Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, I understand that the amendment which was referred to in the unanimous-consent agreement as the modified bill is at the desk.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to clarify that this will be a voice vote on both of the two matters indicated in the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I inquire? This agreement would provide for a separate vote on the so-called 28 items in agreement; is that correct? If that is correct, I will have to object because that was never my understanding of the agreement.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Texas for a brilliant statement. I really appreciate that very much. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ashcroft be added as a cosponsor of S. 495.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you. I note the distinguished Senator from Texas is here. I will, therefore, try to stay within this limitation of time. In any event, this is basically a continuation of previous policy, Mr. President, not something new, but we think it is important to continue. Our legislation calls for a report on an annual basis on the state of chemical and biological weapons proliferation. It calls for the Secretary of State to work with other nations of the world to try to find ways to put teeth in the 1925 Geneva Protocol. That is the treaty we all signed that bans the use of chemical weapons and, by the way, includes such countries as Iran and Iraq and other countries that really ought to comply with the provisions of that treaty. We restrict the use of funds until the United States is actually a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Next to last, we make it the policy of the United States to continue to enhance our defense capabilities. The GAO came out with a report last year that frankly said our military was going the wrong way in providing defensive capability to our troops, that we need to spend more money and that we need to do a better job in equipping our troops to defend against the use of chemical weapons. Because of that GAO report, we have included in this legislation instructions to the Secretary of Defense to get on with that job and, very specifically, by the way, to require that the primary facility which engages in this conduct to defend our troops is under the jurisdiction of a general officer of the United States. We provide a sense of the Senate that the President reevaluate the current policy on negative assurances. And, finally, we provide that the policy begun in the Ford administration on the use of riot control agents be continued in force. This is a policy that says, for example, that notwithstanding any chemical weapons convention, if we have a downed pilot, for example, and there are civilians in the area, we can use riot control agents, tear gas, if you will, so we do not have to fire real bullets to extricate that pilot from that situation. The bottom line is this act that will be introduced, and we hope voted on today, is an act that continues some very important policies and institutes some new, positive changes in the law, including filling some important gaps in the law relating to the manufacture and use of chemical weapons here in the United States. It ought to be supported by all Senators in this Chamber whether or not they intend to support the Chemical Weapons Convention. This bill is an important bill to support, and we will be calling on them later today for that support. Thank you, Mr. President. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are working toward developing a unanimous- consent agreement which I hope will permit us to vote yet today on an important piece of legislation that complements the efforts of the administration to proceed with the consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention next week. For those who support the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is a way of reiterating that support. For those who oppose the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is a way of declaring support for a wide range of very realistic and practical and constructive steps that the United States can take to help reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, in particular, chemical and biological weapons here in the United States. It is my hope that we will be able to call that bill up. It is a bill which I have sponsored with cosponsorships, including I believe all of the Members of the leadership of the Senate Republicans, including the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott; Senator Nickles; Senator Mack; Senator Coverdell; Senator Helms; Senator Shelby; Senator Hutchison; Senator Allard; Senator Hutchinson; Senator Inhofe; Senator Smith; and myself. It is a bill which would have, under the unanimous consent agreement being proposed, only 2 hours of debate before the vote. There would be a very limited amount of time to describe it, and, therefore, I would like to briefly describe the legislation at this time. I think it should be noncontroversial, though the Chemical Weapons Convention itself is very controversial; and reasonable people can fall on either side of that debate. I think the legislation before us today should be supported by all Members of the United States Senate. The title of the bill--or let me actually read the description of the title of the bill to begin this description: To provide criminal and civil penalties for the unlawful acquisition, transfer, or use of any chemical weapon or biological weapon, and to reduce the threat of acts of terrorism or armed aggression involving the use of any such weapon against the United States, its citizens, or Armed Forces, or those of any allied country . . . Mr. President, this legislation came about because of the focus on the Chemical Weapons Convention and the determination that there were a lot of things that the United States could and should do whether or not that convention is ratified. For example, we found that while it is illegal in the United States to possess or manufacture biological weapons, there is no criminal prohibition upon the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons. Therefore, we combine the two sections of the statute which relate to chemical and biological weapons and provide that it is a criminal offense to manufacture them, to use them, to threaten to use them, to possess them. All of these things are criminalized with substantial penalties being provided for them. We provide for the revocation of export privileges for those companies in the United States that might violate that law and, incidentally, for the forfeiture of assets to help pay victims of such crime. In effect, say, this was an attack such as in the Tokyo subway about a year ago. We would, under certain circumstances, be able to seize the assets of the criminals responsible for that for the purpose of compensating the victims of that terror. This legislation provides for sanctions against the use of chemical and biological weapons. Under existing law there are sanctions, but we would provide more flexibility for the President. Under the existing law, the President has a limited range of 10 sanctions that he has to impose in two particular tiers if he makes a finding that there has been a violation of law. These are sanctions against another country. What we would do is provide the President the flexibility to provide any combination of those sanctions. He is still required to impose five of them, as he is under current law, but this provides him some additional flexibility depending upon the circumstances of how he would impose sanctions against any particular country that has used or possesses or manufactures chemical or biological weapons. There is also a continuation of the waiver for the President. Although that is strengthened somewhat, he would still be able to waive these provisions in the supreme national interest of the United States. But importantly, also, this act would call the President to block transactions of any property that is owned by a country found to use chemical or biological weapons. So their property here in the United States should be seized, here again, for paying the victims of