[Pages S9014-S9028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

Amendment No. 1296

(Purpose: Relating to telephone area codes)

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Gregg, Hollings, Torricelli,
Feingold, Smith of New Hampshire, and Lieberman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside, and the clerk
will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Smith
of New Hampshire, and Mr. Lieberman proposes an amendment
numbered 1296.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 111, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. 620 (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) When telephone area codes were first introduced in
1947, 86 area codes covered all of North America. There are
now more than 215 area codes, and an additional 70 area codes
may be required in the next 2 years.
(2) The current system for allocating numbers to
telecommunications carriers is woefully inefficient, leading
to the exhaustion of a telephone area code long before all
the telephone numbers covered by the area code are actually
in use.
(3) The proliferation of new telephone area codes causes
economic dislocation for businesses and unnecessary cost,
confusion, and inconvenience for households.
(4) Principles and approaches exist that would increase the
efficiency with which telecommunications carriers use
telephone numbering resources.
(5) The May 27, l999, rulemaking proceeding of the Federal
Communications Commission

[[Page S9015]]

relating to numbering resource optimization seeks to address
the growing problem of the exhaustion of telephone area
codes.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Federal Communications Commission shall release its
report and order on numbering resource optimization not later
than December 31, 1999;
(2) such report and order should minimize any disruptions
and costs to consumers and businesses associated with the
implementation of such report and order; and
(3) such report and order should apply not only to large
metropolitan areas but to all areas of the United States that
are facing the problem of exhaustion of telephone numbers.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment to address a growing problem in this country, and that
is the needless proliferation of area codes.
As many of my colleagues have witnessed in their own States, new area
codes are being imposed upon consumers and businesses at a dizzying
pace. While the modern technology of faxes, cell phones, pagers, and
computer modems has played a role in creating this problem, area code
exhaustion stems largely from the woefully inefficient system for
allocating numbers to local telephone companies. This leads to the
exhaustion of an area code long before all of the telephone numbers
covered by that code actually have been used.
My own home State of Maine dramatically illustrates this problem. We
have a population in Maine of approximately 1.2 million people. Within
our ``207'' area code, there are roughly 8 million usable numbers and
some 5.7 million of these numbers are still unused. Incredibly enough,
however, Maine has been notified that it will be forced to add a new
area code by the year 2001.
This paradigm of inefficiency in the midst of America's
telecommunications revolution might almost be amusing were it not for
the fact that it causes real hardships for many small businesses,
particularly small businesses in the tourism industry. Businesspeople
throughout my State, particularly in the coastal communities, have
contacted me to express their concern. I have heard from a gallery
owner in Rockport, an innkeeper in Bar Harbor, and a schooner captain
in Rockland, who have expressed to me their concern about the costs
involved in updating brochures, business cards, and other promotional
literature, all of which will be necessitated by the creation of a new
area code--the needless creation of a new area code. As one innkeeper
told me, it takes as long as 2 years to revise certain guidebooks,
which are the principal means by which he communicates with potential
customers.
Changing the area code could lead to a significant loss in business
for many small tourism businesses as well as unneeded expense for these
small companies. Moreover, along with the economic costs, a new area
code creates tremendous disruption and confusion for consumers.
The Federal Communications Commission has initiated a rulemaking
procedure to address this growing problem. But since time is of the
essence in ensuring that Maine and many other States not be forced to
add another unnecessary area code, my amendment requires that the FCC
release its final report and order no later than March 31 of next year.
It also specifies that the order shall minimize costs and disruptions
to consumers and businesses located in all areas of the country, not
just in major cities. The FCC right now appears to be focusing mainly
on the larger markets and ignoring the implications for rural areas.
It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee as well as the distinguished
ranking minority member. I thank them very much for their cooperation
and assistance in drafting this amendment, as well as for their
cosponsorship of it.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Maine. It is very important. We agree with it. We appreciate her
leadership on this.
Mr. GREGG. I also commend the Senator from Maine. This is a serious
problem, not only in Maine but across the border in New Hampshire where
we have the same concern about area codes. So I congratulate her on
this sense-of-the-Senate amendment and strongly support it. I believe
we can accept it.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1296) was agreed to.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank both Senators for their cooperation and
assistance in this matter.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce an amendment regarding the issue
of area code conservation. The rapid proliferation of area codes is a
problem facing the citizens of New Jersey, as well as the rest of the
nation.
The extraordinary growth of the telecommunications industry in recent
years has created a unique new problem. In just the last four years,
the number of area codes in the United States has increased almost 60
percent. Continued growth will require that even the newest area codes
be split and replaced again in the near future.
This problem has been particularly acute in New Jersey. Prior to
1991, the state went almost thirty years without a new area code. But
in the last eight years, four new area codes have been added in the
state and more are on the way.
While this is not the most pressing problem this country faces; it is
a serious one. The costs and inconvenience of introducing new area
codes are real. Small businesses must pay to reprint stationery,
advertising, and signs, and to inform customers of new numbers.
Communities throughout New Jersey, such as Willingboro, Medford, and
Monroe, have faced the possibility of being split between two area
codes, requiring many residents to dial an area code just to call a
neighbor across the street. These costs get even higher when new area
codes are introduced repeatedly in the same area after only a few
years, forcing residents and businesses to make the same adjustments
all over again.
Many people blame the demand for new phone numbers as the sole cause
of so many new area codes. But there is another cause. Each area code
has 7.9 million potential phone numbers. Today, less than half of the
potential phone numbers in existing area codes are being used, leaving
a total of 1.3 billion unused phone numbers in the United States. The
real problem is that new area codes are being created before old ones
are exhausted.
The inefficient use of available phone numbers is a product of the
outdated system by which numbers are distributed within each area code.
Phone numbers are allotted to telecommunications companies in blocks of
10,000, regardless of whether those companies have the capacity to use
every number. Undoubtedly, this system made sense when there was only
one telephone company because it would, eventually, use every number
available.
But, as we all know, the new era of telecommunications competition
has introduced dozens of smaller companies. Today, there are over 100
such companies in New Jersey alone. Under the current allocation
system, these companies still receive phone numbers in blocks of
10,000. Even if a company does not use its full allocation, unused
numbers remain dormant while new area codes are being created.
This unnecessary nuisance can be alleviated relatively easily. All it
requires is a little planning and foresight. Given the enormous demand
for new phone numbers and the growth of smaller phone companies, we
should overhaul the system for allocating phone numbers. The Federal
Communication Commission is currently reviewing ways to do just that.
But, while their efforts are encouraging, the process may not work fast
enough to prevent the next round of needless new area codes in New
Jersey.
The Amendment I have introduced with Senator Collins expresses the
sense of the Senate that the Federal Communications Commission should
complete its ongoing rulemaking regarding number resource optimization
by March 31, 2000. This action will help ensure that the FCC rapidly
implements practical number conservation measures.
New area codes are inevitable as the population and electronic
communications continue to grow. But there are

[[Page S9016]]

reasonable, practical ways to soften the impact of these changes.
Ensuring that new area codes are implemented only when current ones
have been exhausted will save time, energy, and money for countless
residents and businesses, in New Jersey and around the country.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment to offer two amendments that will be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1297

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Kyl, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 1297.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 19, line 23, after the colon, insert the following:
``Provided further, That any Border Patrol agent classified
in a GS-1896 position who completes a 1-year period of
service at a GS-9 grade and whose current rating of record is
fully successful or higher shall be classified at a GS-11
grade and receive pay at the minimum rate of basic pay for a
GS-11 position.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would
mandate to the Immigration and Naturalization Service that Border
Patrol agents who are in the field, who have experience, not be capped
at a GS-9 pay level, as they currently are but go to a GS-11 level
after they pass the test that the INS, of course, would have in their
rating system.
I appreciate very much Senator Gregg's and Senator Hollings' support
for the efforts to increase the number of Border Patrol agents. But the
problem is that recruitment has not been successful. One of the reasons
the recruitment has not been successful is that we have capped the pay
of Border Patrol agents at a lower level than Customs agents who are
working side by side with our Border Patrol agents on the border. So it
is no wonder people are going to Customs and DEA and other very good
Government agencies and not coming to the Border Patrol.
This amendment will require that we go to the GS-11 level so that we
can recruit and retain our best people for the Border Patrol and we can
get on about the business of making sure the borders of our country are
secure.
So, Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be accepted. Both sides
of the aisle have looked at it. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is acceptable on both sides, and we
urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1297) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina. This will do more than anything we can
possibly do to increase the retention and the recruitment of Border
Patrol agents.

