpart in the private sector in the New York area of $56,000. The Assistant Secretary General receives $190,000--this is the Assistant Secretary General--receives $190,000. That is compared with the pay for the mayor of New York City, which is $130,000. On top of all this, U.N. salaries are not subject to tax. What an irony. You have this Secretary General of the United Nations saying that he wants to assess a tax against American citizens when he doesn't pay taxes, nor do the people who work for him, even though they are stationed in the United States. In fact, U.S. citizens working at the U.N. don't pay taxes. It is, to say the minimum, ironic. We now, finally, have an inspector general to take a look at the money that is being spent there. In the first report, the inspector general found about $16 million was wasted. The inspector general only got to look at a small slice of the U.N. activity. We, for example, know that they put turnstiles in at the U.N. for security reasons, I guess, but they had to pull the turnstiles out because the staff of the U.N. protested because the turnstiles were keeping track of when they came and went. It became very clear fairly quickly that most of them were coming very late and leaving very early, so they took the turnstiles out. The U.N. for years has been a dumping ground of political patronage for people around the world. If you have a nation where the president or leadership of that nation wants to pay off a few political cronies, they send them to the U.N., put them on a U.N. salary and the United States taxpayer picks up 25 percent of that cost. Yes, we have significant arrearages at the U.N., but we are, as a matter of policy, at least in the Congress, stating that we are not going to pay down those arrearages until the U.N. has gotten its house in order, and it does not have its house in order. We addressed a letter, myself and Senator Dole and Senator Helms, to the General Accounting Office to determine just what rights the Secretary General has to assess taxes against American citizens. We asked specifically: Are there any circumstances under which the U.N. revenue- raising proposal could be binding on U.S. citizens without an act of Congress? What is the process for approval of revenue-raising proposals by the U.N., including the role of the Security Council and the General Assembly? Are there any circumstances under which a U.N. tax proposal could be adopted over U.S. opposition? What is the status under U.S. domestic law and relevant international law of each of the U.N. revenue-raising proposals? What funding sources are available to the U.N. organization apart from contributions from member states? What authority does the U.N. have for each of these sources? We have not yet gotten an answer to this request, but that answer is, of course, critical to the determination of just what rights American citizens have given away in chartering the U.N. relative to the issue of taxation and the policies of the U.N. and the ability of the U.N. to assess a tax. Thus, I think it is important that we adopt this amendment so that we make it clear that as a matter of law, the Congress has spoken, that it does not intend to tolerate attacks against American citizens assessed by the U.N. Therefore, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. I appreciate his leadership on this matter, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, July 24, at 4:00 p.m. for a hearing on the nomination of Franklin D. Raines, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.