such crime. Another thing this bill does is to call upon the President and the Secretary of State to use their best efforts to maintain the Australia Group in force. That is the group of countries of the world that have agreed among ourselves not to trade in chemicals with countries we do not think should have those chemicals because they might be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons. We need to maintain the Australia Group. This provides the sense of the Senate and the policy of the United States to continue that Australia Group in force. There are currently conditions on assisting Russia in the destruction of and the dismantling of their chemical and biological weapons. They have far and away the largest stocks of chemical and biological weapons in the world. What we have done is to provide assistance to them under what are called Nunn-Lugar funds. This continues the same kind of restrictions that existed in the past with respect to a certification by the President that Russia is in compliance with these requirements. The four conditions in this legislation closely parallel those in the 1996 Defense Authorization Act in which both Houses of Congress agreed to fence the so-called Nunn-Lugar funds pending a certification by the President that either Russia was making progress toward achieving these goals or that the President could not so certify. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent just to speak for a couple more minutes to conclude my remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first let me compliment the Senator from Missouri. I have supported his efforts and continue to do so because of the important contribution that his legislation would make for flexibility for working families in this country. It is an important effort that I hope we can succeed in adopting before too long in the Senate of the United States. Again, I compliment him.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back all my time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield my time back. I hope Senator Leahy will yield his time. In passing, at another time I will respond to my friend from Delaware. I make the point that there is nothing in this legislation that requires any renegotiation of the treaty. I assure my colleague of that.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Five minutes.

Mr. KYL. I am ready.

Mr. KYL. Thank you. Mr. President, first let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I am glad I don't have to follow his remarks. So I am pleased to speak before he does. Mr. President, T.S. Eliot once wrote that ``April is the cruelest month.'' Of course, he was referring to the change of seasons--of ``mixing memory with desire.'' Millions of Americans would probably agree with Eliot about April being the cruelest month, but for a far different reason. It is, of course, on April 15 that income taxes are due. By midnight tonight, millions of Americans will have finally completed their income tax returns. According to estimates by the Internal Revenue Service, Americans will have spent 5.4 billion hours on tax-related paperwork. The Tax Foundation estimates that the cost of compliance will approach $200 billion. If that is not evidence that our Tax Code is one of the most inefficient and wasteful ever created, I do not know what is. Money and effort that could have been put to productive use solving problems in our communities, putting Americans to work, putting food on the table, or investing in the Nation's future are instead devoted to tax preparation. And that is a waste. It is no wonder that the American people are frustrated and angry, and that they are demanding real change in the way their Government taxes and spends. Mr. President, the House of Representatives is today considering a proposed constitutional amendment that represents the first step in the direction of the kind of fundamental tax reform the American people have been demanding--it would require a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to approve tax increases. Why do I say that it is the kind of reform the people are demanding? Because a third of the Nation's population has now imposed such limits on their State governments, and voters have approved tax limits by wide margins. In Arizona, for example, tax limitation passed with 72 percent of the vote. In Florida, it passed with 69.2 percent of the vote; in Nevada, with 70 percent. The tax limitation amendment, which I introduced in January, now has 22 Senate cosponsors. It is something that was recommended by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. The commission, chaired by former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, advocated a supermajority requirement in its report on how to achieve a simpler, single-rate tax to replace the existing maze of tax rates, deductions, exemptions, and credits that makes up the Federal income tax as we know it today. Here are the words of the Commission: The roller-coaster ride of tax policy in the past few decades has fed citizens' cynicism about the possibility of real, long-term reform, while fueling frustration with Washington. The initial optimism inspired by the low rates of the 1986 Tax Reform Act soured into disillusionment and anger when taxes subsequently were hiked two times in less than seven years. The commission believes that a two-thirds super- majority vote of Congress will earn Americans' confidence in the longevity, predictability, and stability of any new tax system. Mr. President, tax reform cannot succeed without a supermajority requirement for raising taxes. In the decade since the last attempt at comprehensive tax reform, Congress and the President have made more than 4,000 amendments to the Tax Code. Four thousand amendments. The constant changes have left taxpayers perplexed, unsure how to comply today, let alone how to prepare financially for the future. Without the protection of the tax limitation amendment, taxpayers will be vulnerable to further tax-rate increases, particularly if tax reform--which we all hope will occur within the next few years-- eliminates many of the tax deductions, exemptions, and credits in which they find refuge today. Let me make a few other points about this amendment. First, the tax limitation amendment itself cuts no taxes. It does not preclude Congress from raising taxes in the future. It only raises the bar on future tax increases. Many people, myself included, believe that taxes are already far too high, and that we ought to cut taxes. This amendment does not do that. All it says, in effect, is ``enough is enough.'' It makes Congress find a way to meet its obligations without taking even more from the pockets of the American people. Mr. President, here are some astonishing statistics from Americans for Tax Reform. According to the organization's calculations, about 31 percent of the cost of a loaf of bread is attributable to taxes. About 54 percent of the cost of a gallon of gas goes to taxes. About 40 percent of the cost of an airline ticket is attributable to taxes, as is 43 percent of the cost of a hotel room. Understand that on an aggregate basis, the average family pays more in taxes than it does on food, clothing, and shelter combined. According to the Tax Foundation, Federal taxes amount to about 27 percent of the family's budget, and State and local taxes consume another 12 percent--for a total of almost 39 percent. But spending on food, clothing, and shelter totals only about 28 percent of the family budget. And families still have to find a way to pay for everything else they need--for example, medical care, transportation, education, and an occasional vacation or dinner out--out of the meager amount that is left after taxes. So what the tax limitation amendment says is that Government already takes far too much from hard-working Americans and should at the very least take no more, unless there is a very broad and bipartisan consensus in Congress and around the country. A second point. There is no small irony in the fact that it would have taken a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to overcome President Clinton's veto and enact the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with its tax relief provisions. By contrast, the President's record-setting tax increase in 1993 was enacted with only a simple majority--and not even a majority of elected Senators, at that. Vice President Gore broke a tie vote of 50 to 50 to secure passage of the tax-increase bill in the Senate. The tax limitation amendment is based upon a simple premise--that it ought to be at least as hard to raise people's taxes as it is to cut them. What the tax limitation amendment seeks to do is force members of Congress to think of tax increases, not as a first resort, but as a last resort. Mr. President, I hope the House will pass the tax limitation amendment today. And if it does, I hope the Senate will take it up promptly and give the States an opportunity to consider its ratification. While there is much disagreement about whether to cut taxes and how, we should at least be able to agree that we should not raise taxes any further. I urge support for the tax limitation amendment. I hope we will be able to pass that amendment, and I hope we will have an opportunity thereby to ensure that more money is left in the pockets of hard-working American families rather than being sent to the Federal Government here in Washington. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act of 1997. I am pleased to sponsor this bill, which directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for those who purposefully defraud vulnerable members of our society and those who cross international borders to evade prosecution. I thank Senator Reid for his sponsorship of this bill, and his leadership in combating telemarketing fraud. Current penalties for this crime are not tough enough to deter the problem and they leave the victims without restitution. Penalties for bank, wire, radio, and television fraud are at least two-thirds higher than the penalty for telemarketing fraud. Too often, telemarketing fraud felons receive a sentence of fewer than 5 years in prison. The toughest penalty to date is 10 years. These are small penalties considering that many telemarketing fraud criminals have stolen the life savings of retired senior citizens. Mr. President, thousands of Americans lose billions of dollars a year from telemarketing fraud. According to Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr., telemarketing fraud is probably the fastest growing illegal activity in this country. An Associated Press story reported that top prosecutors in Arizona and 9 other States filed lawsuits or took other legal action against more than 70 telemarketers nationwide 2 years ago in an attempt to crack down on fraud that costs consumers more than $40 billion a year. Senior citizens appear to be the most vulnerable to chicanery of this kind. Fred Schulte, an investigating editor for the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel and an expert on telemarketing fraud, has pointed out that senior citizens are often too polite or too lonely not to listen to the voice on the other end of the line. The risk of being taken advantage of, I believe, increases with age. According to Attorney General Reno, it is not uncommon for senior citizens to receive as many as five or more high-pressure phone calls a day. As one telemarketing con man who has worked all over the country put it: ``people are so lonely, so tired of life, they can't wait for the phone to ring. It's worth the $300 to $400 to them to think that they got a friend. That's what you play on.'' Mr. President, malicious criminal activity like this must be punished appropriately. These criminals prey on the vulnerable of our society. In one case, Nevada authorities arrested a Las Vegas telemarketer on a charge of attempted theft. The telemarketer was accused of trying to persuade a 92-year-old Kansas man who had been fraudulently declared the winner of $100,000 to send $1,900 by Western Union in advance to collect his prize. Another example: a Maine company showed real telemarketing creativity. For $250, the so-called Consumer Advocate Group offered to help consumers recover money lost to fraudulent telemarketers--but it provided no services, according to Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle, who sued the Maine firm plus four other telemarketers. Mr. President, the Association of Attorneys General has supported similar consumer protection efforts in the past. As Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III put it last year: ``In the hands of a con artist, a phone is an assault weapon.'' I would, at this time, like to highlight one specific provision of the bill. Section 2 requires that an offender forfeit any real or personal property derived from proceeds obtained as a result of the offense. The proceeds shall be used, as determined by the Attorney General, for the national information hotline established under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The proceeds of the fraud will be returned to help the victims. I believe that it is important to pay attention to victims' rights in this area. Last year, more than 400 individuals were arrested by law-enforcement officials working on Operation Senior Sentinel. Retired law-enforcement officers and volunteers, recruited by AARP, went undercover to record sales pitches from dishonest telemarketers. Volunteers from the 2-year- long Operation Senior Sentinel discovered various telemarketing schemes. Some people were victimized by phony charities or investment schemes. Others were taken in by so-called premium promotions in which people were guaranteed one of four or five valuable prizes but were induced to buy an overpriced product in exchange for a cheap prize. One of the most vicious scams preyed on those who had already lost money. Some telemarketers charged a substantial fee to recover money for those who had been victimized previously--and proceeded to renege on the promised assistance. By the time the dust settled, it took the Justice Department, the FBI, the FTC, a dozen U.S. attorneys and State attorneys general, the Postal Service, the IRS, and the Secret Service to arrest over 400 telemarketers in five States, including my home State of Arizona. Clearly telemarketing fraud is on the rise. It is estimated that 8 out of 10 households are targets for telemarketing scams that bilk us of up to $40 billion annually. The telemarketing industry rakes in more than $600 billion in annual sales. There are many seniors in my State and across the country who must be protected against this type of fraudulent activity. That is why I have sponsored this bill. The House of Representatives passed a bill similar to mine in the 104th Congress, which has been reintroduced during this Congress by Representative Goodlatte. It already has 47 cosponsors and the support of the 60 Plus Association and the National Consumers League. I urge my colleagues to join us and cosponsor the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for putting this order together at this propitious time to discuss tax policy in the country with April 15 looming on the horizon and Americans all over the country concerned about the amount of money we pay to the Federal Government in Federal income taxes. Mr. President, I have an important announcement to make. I have been authorized to announce that on tax day, April 15, the U.S. Senate will have a historic opportunity to vote on a resolution which will express the sense of the Senate that we support a requirement that Congress, the House and the Senate, be required to raise taxes with a supermajority. In other words, that we could not raise taxes with a bare majority, that it would require a two-thirds vote for a tax increase to go in effect, much like the requirement in States throughout the United States, and a very successful requirement, I might add. The full House is actually going to vote on tax day on the actual constitutional amendment. Our resolution will be a sense of the Senate in support of that same concept. Obviously, we are not prepared yet to actually vote on the constitutional amendment. The reason for this, Mr. President, is that the average family of four back in 1948 paid about 5 percent of its income in Federal taxes. But today that burden is about 24 percent. And, as our colleague from