Amendment No. 1300

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Kyl, Senator Abraham, Senator Hatch, and
Senator Leahy and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Kyl, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an
amendment numbered 1300.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 19, line 23, after the colon, insert the following:
``Provided further, That the Commissioner shall within 90
days develop a plan for coordinating and linking all relevant
Immigration and Naturalization on Service databases with
those of the Justice Department and other federal law
enforcement agencies, to determine criminal history,
fingerprint identification and record of prior deportation
and, upon the approval of the Committees on the Judiciary and
the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittees,
shall implement the plan within FY 2000:''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is meant to
close a gaping loophole we found in INS's sharing of information that
allowed the serial killer, Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, whose real name is
Angel Maturino Resendiz, to get through our borders, even though he
already had a criminal record, because there was not enough
communication in the identification system between the INS and the
other Justice Department agencies. So we didn't catch this serial
killer.
This is an amendment I have worked on with Senators Kyl, Abraham,
Hatch, and Leahy that would require the Commissioner of the INS, within
90 days, to develop a plan for coordinating and linking all relevant
INS databases with those of the Justice Department and other Federal
law enforcement agencies to determine the criminal history and the
record of prior deportation and, upon the approval of the Judiciary
Committee and Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee,
will implement a plan by fiscal year 2000.
I am counting on the committees to come through on this because if we
can get the plan in 90 days, we need to implement a plan that will
identify criminal aliens in our country so when they try to enter
again, they will be stopped.
I ask that the amendment be accepted and that we move forward to try
to close this loophole that allowed this serial killer to fall through
the cracks or slip through our fingers, however one wants to say it,
and cause havoc in our country for about a month.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, was that a unanimous consent request?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. It was.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the
amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1300) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, if it is in order, I will speak on the bill.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Texas wouldn't mind suspending, I
believe the majority leader has some points he wishes to raise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am sorry. It would be fine if the Senator
from Texas wanted to speak on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. If there comes a time when the
Senator from New Hampshire needs to break in, I will be happy to yield.
I rise in support of the bill that is before us. It has been a tough
bill. It is more than $888 million less than the appropriations bill
that we enacted in last year, but it does provide sufficient resources.
I believe Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings and their staffs have
worked very hard to make sure we address the priorities for the
Commerce, State, and Justice Departments and the very important issues
with which they are dealing.
I have passed two amendments to the bill tonight. There will be
another amendment that has already been accepted that will allow the
INS Commissioner to provide a language proficiency bonus for people who
are proficient in Spanish to be hired in the Border Patrol. Of course,
if people are already proficient in Spanish, it will save the money it
will take to train them in the second language. That amendment has been
cleared on both sides. I appreciate it because I am looking for every
way I can to increase the capability to recruit new Border Patrol
agents who will be able to hit the ground running and help stop the
influx of drugs and illegal immigration into our country.
I cannot imagine that we have continued to tell the INS that we want
these Border Patrol agents to come on board, and we have not had the
cooperation of the administration in either recruitment or retention.
Certainly, I hope with this bill, which is

[[Page S9017]]

much more narrow in its requirements, the Border Patrol will do what
the Congress has mandated they do, and that is recruit and retain more
Border Patrol agents so we can stop the influx of drugs into this
country. As a matter of fact, $10 billion in marijuana, heroin,
cocaine, and methamphetamines crossed our border last year. How in the
world can we say that we have a handle on the sovereignty of our
borders when we have $10 billion of illegal drugs flowing in in 1 year?
I am very pleased that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
Senator Stevens, went to the Arizona border with Mexico during the
Memorial Day recess. He was stunned at what he saw. I hope more
Senators will go to the border so they will see the problem we are
facing.
During the markup of the bill that is before us today, Senator
Stevens said: God forbid that the day comes when we have to have fences
and walls between the United States and Mexico.
I share his view. Mexico is our neighbor. They are strong cultural
and historic ties between our two nations. I seek a border that is as
open as possible, allowing people, goods, and services to move across
the 2,000-mile-shared border quickly and efficiently. I am committed to
putting in place the infrastructure, the bridges, the facilities, and
the inspection personnel necessary for this to happen. I wish the
President and this administration would work with us.
The realities are otherwise, however. In Texas and along the border,
we are witnessing a lawlessness that we have never seen since the days
of the frontier. It is important to put the drug threat in its proper
context and to understand its full dimensions.
On March 24, 1999, Administrator Thomas Constantine of the Drug
Enforcement Administration testified before our subcommittee. He said:

Most Americans are unaware of the vast damage that has been
caused to their communities by international drug trafficking
syndicates, most recently by organized crime groups
headquartered in Mexico. At the current time, these
traffickers pose the greatest threat to communities around
the United States. Their impact is no longer limited to
cities and towns on the border. Traffickers from Mexico are
now routinely operating in the Midwest, the Southeast, the
Northwest, and increasingly in the Northeastern portion of
the United States.

Make no mistake: Drugs coming across the border are ending up on the
streets of Manchester, NH; Columbia, SC; Baltimore, MD; and Denver, CO,
and they are coming across in record numbers. In fiscal year 1998,
there were 6,359 drug seizures along the Southwest border. The total
value of these drug seizures was $1.28 billion, nearly $150 million
more than last year. Nearly $1 billion of the drugs seized last year
were on the Texas border, in the Border Patrol sectors there.
Drug-related violence along the Texas border continues to increase.
Ranchers in Maverick County, 150 miles southwest of San Antonio,
reported that armed traffickers in black, wearing camouflage clothing,
passed through their properties after walking across the Rio Grande
River. The situation is no better on the immigration side. More than
1.5 million illegal immigrants were apprehended along the Southwest
border just last year.
Conservative estimates suggest that only one in four illegal aliens
is apprehended. But the numbers hide the dark, evil side of this issue
of alien smuggling, violent assault against migrating women, and other
suffering.
I commend to my colleagues an article that appeared recently in the
New York Times. Rick Lyman reported on a disturbing development where
infants and young children, some possibly kidnapped and others who are
rented, are used to trick border agents. INS has no facilities to house
families, especially babies. So illegal aliens are simply released and
asked to report for a later court date. The borrowed children are then
shuffled back and forth across the border to be placed in the hands of
others to make yet another treacherous, illegal crossing.
These examples highlight conditions along the border. They underscore
that we have a moral obligation to provide the necessary resources to
secure our border. That is why I find it incomprehensible that this
administration has requested no new Border Patrol agents, Drug
Enforcement Administration agents, or Customs agents in its budget
recommendation to Congress this year. The 8,000 men and women serving
in our Border Patrol are our Nation's first line of defense in the war
on drugs and illegal immigration. Understanding this, Congress
required, under the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996, that the Attorney
General in each of the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001,
shall increase the Border Patrol by not less than 1,000 full-time
active duty Border Patrol agents within the INS. Unfortunately, our
Nation's top law enforcement officer, Janet Reno, and the President
opted not to abide by the law and put these agents in their budget.
This is not the first time the administration has not complied with
this law. In 1997, the administration only requested 500 new agents
instead of a thousand. Thank heavens, Senator Gregg and Senator
Hollings have kept their commitment to secure our Nation's borders and
provide $83 million in this year's budget to hire 1,000 agents.
Mr. President, this is so very important to fund these agencies.
Again, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings have gone a long way to
pushing INS toward getting the 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. I have
heard from every Border Patrol chief along the Southwest border, and
all have told me that, yes, they can use better equipment. Better
equipment helps them and it gives them a range much longer than one of
them can cover. But what they need most, first and foremost, is
manpower. They cannot operate the equipment, they cannot get to the
places they need to be if they don't have enough Border Patrol agents,
and they are woefully short.
So after talking to our drug czar, General McCaffrey, it is clear
that we need more Border Patrol agents. He has said we need 20,000
Border Patrol agents in order to stop the flow of drugs across our
Southwest border.
A University of Texas study done last year indicates that 16,000
agents are needed to do this job, and we only have 8,000.
With only 200 to 400 likely to be hired this year, we are not even
making progress in the right correction.
I call on this administration to stop the excuses on why they can't
recruit more Border Patrol agents, to stop refusing to even put them in
their budget, and to come forward and say our border is a priority.
That is what I am asking this administration to do--to say that our
border has to stop letting in illegal drugs that are preying on our
children in Seattle, WA, in Chicago, IL, and in Augusta, ME. We have to
stop this. The only way we are going to do it is to make it a priority.
I appreciate the leadership of Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings.
They are making this a priority. The administration must come through
and help us stop the sieve on our borders that is allowing drugs to
come in.
I want to say in closing that Senator Kyl has worked very closely
with me on these issue. Senator Kyl and I cosponsored the bill that
would raise the pay of the Border Patrol agents so we could be in the
recruitment game. He cosponsored my amendment on the floor today that
would make this happen. He has been an important voice for effective
law enforcement along the Southwest Border.
Mr. President, we cannot wait any longer. We must have action from
this administration to beef up the Border Patrol, to beef up the
Customs agents, to beef up the Drug Enforcement Agency, so that we can
stop the influx of drugs into our country. We must get serious about
it. That is what this bill does. But we must have the cooperation of
this administration to do it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the pending
appropriations bill, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree
amendments, and no motion to commit or recommit be in order. I submit
the list of amendments to the desk. It includes the Democratic list of
amendments and the Republican list of amendments as of 6:10.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the
majority