Minnesota just noted, if you add the State and local taxes to the mix, we are paying about 40 percent of our income in taxes to government. The last tax increase to pass in the Congress in 1993 was the largest in history. And, yet, it failed to even achieve a majority in the U.S. Senate. There was a tie of 50-50. President Clinton's largest tax increase in history only passed because Vice President Gore came to the Chamber and cast the deciding vote. We believe that it ought to be at least as difficult to raise taxes as it is to cut them. It is now easier, sadly, to raise taxes than it is to cut them. Consider this irony. This two-thirds majority would fix this problem, by the way. When we passed the balanced budget amendment of 1995, the President vetoed it. It included big tax cuts. The President vetoed it. We had to have a two-thirds majority to overcome the veto, and we couldn't do that. So it would have required a two-thirds vote for us to reduce taxes. But, as I pointed out, the biggest tax increase in the history of the country in 1993 passed without even a majority vote. As I said, Mr. President, we think it ought to be at least as hard to raise taxes as it is to cut them. That is why we are going to be voting on April 15 to support the principle that there should be a supermajority for Congress to raise taxes. The Kemp commission, appointed by the Speaker of the House and the previous majority leader of the Senate, came to this conclusion about this requirement. I am quoting: ``The commission believes that a two- thirds supermajority vote of Congress will earn Americans' confidence in the longevity, predictability, and stability of any new tax system.'' They made that point in recommending this two-thirds supermajority of both Houses of Congress to raise taxes as a key component of our tax policy. As I said, there are 14 States that currently have some form of tax limitation in effect. There was an interesting study in 1994 by the Cato Institute which found that a family of four in States with tax and expenditure limits faces estate and tax burdens that are $650 lower on average 5 years after the implementation than it would have been if the State tax growth had not been slowed. In other words, the people who live in States that have these supermajority requirements are better off, pay less in taxes than those States which do not have such a requirement. It also matters, Mr. President, how we raise or lower taxes. Or I should say, put it another way, how we increase revenues to the Treasury matters because you can increase revenue to the Treasury not by raising tax rates but actually by lowering certain tax rates. We all agree that lower tax rates stimulate the economy, which results in more taxable income and transactions and more revenue to the Treasury as a result. In fact, the tax cuts out of the early 1980's make this point. They spawned the longest peacetime economic expansion in our Nation's history. Revenues to the Treasury, the Federal Treasury, increased as a result from $599 billion in fiscal year 1981 to $990 billion in fiscal year 1989, up about 65 percent. On the other hand, higher tax rates discourage work and production and savings and investment so there is ultimately less economic activity to tax. That is exactly what Martin Feldstein, the former Chairman of the President's Council on Economic Advisers, found when he looked at the effect of President Clinton's 1993 tax increase. He found that taxpayers responded to the sharply higher marginal tax rates imposed by the Clinton tax bill by reducing their taxable incomes by nearly $25 billion. They did that by saving less, investing less, and creating fewer jobs, and the economy eventually paid the price in terms of slower growth. In other words, as I said, how Congress raises taxes is more important than how much it can tax. The key is whether tax policy fosters economic growth and opportunity. And that is why we believe, as I said before, that it ought to be more difficult to raise tax rates. It ought to be just as easy to cut taxes. We should raise tax rates only if there is enough consensus on that to provide a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress. So on April 15, tax day, all of us in the Senate will have the opportunity to go on record to tell our constituents where we stand. Do we believe that it ought to be just as difficult to raise taxes as it is to cut them? We will have the opportunity to vote on the principle of requiring a supermajority in Congress to raise taxes. And I certainly hope that my colleagues will support us in that vote. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for this time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, with increasing frequency, criminals are using the Social Security numbers and other personal information of law-abiding citizens to assume their identity and take their money. Identity fraud can be more serious than a criminal picking someone's pocket and lifting cash or a credit card. Identity theft involves criminals--who may have ties with international criminal syndicates-- obtaining enough information on another person that they can open up new credit card accounts in the law-abiding person's name. Some call identity theft high-technology bank robbery. But law-enforcement officials say committing identity fraud is easier than robbing a bank. Identity fraud is one of the fastest growing financial crimes. An alarming 2,000 cases occur each week. Credit-card fraud losses--the major financial loss in personal-identity thefts--may amount to as much as $2 billion a year. The statistics don't reveal the hardship these crimes can cause. Imagine the anxiety of knowing that a criminal has been able to gain hold of your most personal identification information to open credit cards or apply for loans in your name. Even when fraudulent charges are cleared from a victim's financial records, he or she cannot be sure that the perpetrator of the crime won't strike again. Moreover, thousands can be spent to repair a tarnished credit rating. As the victim attempts to untangle the mess caused by an identity thief, phone service may be disconnected or a victim may face difficulty in securing a mortgage. I would like to discuss the case of a constituent, Bob Hartle, who has spent many hours working with my staff on the identity-theft proposal. Mr. Hartle served as the inspiration for an Arizona State law which, like the bill I am introducing, makes it a felony to steal another person's identity. I thank Mr. Hartle for all of his help. Bob Hartle's experience with an identity thief illustrates the seriousness of these crimes. The man who victimized Mr. Hartle was sentenced to 17 months in Federal prison for using false names--not Mr. Hartle's; the criminal had misappropriated other law-abiding citizens' names--in order to buy a gun and open up a credit card account. The criminal possessed enough information to have a driver's license and credit cards issued in Mr. Hartle's name. With these credit cards, the criminal made purchases under Mr. Hartle's name that exceeded $100,000. While trashing Mr. Hartle's credit, and carrying a license as Mr. Hartle in his wallet, the identity thief was busy committing serious crimes. Mr. Hartle has spent over $10,000 trying to clear his good name and credit. He did not receive a restitution payment. The assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case was quoted in a 1995 news story as saying that, ``Hartle may never get his full share from the courts. * * * All we can do is prosecute this under the powers given to us by law.'' Restitution was not available to him because, although many of the actions attendant upon identity theft do violate Federal law--that is, credit card fraud, using false names--the actual assumption of another's identity does not. Consequently, individual victims of these offenses are not entitled to restitution. The criminal who ripped off Mr. Hartle's identity committed several such crimes throughout the United States before he was finally apprehended. Acting alone, he caused great damage and hardship. But a new breed of identity-fraud criminal has emerged that poses an even greater threat to citizens. Sophisticated international criminal syndicates, some of which have penetrated the Social Security Administration and other agencies or companies with access to private personal information, are engaging in identity-fraud scams of a magnitude unimaginable a few years ago. For example, the New York Post reported on December 29 that ``A brazen city-based ring of con artists has been lifting personal information about hundreds of New Yorkers and using it to get credit cards and run up huge bills.'' This ring of Nigerian nationals applies for credit cards with banks ``after snatching identifying data about unsuspecting victims.'' Identity-fraud syndicates such as these obtain Social Security numbers and other personal information to perpetrate their scams in myriad ways: stealing mail; collecting credit-card receipts; running license plates through DMV records; posing as a loan officer and ordering a credit report; purchasing information from corrupt governmental and private employees with access to personal information. One of the reasons I elected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information was to ensure that the law keep pace with technology. The Secret Service, which is responsible for investigating financial fraud crimes, believes Federal fraud laws could be improved, to better protect people like Mr. Hartle, and I thank the agency for all of its help in drafting the bill. Rather than amend the Federal fraud laws, my proposal creates a separate statute for identity-fraud offenses, which I am told will make this crime easier to investigate and prosecute. When the fraud laws were drafted, the law-enforcement community was contending with counterfeiters who manufactured, distributed, and used ID's that were pieces of paper. Identity-fraud schemes were not nearly as prevalent in that pre-electronic era as they are today. As mentioned above, individual victims of fraud offenses--who, like Mr. Hartle, are generally not eligible for restitution under current law--could receive restitution under my proposal. Additionally, the act allows law enforcement to seize equipment--contraband--used to produce false documents. Penalties are scaled to reflect the number of victims, not just the dollar amount of the fraud. Moreover, the proposal requires the Secret Service to collect statistics on identity fraud offenses. Statistics on identity fraud are rough; we need to know more about the extent of the problem. And finally, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a comprehensive study of: the nature, extent, and causes of identity fraud; the threat posed by identity fraud to financial institutions and payment systems; and the threat to consumer safety and privacy. The results of the study will be submitted to Congress with specific recommendations for legislation to address the problem of identity theft. This study is very important. Access to confidential information facilitates credit- card identity assumption scams. With identity fraud rising, we must continually reevaluate statutes regulating consumer privacy. This is the other side of the coin when it comes to deterring this kind of fraud. We need to go after criminal activity when it occurs, but we also must prevent the careless circulation of personal information to begin with. In fact, action has already been taken by Congress to better protect private identity information. In September, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 goes into effect to restrict release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records. Other efforts are underway. In August, the FTC--responding to suggestions that Social Security numbers were easily available on the Internet-- held a staff meeting to exchange information on consumer identity fraud, and following the meeting suggested that Congress consider legislation to tighten restrictions on the release of private identity information. The bill I am introducing today is targeted at the criminals: those who perpetrate identity theft crimes. Congress will need to consider other measures seeking the assistance of the custodians of personal identity information to make identity theft crimes more difficult to commit. I believe that my bill represents a solid first effort to combat identity theft, and I request that my colleagues support the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, with increasing frequency, criminals are using the Social Security numbers and other personal information of law-abiding citizens to assume their identity and take their money. Identity fraud can be more serious than a criminal picking someone's pocket and lifting cash or a credit card. Identity theft involves criminals--who may have ties with international criminal syndicates-- obtaining enough information on another person that they can open up new credit card accounts in the law-abiding person's name. Some call identity theft high-technology bank robbery. But law-enforcement officials say committing identity fraud is easier than robbing a bank. Identity fraud is one of the fastest growing financial crimes. An alarming 2,000 cases occur each week. Credit-card fraud losses--the major financial loss in personal-identity thefts--may amount to as much as $2 billion a year. The statistics don't reveal the hardship these crimes can cause. Imagine the anxiety of knowing that a criminal has been able to gain hold of your most personal identification information to open credit cards or apply for loans in your name. Even when fraudulent charges are cleared from a victim's financial records, he or she cannot be sure that the perpetrator of the crime won't strike again. Moreover, thousands can be spent to repair a tarnished credit rating. As the victim attempts to untangle the mess caused by an identity thief, phone service may be disconnected or a victim may face difficulty in securing a mortgage. I would like to discuss the case of a constituent, Bob Hartle, who has spent many hours working with my staff on the identity-theft proposal. Mr. Hartle served as the inspiration for an Arizona State law which, like the bill I am introducing, makes it a felony to steal another person's identity. I thank Mr. Hartle for all of his help. Bob Hartle's experience with an identity thief illustrates the seriousness of these crimes. The man who victimized Mr. Hartle was sentenced to 17 months in Federal prison for using false names--not Mr. Hartle's; the criminal had misappropriated other law-abiding citizens' names--in order to buy a gun and open up a credit card account. The criminal possessed enough information to have a driver's license and credit cards issued in Mr. Hartle's name. With these credit cards, the criminal made purchases under Mr. Hartle's name that exceeded $100,000. While trashing Mr. Hartle's credit, and carrying a license as Mr. Hartle in his wallet, the identity thief was busy committing serious crimes. Mr. Hartle has spent over $10,000 trying to clear his good name and credit. He did not receive a restitution payment. The assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case was quoted in a 1995 news story as saying that, ``Hartle may never get his full share from the courts. * * * All we can do is prosecute this under the powers given to us by law.'' Restitution was not available to him because, although many of the actions attendant upon identity theft do violate Federal law--that is, credit card fraud, using false names--the actual assumption of another's identity does not. Consequently, individual victims of these offenses are not entitled to restitution. The criminal who ripped off Mr. Hartle's identity committed several such crimes throughout the United States before he was finally apprehended. Acting alone, he caused great damage and hardship. But a new breed of identity-fraud criminal has emerged that poses an even greater threat to citizens. Sophisticated international criminal syndicates, some of which have penetrated the Social Security Administration and other agencies or companies with access to private personal information, are engaging in identity-fraud scams of a magnitude unimaginable a few years ago. For example, the New York Post reported on December 29 that ``A brazen city-based ring of con artists has been lifting personal