[[Page S9018]]

leader has this been circulated in the last 10 minutes or so?
Mr. LOTT. Over the past hour or so.
Mr. REID. We just got six more is the reason.
Mr. LOTT. Are they on the list?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Is there a copy we can look at?
Mr. LOTT. I have the list here. I believe the Senator from Minnesota
is on here for four amendments--not one, not two, not three but four.
We have the list.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am an active legislator. I ask the majority leader
or Senator Gregg, I assume these are in addition to the amendment that
has been laid aside.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator's amendment is already in the queue.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. If the majority leader would wait for just a brief minute,
we are seeing what we can do here.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the managers of this legislation have been
working diligently throughout the day and have made a lot of progress
in dealing with a number of amendments, accommodating those amendments.
Senator Daschle and I have been working with Senators to find ways for
Senators to perhaps have their legislation considered on other bills.
We are trying to get a list of amendments outstanding so they will know
exactly what they are dealing with.
Mr. REID. If the leader will yield, I have just spoken to the manager
of the bill, Senator Hollings. I want to make sure the list that has
been submitted includes Senator Torricelli's FTC on marketing scams; a
relevant Feinstein; a relevant one for Bob Kerrey; a relevant by Bob
Graham dealing with NOAA; an additional one for Senator Durbin, another
relevant one; one for Senator Leahy on the Sentencing Commission;
another for Senator Torricelli; Senator Landrieu has three relevants.
Mr. LOTT. I repeat my unanimous consent request and ask that the
amendments identified by Senator Reid be included on the list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list of amendments is as follows:

democrat amendments

Harkin: Burn grants.
Harkin: Relevant.
Harkin: Relevant.
Kerry (MA): Relevant.
Kennedy/Wyden: Hate crimes.
Dorgan: Relevant.
Durbin: INS.
Durbin: Elder abuse.
Graham: Public aviation.
Graham: Elderly crimes study.
Graham: Relevant.
Reed (RI): Relevant.
Johnson: Bureau of Export Administration.
Bryan: Travel and tourism.
Bingaman: E-Commerce extension.
Bingaman: Relevant.
Murray: Tribal funding.
Wellstone: Prison litigation.
Wellstone: Sex trafficking.
Wellstone: Judicial training.
Wellstone: Relevant.
Dodd: Relevant.
Boxer: Tuna Commission.
Boxer: No gun sales to intoxicated persons.
Boxer: Criminal alien deportation.
Lautenberg: Anti-youth drinking.
Lautenberg: Women's health clinic protection.
Durbin: Elder abuse.
Durbin: INS.
Daschle: Relevant.
Hollings: Relevant.
Kerrey (NE): Relevant.
Schumer: State prison grants.
Torricelli: FTC marketing scams.
Torricelli: Trucks.
Torricelli: Police.
Torricelli: Relevant.
Landrieu: War crimes tribunal funding.
Landrieu: Abused women immigration status.
Landrieu: Relevant.
Landrieu: Relevant.
Landrieu: Relevant.
Feinstein: Relevant.
Leahy: Sentencing Commission.
Sarbanes: Diplomatic and consular funds.
Byrd: Consolidation of office in W.VA.
Levin/DeWine: Great Lakes Y2K compliance.

Republican amendments

Gorton: Salmon recovery.
Ashcroft: 2nd degree (object to any limit on 2nd degrees).
Nickles: Death penalty.
Nickles: Travel.
Nickles: Independent Counsel.
Snowe: Fisheries.
Snowe: Ground fish.
McCain: Patent/trade mark.
Brownback: FCC.
Brownback: Police funding.
Enzi: GAAT & FCC.
Enzi: BXA initiative/Cox report.
Warner: Relevant.
Domenici: Albuquerque Federal Building.
Coverdell: DEA.
Coverdell: Drug-free workplace.
Stevens: Pacific salmon treaty.
Stevens: Maritime Adm./Amer. Fisheries Act.
Lott: Funding for Advisory Commission.
Gregg Hollings: Managers amendment.

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS FOR THE FLOOR

Abraham--$1 million for helicopter.
Abraham--Drug dealers powdered cocaine.
Abraham--Faith based drug treatment, Federal funding.
Biden--Jerusalem (MP2).
Bingaman--E-Commerce at NIST.
Bingaman--Guadalupe-Hidalgo land grant.
Boxer, Kennedy--Abortion clinic violence security, $4.5
million.
Burns--Bull trout (MP2).
Breaux--Lafayette Lab, authority to become a NOAA lab
(MP2).
Brownback--Elimination of caps on spectrum.
Boxer--INS.
Boxer--NOAA.
Chafee--Narragansett Bay (MP2).
Cochran--Sense of the Senate.
Cochran--$2 million for NIJ.
Coverdell, John Kerry--Drug free workplace, $4 million.
Daschle--911 system (MP2).
Daschle--Change soft earmark for hard for Indian courts (no
construction) (MP2).
DeWine--CITA name.
Durbin/Fitzgerald--INS constituent services.
Rod Grams--UN arrears $107 million, want legal authority to
waive debt (MP2).
Graham--Report on abuse against the elderly.
Graham--BIO medical earmark to NOAA for sea turtles.
Gregg--Extension of internet moratorium.
Gregg--UN taxing the internet.
Gregg, Hollings--DOJ land border inspection fees.
Gregg, Hollings--Supreme Court.
Gregg, Hollings--SBA--Tech.
Gregg, Hollings--SBA--Tech.
Gregg, Hollings--SBA--Tech.
Harkin--Increase Byrne grant.
Hollings--State Department cannot sell property.
Hollings--OJP $500 K.
Hutchison--Border Patrol training.
Hutchison--Border Patrol pay raise.
Hutchison--Border Patrol serial killers identification.
Inouye--Coral reefs.
Kennedy--GTE waiver of Telecom Act.
Kennedy--Hate crimes--S. 622.
Kerrey--Teammates of Nebraska, $1 million via OJP.
Kerrey--Lincoln.
Kyl/Ashcroft--$100 million fenced for Jerusalem Embassy.
Ashcroft--Sense of Senate on Iran.
Lautenberg--Abortion clinics, law enforcement.
Levin--$390,000 upgrade water gauge stations.
Lott, Daschle, Conrad--J-1 visas for doctors.
McCain--50 percent funding cut for PTO building.
McCain--Internet filtering.
Mikulski, Sarbanes--NOAA research vessel, $1.5 million.
Hatch--Hate crimes.
Sessions--Civil rights and cops.
Murray--Salmon funding for tribes, $18 million for each
state, $6 million for tribes.
Reed--Making Liberian language permanent.
Schumer--SEC report.
Schumer--State prison grant to go to local counties.
Schumer, Kohl--Project exile.
Sessions--Cops quota system.
Smith--Add vessel to AFA.
Snowe--Increase council membership.
Snowe--SEC.
Specter--Private right of action.
Specter--Reauthorize drug court program.
Stevens--Strike salmon authorization.
Stevens--Continue no year funds.
Thurmond, Thompson, Hatch--IG to use .02% of VCTF for
audits.
Torricelli--Heavy trucks, cops technology $660,000.
Torricelli--FTC, marketing scams.
Coverdell--DEA.
Sessions--Audit review.
Lott--2M for Internet Commission.
Torriccelli--$190K for block grant.
Bryan--Sense of Senate.
Hatch/Leahy--Holding court in New York, West Virginia and
Utah.
Lautenberg--Alcohol add campaign.
Leahy--Sentencing Commission.
Wellstone--International trafficking.
Wellstone--Prison litigation reform.
Hatch/Leahy/Hollings--Court in New York.