information about hundreds of New Yorkers and using it to get credit cards and run up huge bills.'' This ring of Nigerian nationals applies for credit cards with banks ``after snatching identifying data about unsuspecting victims.'' Identity-fraud syndicates such as these obtain Social Security numbers and other personal information to perpetrate their scams in myriad ways: stealing mail; collecting credit-card receipts; running license plates through DMV records; posing as a loan officer and ordering a credit report; purchasing information from corrupt governmental and private employees with access to personal information. One of the reasons I elected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information was to ensure that the law keep pace with technology. The Secret Service, which is responsible for investigating financial fraud crimes, believes Federal fraud laws could be improved, to better protect people like Mr. Hartle, and I thank the agency for all of its help in drafting the bill. Rather than amend the Federal fraud laws, my proposal creates a separate statute for identity-fraud offenses, which I am told will make this crime easier to investigate and prosecute. When the fraud laws were drafted, the law-enforcement community was contending with counterfeiters who manufactured, distributed, and used ID's that were pieces of paper. Identity-fraud schemes were not nearly as prevalent in that pre-electronic era as they are today. As mentioned above, individual victims of fraud offenses--who, like Mr. Hartle, are generally not eligible for restitution under current law--could receive restitution under my proposal. Additionally, the act allows law enforcement to seize equipment--contraband--used to produce false documents. Penalties are scaled to reflect the number of victims, not just the dollar amount of the fraud. Moreover, the proposal requires the Secret Service to collect statistics on identity fraud offenses. Statistics on identity fraud are rough; we need to know more about the extent of the problem. And finally, the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a comprehensive study of: the nature, extent, and causes of identity fraud; the threat posed by identity fraud to financial institutions and payment systems; and the threat to consumer safety and privacy. The results of the study will be submitted to Congress with specific recommendations for legislation to address the problem of identity theft. This study is very important. Access to confidential information facilitates credit- card identity assumption scams. With identity fraud rising, we must continually reevaluate statutes regulating consumer privacy. This is the other side of the coin when it comes to deterring this kind of fraud. We need to go after criminal activity when it occurs, but we also must prevent the careless circulation of personal information to begin with. In fact, action has already been taken by Congress to better protect private identity information. In September, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 goes into effect to restrict release and use of certain personal information from State motor vehicle records. Other efforts are underway. In August, the FTC--responding to suggestions that Social Security numbers were easily available on the Internet-- held a staff meeting to exchange information on consumer identity fraud, and following the meeting suggested that Congress consider legislation to tighten restrictions on the release of private identity information. The bill I am introducing today is targeted at the criminals: those who perpetrate identity theft crimes. Congress will need to consider other measures seeking the assistance of the custodians of personal identity information to make identity theft crimes more difficult to commit. I believe that my bill represents a solid first effort to combat identity theft, and I request that my colleagues support the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President. I introduce the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act, which would require Federal prisoners to pay a nominal fee when they initiate a visit for medical attention. The fee would be deposited in the Federal Crime Victims' Fund. Each time a prisoner pays to heal himself, he will be paying to heal a victim. Most working, law-abiding Americans are required to pay a copayment fee when they seek medical care. It is time to impose this requirement on Federal prisoners. To date, at least 20 States--including my home State of Arizona--have implemented statewide prisoner health care copayment programs. In addition to Arizona, the following States have enacted this reform: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Hew Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, Virginia, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Several other States are expected to soon institute a copayment system, including, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Montana, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, and Wyoming. Moreover, according to the National Sheriffs' Association, at least 25 States--some of which have not adopted medical copayment reform on a statewide basis--have jail systems that impose a copayment. In June, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care held a conference that examined the statewide fee-for-service programs. At the conference, Dr. Ron Waldron of the Federal Bureau of Prisons provided a survey of some of the States that have adopted inmate medical copayment programs and concluded that ``Inmate user fees programs appear to reduce utilization, and do generate modest revenues.'' Dr. Waldron reported that prison copayment laws resulted in the reduction of medical utilization of: between 16 and 29 percent in Florida; between 30 and 50 percent in Kansas; 40 percent in Maryland; 50 percent in Nevada; and between 10 and 18 percent in Oklahoma. Terry Stewart, director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, notes that, ``Over the life of the [Arizona copayment] program, there has been an overall reduction of about 31 percent in the number of requests for health care services. This strongly suggests that inmates are being more discreet about, and giving more considered thought to, their need for medical attention.'' I will have his letter placed in the Congressional Record. Reducing frivolous medical visits saves taxpayers money. A December 28, 1996, New York Post editorial, ``Toward Healthier Prison Budgets,'' which I will also include in the Record, reported that the copayment law in New Jersey allowed the State to cut its prison health care budget by $17 million. As to generating revenue, Dr. Waldron reported that California collects about $60,000 per month in prisoner-copayment fees. In my home State of Arizona, the State has collected about $400,000 since the inception of the program in October 1994. Not only are inmate copayment plans working well on the statewide level, they are achieving success in jail systems across the United States. In the January-February edition of Sheriff, the National Sheriffs' Association President reported that copayment plans--which, as mentioned above, are operational in jail systems in at least 25 States--have: First, discouraged overuse of service; and second, freed health care staff to provide better care to inmates who truly need medical attention. Yavapai County sheriff, G.C. ``Buck'' Buchanan, in a letter that I will include in the Record, writes: ``Prior to the institution of [copayment reform], many inmates in custody were taking advantage of the health care which, or course, must be provided to them. This could be construed as frivolous requests if you will, and took up the valuable time of our health care providers * * *. Since this policy has been in effect, we have realized a reduction in inmate requests for medical services between 45 to 50 percent.'' The success of the prison and jail fee-for-service initiatives should come as no surprise. Common sense says that inmates will be less likely to seek unnecessary medical attention if they are required to pick up part of the tab. I believe that Congress should follow the lead of the States and provide the Federal