Mr. LOTT. With this agreement in place, it is my hope that the bill
can be completed yet this evening. I believe we have amendments that
are in order, and Senator Lautenberg has one he may be able to go
forward with.
Work is still being done on the rule XVI issue. Additional votes will
occur during this evening's session of the Senate. We usually can
expect to go late into the evenings on Thursday. It looks as if that
will be the case.
If we can work with the managers and get this work done, this would
be a

[[Page S9019]]

very important achievement. And that, coupled with the fact that we
know there is a memorial service tomorrow, we would not have to be in
session tomorrow.
I urge the managers to keep working and my colleagues to please work
with them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am going to propound two unanimous
consent requests. One deals with Senator Lautenberg's amendment and one
with Senator Enzi's amendment. The plan is as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Lautenberg to
offer an amendment regarding alcohol and there be 30 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to the vote on or in relation to the amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the
amendment prior to the vote.
I further ask unanimous consent that the previous consent relating to
the pending Gregg amendment remain status quo to recur immediately
following the Lautenberg vote.
I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Enzi
to offer an amendment regarding the FCC accounting principles and there
be 30 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on or in
relation to the amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order prior
to the vote.
I further ask unanimous consent that the previous consent relating to
the pending Gregg amendment remain status quo to reoccur immediately
following the vote on the Enzi amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Enzi amendment and the
Lautenberg amendment be voted on en bloc at the end of the Enzi debate
time.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I apologize to the
Republican manager of the bill. I was not listening when the consent
request was first issued. Would the Senator tell us what it is.
Mr. GREGG. It actually means that Senator Lautenberg has 30 minutes
on his amendment equally divided, Senator Enzi has 30 minutes on his
amendment equally divided, and we go to a vote on those two amendments.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what happens, I ask the
chairman, after that?
Mr. GREGG. At that point we are back to the regular order, which is
that Senator Hollings is recognized for 10 minutes and I am recognized
for 10 minutes. Then we have a vote on the majority leader's point of
order. However, I expect that there will be further action on the bill
at that point and we will get into an amendment process.
Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment that is on the list. If I may, I
would like to get a time line on that.
Mr. GREGG. I would like to talk to the Senator about his amendment. I
am hopeful that we can work it out and that we won't have to have a
vote on it. Maybe we can talk about it while this debate is going on
and work something out.
Mr. HARKIN. All right. I will be back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the order, the Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 1302

(Purpose: To fund a media campaign, from increases in the
Department of Justice budget, to prevent underage drinking.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I assume that the pending Gregg
amendment has been laid aside.
I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. LAUTENBERG), for himself,
Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered
1302.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
For carrying out a media campaign to prevent alcohol
consumption by individuals in the United States who have not
attained the age of 21, $25,000,000 which shall become
available on October 1, 2000 and remain available through
September 30, 2001

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to
provide the Justice Department $25 million in fiscal year 2001 to
develop and begin to implement a media campaign to discourage children
from engaging in underage alcohol consumption.
We already have an ad campaign on national television that espouses
the evils of drug use. But that campaign does not include alcohol. And
when I tried to amend that ad campaign in the Treasury-Postal bill last
month to include alcohol, some Senators said that they did not want to
dilute the anti-drug message. But they did say that they would support
a separate anti-underage drinking campaign.
I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin and
Dorgan, who the last time I offered a similar amendment voted against
it, but now has agreed that it is the right thing to do.
Right now, by running anti-drugs ads without also running anti-
underage drinking ads, we are sending the wrong message to Ameria's
children. It is the equivalent of telling kids: ``say 'no' to drugs.
But this Bud's for you!''
Mr. President, consuming alcohol is illegal in all 50 States if you
are under the age of 21, and among America's youth, underage alcohol
consumption is just as big a problem as drug use.
The facts are daunting. If we look at this chart, we see that alcohol
kills six times more children ages 12 to 20 than all the other ilegal
drugs combined. It was a surprise to me, as I suspect it is a surprise
to millions of other Americans as well.
Let me point out some more facts. According to the Department of
Health and Human Services, the average age at which children start
drinking is 13.
What's even worse, Mr. President, is that research shows that
children who drink at age 13 have a 47-percent chance of becoming
alcohol-dependent.
But if they waited until they were 21 to drink, they would have only
a 10-percent chance of becoming dependent.
In all, Mr. President, there are nearly 4 million young people in
this country who suffer from alcohol dependence, and they account for
one-fifth of all alcohol-dependent Americans.
Not only is alcohol consumption widespread among children under the
age of 21, but it is a ``gateway drug.'' And too often, it leads to the
use of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.
The drug czar, Geneal McCaffrey, had some things to say about this.
He said, ``The most dangerous drug in America today is still alcohol.''
But for one reason or another, we don't get that message through.
He goes on to say that alcohol is ``the biggest drug abuse problem
for adolescents, and it's linked to the use of other, illegal drugs.''
Mr. President, statistics support what General McCaffrey has been
saying. According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, youth who drink alcohol are 7.5 times more likely
to use any illegal drug and 50 times more likely to use cocaine, than
young people who never drink alcohol.
General McCaffrey is not alone in his belief that attacking underage
drinking is a key component of the war on drugs. Surgeon General Davis
Satcher recently wrote a letter to General McCaffrey expressing his
support for ``a powerful media campaign that will effectively
deglamourize underage drinking.''
Surgeon General Satcher went on to say that he has established a
Staff Working Group ``to create an effective campaign to curtail the
incidence of underage and binge drinking.''
Finally, the Surgeon General

It is time to more effectively address the drug that
children and teens tell us is their great concern and the
drug we know is most likely to result in their injury or
death.

If experts like General McCaffrey and Surgeon General Satcher agree
that alcohol is a ``gateway drug,'' then it is clear that a well-
planned ad campaign that targets underage drinking would increase the
effectiveness of our war against drugs.
My amendment provides the Justice Department with $25 million in
fiscal year 2001 to develop and begin to implement a media campaign to
discourage

[[Page S9020]]

children under the age of 21 from drinking. The amendment allows plenty
of time to conduct the necessary research and develop and test sample
radio and television ads in order to launch an effective media
campaign. Ad messages would be consistent with the antidrug messages in
the drug czar's media campaign. There would also be funds to begin
buying media time.
The Justice Department will coordinate the campaign with
representatives of the Centers for Disease Control, the Surgeon
General's office, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism. With the help of these health institutions, the Justice
Department also would put together a detailed 5-year funding plan for
the campaign and its media ``buys'' to help Congress in the
appropriations process.
Editorials have been written across this country supporting the need
for an anti-underage drinking media campaign. Editorials have appeared
in the Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and
Los Angeles Times. The concept of an anti-underage drinking media
campaign is further supported by more than 80 organizations, including
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Medical Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association,
and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
I am proud to have been the author some years ago, in 1984, that made
21 the drinking age in all 50 States. With the help of the National
Transportation Safety Board, we have saved the lives of approximately
15,000 young people in the 15 years since the law has been in place. It
was a real boon to those families who worried about their children
drinking and the problems that result.
In 1995, Senator Byrd led the charge on zero tolerance for underage
alcohol consumption by writing a law that says if you are under age 21,
.02 blood alcohol level is legally drunk. So, as in the past, we need
to continue to send a strong message to America's youth that neither
underage alcohol consumption nor drug use is acceptable. And the only
successful path to winning the war on drugs is the one paved by
preventing underage drinking.
We must not accept underage drinking as a so-called rite of passage.
It often is. It is a passage directly to illegal drugs such as
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. It is a passage to a life of alcohol
dependency.
The bottom line is this: This is a simple up-or-down vote on whether
you want to do something to prevent teen alcohol addiction. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment so that we can get a handle on
that drug which is acknowledged to be the most dangerous among all
drugs. And the fact that alcohol kills six times more children ages 12
to 20 than all other illegal drugs combined proves that.
I hope we get a positive vote on this. I understand this vote will be
stacked with a vote of the Senator from Wyoming, is that correct?
Mr. GREGG. That is correct. We will have a vote on the amendment of
the Senator from New Jersey and then the Senator from Wyoming.
I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons. With
forward funding of an initiative, the $25 million for advanced
appropriations next year, it makes it extremely difficult for the
committee to function.
When the President presented his budget, he had included a large
amount of funding which this committee did not accept because we did
not want to put ourselves in that sort of a bind.
Independent of the equities of the argument relative to the
initiative which was voted on once before in a form not exactly like
this but similar to this on the Treasury-Postal bill, I believe very
strongly this would set a very poor precedent if we began appropriating
in the future on bills for this year.
It would avoid the entire budgetary process, which requires offsets.
That is our fiscal discipline. Without offsets, we will have no fiscal
discipline. Arguably, we could appropriate all of next year's budget on
almost any subject that Members wish and create significant problems.
I don't support the amendment. I believe the amendment is
inappropriate.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for permitting me to offer this amendment.
But this is not a precedent-setting amendment. We have done
substantial forward funding in those programs that need it. And it will
take a year to organize this program.
This is the time to get this program started by making certain that
the message is clear, that it is out there. It says: Listen, kids,
don't start drinking. It could lead you down a terrible path. It could
create more dependence on alcohol, more introduction to other drugs.
That is a poor way to give a child a sendoff.
The Senator from New Hampshire talks about appropriating next year's
money at this time as being somewhat unusual. Fortunately, or
unfortunately, it is not unusual. I have a list of accounts that have
been forward funded. I ask unanimous consent to have these accounts
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the information was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:

DISCRETIONARY ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
[Budget authority by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military pay and retirement.................. 0 0 1,838
Denali Commission............................ 0 0 8
Patent and Trademark Office.................. 0 71 167
Legal activities & U.S. Marshals............. 0 31 0
SBA business loan program account............ 4 4 0
Federal Trade Commission..................... 0 14 0
Securities & Exchange Commission............. 27 0 0
Employment and Training Administration....... 0 290 0
NIH, buildings and facilities................ 0 0 40
Low income home energy assistance program.... 1,000 1,100 1,100
Child care development block grant........... 937 1,000 1,183
Elementary & Secondary Ed (reading 0 210 0
excellence).................................
Education for the disadvantaged.............. 1,298 1,448 6,204
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.......... 250 250 317
Payment to Postal Service.................... 0 0 71
Defense vessel transfer program.............. 0 0 31
NASA......................................... 365 0 0
Veterans, construction, major................ 32 0 0
Hazardous substance superfund................ 0 650 650
--------------------------
Total.................................. 3,913 5,068 11,609
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO, Scorekeeping Unit.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator is willing to yield back, I am willing to
yield back.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
Mr. GREGG. I yield back my time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

amendment no. 1301

(Purpose: To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
requiring persons to use any accounting method that does not conform to
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles)

Mr. ENZI. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr.
Burns, and Mr. Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered
1301.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. --. PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENT FOR USE OF ACCOUNTING
METHOD NOT CONFORMING TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED
ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

(a) Prohibition.--No part of any appropriations contained
in this Act shall be used by the Federal Communciations
Commission to require any person subject to its jurisdiction
under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C.
151 et seq) to utilize for any purpose any form or method of
accounting that does not conform to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles established by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to remove an
unnecessary burdensome recordkeeping requirement on local telephone
companies.
In 1935, the Federal Communications Commission developed an
accounting system known as a uniform system of accounts to ensure the
Commission had access to financial data used by AT&T to set local phone
rates. This system of accounting requires that companies maintain
detailed records and appreciate every asset they purchase, from paper
clips to trucks. According to depreciation schedules that each company
negotiates with the FCC, no other entity in the Nation has to do that.

[[Page S9021]]

I have seen some of these schedules. They require companies to
depreciate assets over longer periods of time than either the Internal
Revenue Service or the Securities and Exchange Commission. They require
them to depreciate things that no other business has to depreciate.
Many of these assets are high-technology items such as digital switches
or fiber-optic cable that are often obsolete in a very short period of
time. However, the FCC requires them to be depreciated over a much
longer period of time.
This is not limited to depreciation. As an accountant, I happen to
know a bit about generally accepted accounting principles. Yet even
small businesses under the IRS have a dollar threshold over which they
amortize assets--usually $25,000. For purchases under $25,000, the
company would simply expense the item, meaning that they could charge
the cost of the asset against the current year's revenues.
Under the FCC system, local telephone companies are required to
amortize every asset they buy, from office supplies to digital
switching equipment. There is no dollar value threshold for local
companies. They have to keep detailed records and record assets in
accounts specified by the FCC; negotiated individually with the FCC.
These companies already maintain their records according to generally
accepted accounting principles. Their standard is required by the IRS
and FCC. Why should a third agency require companies to keep their
books in a manner inconsistent with generally accepted accounting
principles?
Now that AT&T has been broken up and competition is being allowed to
take place, it is time to remove regulatory burdens that do nothing
more than impose a requirement on one set of companies that their
competitors do not have to comply with, information that is available
to the competitors, information in detail available to the competitors,
derived at great expense to the local telephone company?
The amendment I am proposing would prohibit the FCC from requiring
any accounting system other than generally accepted accounting
principles for 1 year. This would give companies time to transition to
the generally accepted accounting principles--one set of books--and
make provisions to take obsolete equipment out of service and change
their internal accounting policies to conform with generally accepted
accounting principles. This would also save the Government money, since
the FCC would not have to maintain as big an Accounting Policy Division
to negotiate and enforce these antiquated, detailed depreciation and
expense rules.

According to the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson, this would save
the small local telephone exchange companies--we are talking about the
small companies in every State in this Nation--between $200,000 and $1
million a year. This is money that could be spent on bringing advanced
services and technology to rural areas or reducing rates. I understand
how expensive it is to maintain one set of business records, and
anybody in business out there understands that. That is one set of
business records according to the generally accepted accounting
principles. Just imagine what it costs for two sets of books, and the
second set of books has to be negotiated in detail, has to have far
more accounts than the other. My amendment would eliminate this
expensive requirement on local telephone companies and level the
playing field between competitors, particularly with the huge long
distance competitors.
My amendment is being supported by the United States Telephone
Association and its members. The United States Telephone Association
represents small rural telephone companies. They believe, as I do, that
competition in the local phone market starts when all participants are
bound by the same rules.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the United States Telephone Association that goes into a bit more
detail than I have time, in my allotted 15 minutes, to go into.
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who serves on the Federal
Communications Commission, made a statement on docket 99-253 that
mentions:

In today's increasingly competitive telecommunications
marketplace, the Commission should be focusing its efforts on
transitioning to a more competitive environment. The amount
of detailed information and regulatory scrutiny required
under our accounting and ARMIS rules is inordinate and should
be reduced.

I ask that entire letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States

Telephone Association,

July 19, 1999.
Hon. Michael Enzi,
U.S. Senate, Russell State Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Enzi: I am writing to commend you and thank
you for your efforts to streamline the FCC's accounting
requirements for local telephone companies. These
requirements are vestiges of past regulatory schemes. They
are burdensome, costly, and discriminatory, and they serve no
useful purpose in today's telecommunications market. The
1,200 local telephone companies that comprise the United
States Telephone Association appreciate your leadership on
this issue.
As you know, these accounting rules, also known as the
Uniform System of Accounts, were adopted more than a decade
ago, when the local telephone market was for the most part
closed, and local carriers were subject to cost-based, rate
of return regulations. Since that time, the large incumbent
local exchange companies have changed to price cap
regulations, and the local telephone market has opened to
competition. In short, the marketplace has changed, but these
accounting rules have not.
Arthur Anderson estimates that these regulations cost the
local phone industry up to $270 million every year.
Ultimately, consumers suffer from these wasted resources. The
capital the local phone companies spend meeting these
requirements could be redeployed in ways that benefit
consumers with lower prices, better services, more advanced
technologies and more robust competition. Further, in today's
telecommunications market, rapid advances in technology drive
the introduction of new products and services at a breakneck
pace. Costly and unnecessary regulations slow that pace and
skew the competitive balance toward companies that are not
subject to them.
Taxpayers suffer, as well. More than 70 people at the
Federal Communications Commission are needed to maintain and
audit these reports. These slots or their funding could be
saved, or put to better use either elsewhere at the
Commission, or elsewhere in government.
Senator Enzi, thank you again for your leadership on this
issue. If we may be of assistance in any way, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
Roy Noel,
President and CEO,
____

statement of commissioner harold furchtgott-roth

Re: Comprehensive Review of the Accounting Requirements and
ARMIS Reporting Requirements for Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (CC Docket No. 99-253)

I support today's Order initiating ``Phase 1'' of a
comprehensive review of the Commissioner's accounting and
reporting requirements. While I believe that today's Order is
a step in the right direction, it is, to my regret, a very
small step down a very long road. I write separately because
I continue to be concerned about the Commission's micro-
management of all telecommunications carriers, including
LECs.
In today's increasingly competitive telecommunications
marketplace, the Commissioner should be focusing its efforts
on transitioning to this more competitive environment. The
amount of detailed information and regulatory scrutiny
required under our current accounting and ARMIS rules is
inordinate and should be reduced. I am becoming increasingly
convinced that the current regulatory mechanisms--and
certainly the level of detail--are no longer necessary in
today's increasingly competitive marketplace. I believe the
Commission must consider even further deregulation as these
cumbersome regulations become unnecessary.
I wait anxiously for the commencement of Phase 2 of this
review, which I hope follows today's small step with huge
strides toward true regulatory reform.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what we have is an issue where we have a lot
of local, small, rural telephone companies who are coming under
inordinate additional accounting requirements, additional accounting
besides what is required by the other Federal agencies. This
information has to be released to the competitors as well. Competitors,
the big phone companies, do not have to give the same information to
the little companies. So it is time we made this kind of change.
I ask for support on the amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the
distinguished Senator and realize he is far more steeped in this
particular discipline of accounting, of certified public accounting,
than I am.