Bureau of Prisons with the authority to charge Federal inmates a nominal fee for elective health care visits. The Federal system is particularly ripe for reform. According to the 1996 Corrections Yearbook, the system spends more per inmate on health care than any State except Vermont. Federal inmate health care totaled $327 million in fiscal year 1996, up from $138 million in fiscal year 1990. Average cost per inmate has increased over 60 percent during this period, from $2,204 to $3,549. The Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act provides that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall assess and collect a fee of not less than $3 and not more than $5 for each qualified health care visit. The term ``qualified health care visit'' does not include any health care visit that is: Conducted during the intake process; an annual examination; initiated by the health care staff of the Bureau of Prisons; the direct result of a referral made by a prison official; or an emergency visit. Prisoners who are pregnant or determined to be seriously mentally ill are exempted from the copayment requirement altogether. No prisoner shall be denied treatment on the basis of insolvency. The act also gives the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the authority to set by regulation a reasonable fee, not to exceed $5, for prescriptions, emergency visits, and juvenile visits. And the legislation permits the Director to charge an inmate's account for medical treatment for injuries an inmate inflicts on himself or others. As I mentioned above, all fees will be deposited in the Federal Crime Victims' Fund. Before I conclude, I would like to thank the Arizona Department of Corrections for its assistance in helping me draft this reform. Additionally, I appreciate the assistance that Sheriff Buchanan and his office provided me. I look forward to working with the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to implement a fee-for-medical-services program--a sensible and overdue reform--for Federal prisoners. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Cellular Telephone Protection Act, which would improve the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute individuals engaged in the activity of cloning cellular phones. Law enforcement officials and wireless carriers support the bill as an important tool to stem this kind of telecommunications fraud. Cell phones are manufactured with an embedded electronic serial number [ESN], which is transmitted to gain access to the telecommunications network. Those involved in cloning cell phones sit in parked cars outside of airports or along busy roadways to harvest ESN's from legitimate cell phone users and, in a process known as cloning, use software and equipment to insert the stolen numbers into other cell phones, the clones. A single ESN can be implanted into several cloned phones. The cloned phones charge to the account of the lawful, unsuspecting user. Cellular phone carriers must absorb these losses, which, according to the Cellular Telecommunication Industry Association, amounted to about $650 million in 1995, up from $480 million in 1994. The cellular industry is expanding by about 40 percent a year; efforts to combat fraud are imperative to ensure the integrity of our communications network. Cloning is more than an inconvenience to the 36 million Americans who currently use cellular phone services, and an expense to wireless communication companies who pay for the fraudulent calls. According to the Secret Service, which is the primary Federal agency responsible for investigating telecommunications fraud, cloning abets organized criminal enterprises that use cellular telephones as their preferred method of communication. Cloned phones are extremely popular among drug traffickers and gang members, who oftentimes employ several cloned phones to evade detection by law enforcement. When not selling cloned phones to drug dealers and ruthless street gangs, cloners set up corner-side calling shops where individuals pay a nominal fee to call anywhere in the world on a replicated phone, or simply purchase the illegal phone for a flat amount. The cellular telephone protection bill clarifies that there is no lawful purpose to posses, produce or sell hardware, known as copycat boxes, or software used for cloning a cellular phone or its ESN. Such equipment and software are easy to obtainn--advertisements hawking cloning equipment appear in computer magazines and on the Internet. There is no legitimate purpose for cloning software and equipment, save for law enforcement and telecommunication service providers using it to improve fraud detection. The bill strikes at the heart of the cloning paraphernalia market by eliminating the requirement for prosecutors to prove that the person selling copycat boxes or cloning software programs intended to defraud. The bill retains an exception for law enforcement to possess otherwise unlawful cloning software, and adds a similar exception for telecommunications service providers. Moreover, the Cellular Phone Protection Act expands the definition of ``scanning receivers,'' equipment which, unlike cloning software and devices, does have legitimate uses if not used to scan frequencies assigned to wireless communications. The bill clarifies that the definition of scanning receivers encompasses devices that can be used to intercept ESN's even if they are not capable of receiving the voice channel. As mentioned above, criminals harvest ESN's by employing scanners near busy thoroughfares. The revised definition of scanning receiver will ensure that these devices are unlawful when used with an intent to defraud just like scanners that intercept voice. Finally, the bill increases penalties for those engaged in cloning. A new paradigm is needed for penalizing cloning offenses. Currently, penalties for cloning crimes are based on the monetary loss a carrier suffers, not the potential loss. First-time offenders oftentimes do not face any jail time, which makes these cases unattractive for prosecution. Carriers and law enforcement are forced to choose between keeping the cloner on the telecommunications network to rack up high losses to ensure jail time, or stemming the losses sooner only to have the cloner back on the streets in days. The penalty scheme should be revised to track another indicator of cloning fraud--the number of electronic serial numbers stolen. Cloning offenses are serious crimes, and the penalties should reflect this. We know that cloned phones are used to facilitate other crimes-- particularly drug trafficking. Additionally, cloning offenses are serious economic crimes in themselves that threaten the integrity of the public communications network. In August, two individuals in New York were arrested for allegedly possessing 80,000 electronic serial numbers. Each of the 80,000 ESN's could be implanted into several cloned phones. I look forward to working with the U.S. Sentencing Commission to achieve a more appropriate sentencing structure for cloning fraud. The cellular phone protection initiative will help to reduce telecommunications fraud. In the process, other criminal activity will be made more difficult to conduct--cloned phones, now a staple of criminal syndicates, would not be so readily available. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Prevention Act of 1997. One of the most important responsibilities for the 105th Congress is to pass a tough comprehensive crime measure that will restore law and order to America's streets. Reported crime may have decreased slightly over the past few years, but the streets are still too dangerous. Too many Americans are afraid to go out for fear of being robbed, assaulted, or murdered. In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report ``Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,'' approximately 2 million people are injured a year as a result of violent crime. Of those who are injured, more than half require some level of medical treatment and nearly a quarter receive treatment in a hospital emergency room or require hospitalization.