[[Page S9022]]

Yet having worked in the field and heard for the first time here in
the last half hour of this particular amendment, it goes right to the
heart of what has been going on. Specifically, we want to change an
accounting system that has been on the books, agreed to, conformed
with, never objected to, during the entire 4-year deliberation of the
rewrite of the Telecommunications Act. I never heard anything about
this need for a different system of accounting. Now, having adopted it,
I am asking immediately: Wait a minute, what is going on here? We never
heard of this or anything else like it. Then the giveaway is when my
distinguished colleague says the United States Telephone Association,
and so forth, little, little, little--little my eye. This is the Bell
crowd.
I find out by telephone call they have had a recent audit and the
auditors found billions of dollars of unaccounted-for equipment. They
just had it on the books. They put it into the rate structure. And then
they redeem those amounts into the rate-paying system. This, of course,
affects the rates, it affects the amounts that go back to universal
service, and everything else of that kind. So all of a sudden we
really, rather than helping the little ones, are going to harm the
little folks on a so-called accounting system change.
If anybody is intimately familiar with the rural telephone companies
and the co-ops and everything else, this particular Senator is. The
finest rural system there is is in the State of South Carolina. In
fact, they have put in the Internet connections and everything else at
all the public schools and what have you. Really, it is one of the
finest rural groups. They never saw me about this or anything of this
kind. This amendment definitely ought to be tabled.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming. I doubt I
need 3 minutes.
When this accounting system was adopted in the telecommunications
industry way back in 1935, and it evolved through the years, we did not
foresee the advances of technology and the need to change equipment
would happen in that area as fast as it is happening now. New
technology is coming on line. If there is a holdup in the buildout of
this technology, of maybe some of our locally owned companies--and some
of our cooperatives as cooperatives, I doubt, will be affected by this
--it is so we can get rid of some of this old equipment we carry on the
books because it is not all depreciated out. It has not kept pace with
the technology.

There was, a couple of years ago--it was more than that, 5 or 6 years
ago, with then-Senator Brown from Colorado--offered an amendment to
standardize accounting clear through the Government. We did not get
that done. But nonetheless here is an old accounting system that is
very important to the high-tech area when it comes to buildout in the
rural area, so broad-band technologies can be deployed and get rid of
some of the old equipment still on the books.
This amendment needs passing. I yield the floor and thank my friend
from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from Montana, the chairman of
our Subcommittee on Communications, ought to be asking for a hearing on
this one. Another phrase caught my attention, when they say ``historic
cost.'' They could go all the way back to 1934, which they have already
been rewarded for over the many years, 60 or 70 years. Otherwise that
is exactly what they have earned as a monopoly. Yes, we are moving.
Don't say they did not foresee it.
I have just been through a vigorous campaign and visited rural folks.
I admire the new equipment they have. They are changing over. They know
what it is. They know what competition is. The small ones, more or
less, have been bringing about the competition.
It is the Bell companies that told this Senator and the committee
time and again at hearings: We want to compete; we want to compete; we
want to compete.
Please, my gracious, all they have done is combine. Southwest Bell
has taken over Pacific Telesis. Now they want to take over Ameritech.
Bell Atlantic has taken over NYNEX. Another one, we heard just the
other day, is taking over U.S. West. They are all moving to combine and
form more monopolies, and before long we will have Ma Bell all over
again.
Then they have the audacity and unmitigated gall to come to the floor
of the Senate and say let's just change the little accounting system so
we can take care of all of these costs, when they have been caught
short of unaccounted equipment that has been carried on the books over
many years and they have long since been compensated for in their
rates.
I can say the universal service to the small business in Wyoming and
Montana when the Bell company puts this one over on the United
Telephone Association--if they put this over, they are going to have to
pay through the nose, I can tell you that right now. It is all going
in. It is the big gobbling up the little ones.
There ought not to be any misunderstanding to all of a sudden
changing their accounting systems because they have found unaccounted
equipment on the books that have been kept over many years, for which
they have long since been compensated, and for which they continue to
charge over and over. That is what is at issue here; without a hearing
and putting it on the commerce bill which has jurisdiction over the FCC
and saying it is just a small thing, they just want to look out for
people and want the same kind of report.
They want to get rid of the report that says you can carry all these
expenses ad infinitum, back to 1934, and continue to charge the
ratepayers for it. If that occurs, then universal service, the rates,
and everything else with respect to the agreed-upon long distance and
local rates is going totally out of kilter. The little boys are really
going to suffer.
I am prepared, when all time has expired, to make a motion to table
this amendment. It definitely ought to be tabled in behalf of all
communications and, more particularly, on account of procedures in the
Senate. We have a committee. The distinguished Senator is chairman of
the subcommittee. The subject has never been mentioned, and, Heaven
knows, I hear every day I am in the Senate: Please, call the
Commission. We don't. Please write a letter to the Commission. All the
downtown lawyers again and again want to try their cases politically
when they cannot prevail administratively.
I know if it were a real problem, I would have long since heard about
it. My rural people would have told me about it long ago. But bam, at 7
o'clock at night, they want to change the entire accounting system. It
is the wrong procedure, if nothing else.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, what we are trying to do is harmonize and
unify the accounting system, not eliminate and drastically change it.
We are talking about generally accepted accounting principles. This is
what the accountants across the United States use day in and day out.
We are trying to unify it within the telecommunications industry.
One reason you have not heard about this a lot is that we are talking
about the small local exchange carriers. We are not talking about the
big corporations that have all the lawyers in Washington. We are
talking about the little guy out there who is trying to run a business
and does not have as much time or expertise to run to Washington or
know specifically to whom to take his case. We are talking about small
businesses. And we are not talking about small money here. We are
talking about them imposing extra regulations which cost them $200,000
to $1 million a year. That is money that could be put into new phone
systems or reducing rates. These are the small rural carriers.
As far as whether enough data is available, of course, it is
available. Corporations, big and small, across this Nation run and
report under generally accepted accounting principles. This is not a
new system. It is newer than the system we are talking about operating
under which was instituted in 1935.

[[Page S9023]]

In 1935, when it was controlled by a monopoly, there needed to be
more detailed accounting. Anything that needs to be accounted can still
be accounted. It just has to follow generally accepted accounting
principles instead of a multiple process of going to the FCC,
negotiating into some new accounts which already number in the
neighborhood of 500, and coming in with the output that is needed to
make the decision, rather than a myriad of information.
How would you like to depreciate paper clips? It has gotten
ridiculous. Those things have to be taken into consideration. There is
no threshold of expenses.
There have been a lot of changes in the communications industry. One
of them is divestiture of AT&T. There is a whole list of things that
have happened. A big one is the passage in 1996 of the
Telecommunications Act, of which the Senator was speaking, and the
issuance of the resulting FCC orders implementing various sections of
the act, including proceedings to implement local competition and
interconnection, as well as universal service, access charge, and price
cap reform.
There is not anything under generally accepted accounting principles
that will not get the data that is needed to handle any of those
issues. All of the service providers, with the exception of incumbent
local exchange companies, have flexibility. The others already have the
flexibility. AT&T has the flexibility to provide services priced on a
competitive basis at rates dictated by the marketplace.
These service providers are not subject to the accounting and
recordkeeping rules contained in part 32--the big companies are not
subject to that--and associated monitoring and enforcement activities
but are simply required to follow GAAP in producing their external
reports. Prices no longer bear a direct relationship to cost.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ENZI. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I find this to be rather confounding. I just want to
make sure I understand this clearly. These companies are required to
maintain two sets of books?
Mr. ENZI. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Accounted different ways; is that correct?
Mr. ENZI. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. They are
required to carry multiple books.
Mr. ASHCROFT. And this adds as much as $20 million to $30 million to
the cost of doing business?
Mr. ENZI. For the local companies, it would be $25 million to $30
million. We are talking about at least $300 million across the United
States per year.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Some of these companies try to be competitive, not only
nationally but internationally.
Mr. ENZI. They are, and we want them to be competitive without having
to do all the mergers that were spoken of earlier.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it true these additional charges are eventually paid
by consumers?
Mr. ENZI. Absolutely, they have to be paid by consumers.
Mr. ASHCROFT. What we are imposing is almost like a tax that the
people of America are paying, $25 million or $30 million extra, that is
really unnecessary in these companies now.
Mr. ENZI. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. It is like
a tax, and it is money that the rural telephone folks are having to
pay.
Mr. ASHCROFT. And that is a substantial impairment on their capacity
to do business?
Mr. ENZI. It is a substantial impairment on their ability to be
competitive with the big national phone companies.
Mr. ASHCROFT. This one unique, idiosyncratic accounting method is a
1930s accounting system.
Mr. ENZI. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. That is still mandated in spite of the fact that for
other purposes, to be competitive and to be successful in offering
their stock and other things, they maintain a set of books that is
generally accepted for accounting purposes.
Mr. ENZI. That is correct. We want the small companies able to do the
same kind of accounting as the big companies.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator's amendment is to basically say we want to
relieve them of this duplicitous, inefficient demand which results in
their consumers having to pay a lot more and reducing the
competitiveness of these companies.
Mr. ENZI. The Senator is absolutely correct. We want to increase
their competitiveness. We want the people in the rural areas to have
the same accounting system, so they have lower costs, so they can pass
that on to the consumer.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his amendment. I think it is
good policy. It is the direction in which we should be going to be
competitive. We need to move into the next century, not try to reinvent
the last century.
I thank the Senator for his excellent work and for allowing me to
interrupt his remarks to clarify this to make sure I understand clearly
what the Senator from Wyoming said. He has made an outstanding
contribution to the understanding of other Senators and to the people
of the United States about an archaic system imposed by Government
which costs us all resources and which makes competition difficult for
our own companies.
Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments.
We have an opportunity to fix the system so it works the same for big
companies and small companies so they all operate under generally
accepted accounting principles, so the small rural guy is not doing all
of the extra accounting that the big guys are not required to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator's time has
expired.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 7 minutes
55 seconds.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I will use just a minute or two, Mr. President.
The word ``competitive'' intrigued this particular Senator. As they
congratulate each other over there with respect to this particular
attempted fix, let me remind the Senate that we are talking about
monopolies. Monopolies do not have general accounting principles
because they are not in the field of competition. They are monopolies.
They are guaranteed a return. And extra accounting principles have been
long since established for these companies and for small ones in that
the independent, local exchange carriers--there are many small ones--
they are monopolies, too. So these accounting methods and principles
have been in force for a long time.
And here without a hearing, and just, bam, and to start talking about
small--and there is a $30 million tax, and so forth, that is just
spurious reasoning and fanciful notions, if I have ever heard them.
The opposite is true. We are trying, with respect to a monopoly, to
make sure that it does not go to the ratepayer because the monopoly is
guaranteed a return. So if any true costs are there, they are going to
have to be reflected in their guaranteed rate of return.
So this amendment is totally out of order in the sense of procedures
here in the Senate where we have a committee and we can have hearings
on it and we can find out if there is any infringement with respect to
the concern of the Senator from Wyoming. Because he knows all about
accounting.
But I can tell you now, general accounting principles do not apply to
monopolies--and should not apply to monopolies--because there is no
competition. They are guaranteed that return, and that is why they have
the special accounting system.
I thank the Chair. At the end of this, if my distinguished chairman
would permit, I think we ought to move to table this one.
Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ENZI. Would you be willing to go with an amendment that would
require AT&T and other companies to meet the same requirements as
little companies?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, yes. I think whatever accounting system they have,
I do not find a difference in it. I would go with having a hearing and
give you a definite return. We are not trying to delay or anything like
that, but I would have a hearing before the subcommittee of the Senator
from Montana, and the full committee, and we would be glad to report
something out. But we never have had hearings, and you just say
``little and small.''

[[Page S9024]]

The United States Telephone Association, that is big. I know from
hard experience that is big. That is a ``Big Bell" company. In relation
to the chairman of this so-called company that has the accounting
system, and so forth, do you know what they reported in USA Today the
other day? The chairman of Bell South made last year $55.9 million--
either $56 or $57 million. Can you imagine the head of a monopoly
guaranteed a return, with no competition, making $55 million? Come on.
And you are talking about little things? Don't give me that. They are
not little. In just agreeing to little and big, we have a different
idea basically of what is big and what is little in this particular
debate.

Mr. ENZI. You would agree they all ought to be on the same accounting
system?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I don't know of a reason for a separate accounting
system. If there is less of an accounting system for the smaller one, I
tend in that direction.
I agree with the sentiment that you have to look out for the small so
they are not gobbled up by the big. So I would almost agree to less of
an accounting system for the small rather than the same required for
the big. I am trying to go in your direction.
Mr. ENZI. I would love to work with you on that, but right now the
big ones have the easier accounting system.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We can have hearings and find that out.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second on the amendment.
They yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to
table?
No, there is not a sufficient second on the motion to table.
There is a sufficient second on the motion to table.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table. The
clerk will call the roll.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be on the
Lautenberg amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The yeas
and nays have been ordered on the Lautenberg amendment. The clerk will
call the roll.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum for a second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
absence or the presence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded and that we have the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote On Amendment No. 1302

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1302 by the Senator from New Jersey. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--54

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Kennedy
McCain
Shelby
The amendment (No. 1302) was rejected.

vote on amendment no. 1301

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dorgan
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mack
Mikulski
Murray
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--52

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Kennedy
McCain
Shelby
The motion was rejected.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in light of the last vote, I ask unanimous
consent the yeas and nays be vitiated on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I could not hear the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will repeat his request.
Mr. ENZI. In light of the last vote, I ask unanimous consent the yeas
and nays be vitiated on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1301) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, regular order.

[[Page S9025]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Regular order.
Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch,
Senator Grassley, Senator Brownback, Senator Bingaman, Senator Biden,
Senator Johnson, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Murray, Senator Akaka,
Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Bryan.
I ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will take unanimous consent to set aside
the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time
Senator Wellstone be recognized to offer an amendment, and the time on
that amendment be 30 minutes with the Senator from Minnesota
controlling 20 minutes of that time and the Senator in opposition
controlling 10.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Amendment No. 1303

(Purpose: To clarify the treatment of juveniles and the mentally ill by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 1303.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 45, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. . INAPPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENTS.

Section 3626 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h) Inapplicability of Amendments.--A civil action that
seeks to remedy conditions that pose a threat to the health
of individuals who are juveniles or mentally ill shall be
governed by the terms of this section, as in effect on the
day before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 and the amendments made by that Act (18
U.S.C. 3601 note).''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to visit some detention
facilities across our country and meet with correctional officers and
also the incarcerated children and their parents. I am struck again and
again by one fact: The mentally ill and the juveniles--the children,
the kids--are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect in jails and
prisons in our country. That is why I am offering this amendment that
will give back to the Federal courts full authority to remedy abusive
conditions but only under which the mentally ill and juveniles are
being held.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Department of Justice released a report on the
prevalence of mental illness among adult inmates in our jails and
prisons. The Justice Department report merely confirms what many of us
already know. The criminalization of mental illness is a national
crisis.
Of particular concern to me have been the extraordinary problems
children with mental illness and emotional disorders encounter in
juvenile jails. That is why I introduced the Mental Health Juvenile
Justice Act earlier this year. Of the 100,000 children who are arrested
and incarcerated each year, as many as 50 percent suffer from a mental
or emotional disturbance.
Jails and detention centers often find they are unprepared to deal
with these kids. For instance, medication which should be given is not
given; medication that should be properly monitored is not properly
monitored; and guards may not even know how to respond to some of these
kids.
Why do so many youth with mental illness end up in the juvenile
justice system? The truth of the matter is, we ought to, on the front
end, do a much better job of assessing the problems of these kids and,
for those who should not be incarcerated--some should--but for those
who should not be incarcerated, look to alternatives.
We have not invested as a country--you can talk to anybody down in
the trenches doing this work--adequately in the service programs and
community prevention programs that will reduce the need for
incarceration. Therefore, many of these kids wind up in these
facilities. They are incredibly vulnerable. They do not get the care
they absolutely have to get, and the consequences are tragic.
Last year, as an example, I went with the National Mental Health
Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, a privately
owned facility for over 600 youth in northeast Louisiana. I saw
shocking civil rights violations which were cited by the U.S.
Department of Justice. Basically what I am saying is, there were kids
who were diagnosed with mental problems getting absolutely no treatment
whatsoever.
The Justice Department has also exposed gross abuses in Georgia,
Kentucky, and the juvenile facilities in Louisiana. Other States also
experience similar problems. Investigators found cases of physical
abuse and neglect of mental health needs, including unwarranted and
prolonged isolation of suicidal children, hog-tie and chemical
restraints used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, forced
medication, and even denial of medication.
Children with extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self-
mutilation--cutting themselves with glass--never even saw a
psychiatrist.

In some cases, abusive treatment of these children results directly
from their being emotionally disturbed. Staff in the juvenile
facilities fail to recognize the problem and, in fact, punish these
children for the symptoms of their disorders. Children have been
punished for requesting treatment or put in isolation when they refuse
to accept treatment. One child in a boot camp was punished for making
involuntary noises that were symptoms of Tourette's syndrome. Mental
disorders are being handled almost solely through discipline,
isolation, and restraints, according to investigations by the U.S.
Department of Justice and human rights groups.
Nobody likes litigation, but sometimes lawsuits are necessary to
protect the constitutional rights of our people, especially vulnerable,
voiceless persons such as incarcerated children who suffer from mental
illness. That is what this amendment is about.
Because juveniles and mentally ill persons are particularly
vulnerable to abuse and neglect in State institutions, I am offering
tonight an amendment which will give back to Federal courts the
authority to remedy abusive conditions under which juveniles with
mental illness are being held. Regrettably, the Congress has taken
steps in recent years to limit the circumstances under which lawsuits
challenging the constitutionality of prison conditions can be brought.
Three years ago, this Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform
Act. Its sponsors claimed that the bill would merely end frivolous
lawsuits by prisoners, and we all agree with that goal. I certainly do.
But the terms of the PLRA were much more sweeping. It deprived Federal
courts of important legal tools to remedy brutal, unconstitutional
conditions in juvenile detention facilities throughout our country.
For example, the PLRA limited the power of Federal courts to impose
and retain injunctive relief to improve conditions in juvenile
facilities. This means that parties can no longer settle these lawsuits
by means of a consent decree--a court-enforceable injunction entered
into with agreement by the parties without admission of liability by a
defendant. That is very important. Also, any relief order must be
terminated by the courts 2 years after it is issued unless the court
holds another trial.
One of the most important judicial powers that the PLRA curtailed was
the appointment of special masters. Quite often judges will appoint
special masters who will come in, do the mediation, do the negotiation,
but we have