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today we will vote on one of the most difficult issues facing our Nation: the illegal drug trade in Mexico and the United States. The resolution we will vote on requires the President to report by September 1, 1997, on the efforts of Mexico and the United States to achieve results in combating the production of and trafficking in illicit drugs. I support the resolution, and am hopeful that the report will show significant progress by Mexico and the United States in fighting the war on illegal drugs. As my colleagues have discussed today, we cannot win the war on drugs unless Mexico achieves significant progress in the areas of drug trafficking, extradition, corruption among Mexican law enforcement and other officials, interdiction networks, implementation of laws and regulations to combat money laundering, eradication of crops destined for illegal drug use in the United States, and the strengthening of bilateral border control. Border control must also be a top priority of the United States; and while my colleagues, including Senators Coverdell, Feinstein, and Hutchison, have done an excellent job detailing what must be done to further our and Mexico's efforts to fight illegal drugs, I want to concentrate for a moment on the need for additional United States Border Patrol agents. First, I am pleased that one of three things we are asking the President to do by September 1 is detail the progress made in the deployment of 1,000 additional U.S. Border Patrol agents in 1997 as required by my amendment to the Immigration Act of 1996. Without an effectively controlled border, the United States cannot even begin to win the war on drugs. I was disturbed that the President's fiscal year 1997 budget to Congress requested the addition of only 500 Border Patrol agents, instead of the 1,000 required in the 1986 Act. Senators McCain, Gramm, Hutchison, and Domenici recently joined me in sending a letter to the President, urging him to comply with the law, revise his budget request, and deploy 1,000 additional agents in 1997. Without an adequate contingent of customs and border agents, the problem of individuals smuggling drugs and illegal immigrants across our border will only worsen. Border Patrol agents are on the front lines every day, working hard to seal off our borders from increasing levels of illegal immigration and the drug trade. The agents that Congress has added over the past few years have made a difference, but the need for additional agents keeps growing. Drug and illegal alien smuggling continues to grow-- illegal immigrants are expected to increase by 275,000 per year over the next several years--and the effects of illegal drugs, particularly methamphetamine, have been devastating for the citizens of Arizona and the rest of the Nation. Just a few weeks ago, a study on drug use in America showed a large increase in youth drug use over the last 5 years. Arizona fared poorly, with much higher drug use than the national average, including a startling statistic that our sixth graders are twice as likely to have tried methamphetamine than high school seniors nationwide. While we continue to talk about the need to fight illegal drugs, the precursor chemicals that make methamphetamine are being smuggled into Arizona in increasing volume. It must stop. As the resolution we are voting on today says, the abuse of illicit drugs results in at least 14,000 deaths per year in the United States, and ``exacts economic costs in excess of $67 billion per year to the American people.'' Although many of us would like to see more specific actions that the Mexican government should take to show serious improvement in the war against illicit drugs, it is my hope that Mexico will be able to show significant accomplishments in the areas outlined in the resolution. Likewise, the administration must be able to show specific, detailed action in the war against drugs by, among other things, deploying 1,000 additional agents in 1997. Mr. President, not rhetoric, but actions. That is what we must demand of Mexico and that is what we must demand of ourselves. We must work diligently to eradicate the scourge of illegal drugs that has taken so many of our citizens, young and old alike, hostage. This compromise resolution should be passed by the U.S. Senate.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. It will outlaw gambling on the Internet. I believe it will protect children from logging on to the Internet and being exposed to activities that are normally prohibited to them. And for those people with a gambling problem, my bill will make it harder to gamble away the family paycheck. Gambling erodes values of hard work, sacrifice, and personal responsibility. Although the social costs of gambling are difficult to quantify, research indicates they are potentially staggering. Gambling is a growing industry in the United States, with revenues approaching $550 billion last year--three times the revenues of General Motors Corp. In 1993, more Americans visited casinos than attended a major league baseball game. The problem can only grow worse with online casinos. Now it is no longer necessary to go to a casino or store where lottery tickets are sold. Anyone with a computer and a modem will have access to a casino: Internet users can access hundreds of sites for blackjack, craps, roulette, and sports betting. Gambling addiction is already on the rise. Online gambling will only increase the problem. Why is this bill necessary? It dispels any ambiguity by making clear that all betting, including sports betting, is illegal. Currently, nonsports betting is interpreted as legal. The bill also clarifies the definition of bets and wagers. This ensures that those who are gambling cannot circumvent the law. For example, virtual gaming businesses have been known to offer prizes instead of money, in an attempt to evade the law. Additionally, my bill clarifies that Internet access providers are covered by the law. As the National Association of Attorneys General [NAAG] task force on Internet Gambling reported, ``this is currently the most important section to State and local law enforcement agencies, because it provides a civil enforcement mechanism.'' FCC-regulated carriers notified by any State or local law enforcement agency of the illegal nature of a site are required to discontinue services to the malfeasor. NAAG believes that this can be a very effective deterrent. The bill includes interactive computer-service providers among those entities required to discontinue such service upon notice. Federal, State, and local law enforcement entities are explicitly authorized to seek prospective injunctive relief against continued use of a communications facility for purposes of gambling. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act makes explicit the intent of Congress to create extraterritorial jurisdiction regarding Internet gambling activities. Too often, illicit operators of virtual casinos set up shop in friendly jurisdictions beyond the direct application of U.S. law. It will also require the DOJ to report on the difficulties associated with enforcing the statute. Finally, it places some burden on the bettor. The Internet has great potential to promote both educational opportunities and business expansion in this country. At the same time, the Internet is fast becoming a place where inappropriate activities such as gambling, pornography, and consumer fraud thrive. Recently, many businesses have welcomed law enforcement's involvement in cracking down on consumer fraud. We must find a constitutional way to deal with the other problems raised by this revolution in communications. I believe that it is possible to impose some conditions, as we have in other areas, without violating free speech rights. There is growing support for changes to current law. As I mentioned, the NAAG has a task force on Internet gambling, and the report of the task force--authored by Attorneys General Dan Lungren and Hubert Humphrey-- called for a legislative remedy to stem the tide of gambling electronically. NAAG has endorsed my bill. Mr. President, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997 ensures that the law will keep pace with technology and keep gambling off the Internet. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.