[[Page S9026]]

so limited the compensation that we are not able to do that. The act
limited the powers of special masters so they can no longer perform
this task of mediating disputes and assisting the parties in reaching
some compliance with court orders.
While the PLRA has made it much more difficult for courts to improve
inhumane conditions in prisons generally, it has had a devastating
impact on the conditions in which mentally ill and juvenile defenders
are held. They are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect at
State institutions, and precisely because of that fact, we must not be
indifferent to their plight or ignore their need for protection.
Let me give some examples. Just consider some of these horrific
conditions involving mentally ill juveniles that PLRA has made more
difficult to remedy:
In Philadelphia, children with mental illness in a juvenile detention
facility operating at 160 percent of capacity were regularly beaten by
staff with chains and other objects. Santiago v. Philadelphia.
In Delaware, juveniles with mental illness were housed in living
units the court found posed a serious fire hazard. Their food and
clothing were inadequate. Children were routinely beaten, maced, and
shackled. The medical and education programs they received were below
minimally accepted standards. These are facts. This is what is going
on. John A v. Castle.
In a Pennsylvania-run juvenile facility, children were routinely
beaten by faculty staff, staff trafficking in illegal drugs was
rampant, and sexual relations between staff and confined youth were
commonplace. DB v. Commonwealth.
A severely depressed 17-year-old in an adult prison in Texas was
raped and sodomized. His request to be placed in protective custody was
denied. For the next several months, he was repeatedly beaten by older
prisoners, forced to perform oral sex, robbed, and beaten again. Each
time, his requests for protection were denied by the warden. He
attempted suicide by hanging himself in his cell after a guard had
ignored the warning letter he wrote. He was in a coma for 4 months,
after which he died.
The purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was to reduce or
eliminate frivolous lawsuits by inmates. I am all for that, but as
these examples make clear--and I have many other examples--the inmates
I seek to protect with this amendment are not filing frivolous
lawsuits. Or I should say, what is happening to them is not the stuff
of a frivolous lawsuit. They are young; they are uneducated; they are
suffering from mental illness that prevent them from functioning at the
necessary level to file a lawsuit on their own. This is a population of
uniquely vulnerable inmates who need representation in the legal system
and are not receiving that representation, who need the protection that
the Federal courts have historically provided.
Unfortunately, this Congress seems to be moving, at least on the
House side--and I pray we do not do the same thing--in the opposite
direction. Just last month, the House adopted an amendment offered by
Congressman DeLay to the juvenile justice bill that would actually
terminate all consent decrees entered into prior to the passage of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The DeLay amendment would say that even when prison conditions were
horrible enough to warrant the continuation of the consent decree, that
decree is going to be terminated by an act of Congress. No matter how
many children will suffer, the Federal judge's hands will be tied.
I think it is unconstitutional. Let me give a couple of examples and
conclude, because if this amendment is agreed to tonight, this will
negate the DeLay amendment in the House of Representatives.
In Ironton, OH, a 15-year-old girl ran away from home over night,
then returned to her parents but was put in the county jail by the
juvenile court judge to ``teach her a lesson.'' On the fourth night of
her confinement, she was sexually assaulted by a deputy jailer. More
than 500 children had been incarcerated in the jail over the past 3
years, many for truancy and other status offenses. Under the consent
decree, no children may be held in the jail. But with what is happening
in the House of Representatives, that consent degree would not even
apply.
In Portland, ME, a lawsuit was filed after a young boy held in the
county jail was sexually assaulted by an older adolescent. In 1987,
county officials agreed to stop holding children in the jail because of
another decree.
In Clovis, NM, children were held in the county jail in unsanitary
conditions, without adequate fire safety procedures, recreation or
programming, or adequate separation from adult inmates. In 1983, local
officials agreed to stop using the jail as a detention facility for
children.
The DeLay amendment would automatically terminate these decrees even
if judges disagreed. This amendment would deal with this problem.
In Tucson, AZ, children in the juvenile detention center were held in
leather restraints, mail was censored, there were inadequate treatment
programs, and the facility was overcrowded. Another consent decree
provided for the protection of these children.

In Oklahoma, there was pervasive brutality in the operation of the
State juvenile correctional institutions. Children were often
handcuffed and hog-tied, and institutional staff relied on physical
force and intimidation to keep order. The ``punishment unit'' was dark
and dungeonlike. Another consent decree took care of that.
Again, this amendment I offer tonight is an effort to make sure what
was done in the House will essentially be negated.
Mr. President, I will conclude. My amendment would not repeal, I say
to my colleagues, the Prison Litigation Reform Act or adversely affect
the crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. It would say that in the case of
the mentally ill and juveniles, we should try to protect them. My
amendment would merely carve a narrow exception to the PLRA
restrictions in limited circumstances involving children and those who
struggle with mental illness.
Elie Wiesel once said: ``More than anything--more than hatred and
torture--more than pain--do I fear indifference.'' We must be vigilant
and we must not allow ourselves to be indifferent to children's misery,
particularly those children who may be sick, difficult, and test our
patience and our understanding. In that spirit, I ask my colleagues to
support this modest and humane exception.
This amendment has the support of the Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law, the Children's Defense Fund, the Justice Policy Institute,
the National Education Association, the National Network for Youth, The
National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, The Shiloh Baptist
Church, the Youth Law Center, and other organizations as well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have 10 minutes on this amendment
available and note that what we hope to do is stack the vote on this
amendment with a couple other votes later in the evening. I reserve the
10 minutes because Senator Hatch has asked to speak to this amendment,
and I will allocate him that time.
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator withhold for a moment?
Mr. GREGG. I withhold for the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. For some of us who have been here--I know, through no
fault of the distinguished chairman, we have had 5 hours of quorum
calls today, approximately. This evening I know some of us would like
to be with our families. I know it is a family-friendly Senate. But for
those of us who have families and wish to be with our families--I know
the Senator from New Hampshire feels the same way--can we get some idea
when we might vote, so we can do that? If we had not had so many quorum
calls, we would be done by now.
Mr. GREGG. You are absolutely right. We are working on an extensive
list of amendments. We have it down to very few. My hope is that within
the next hour we can get an agreement on which amendments still have to
go forward. Hopefully, there will be virtually none, and then we can go
to final passage. That is the game plan.
Mr. LEAHY. I was wondering if the distinguished manager would
consider

[[Page S9027]]

going ahead with the vote on this amendment only because I know a lot
of times you get everybody on the floor for a vote.
Mr. GREGG. I would like to do that, but I believe Senator Hatch
wishes to speak on it. It is represented he is headed in this
direction. This is his jurisdiction and your jurisdiction.
Mr. LEAHY. I understand. I do not object to that.
Mr. GREGG. As soon as Senator Hatch comes and speaks, maybe we can
move to vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I reserve the final 4
minutes of my time. I ask my colleague, I assume there are no second-
degree amendments in order to this amendment; is that correct?
Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the final 4 minutes of my time.
Mr. GREGG. I reserve our 10 minutes and ask unanimous consent that no
time be credited against this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I want to accommodate the
distinguished chairman, but I have been sitting here having rearranged
other things waiting for this vote. If I object, as a practical matter,
the time on the amendment will run out under the unanimous consent, and
we will have to have a vote.

Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire says the
distinguished Senator from Utah is on his way here.
Mr. GREGG. It has been represented by staff that they are in the
process of asking him to appear, and it was represented he would be
coming.
Mr. LEAHY. I also realize the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire could put in a quorum call, even though the time will run if
the quorum call is not called off. We could take a long time doing
that, but we would be right back to what happened earlier because that
will protect him in that sense. I will object to the time not running.
I say to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the
distinguished Senator from Utah is on the floor.
Mr. GREGG. This is good news for all of us.
Mr. LEAHY. Why don't we let him do that and go that way so we could
have a vote in the next few minutes, I say to my distinguished friend
from Utah.
Mr. GREGG. I think if we could go to a quorum call briefly, the
Senator from Utah will be back and will be speaking in a brief period
of time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I say to the managers of the bill, I have been working with
my friend from South Carolina. We are doing----
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these
colloquies not be debited to the amendment of the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah is on the floor. We
have been working with our Members and have cleared most everything
with the Senator from South Carolina. We only have a few more
amendments----
Mr. GREGG. As do we.
Mr. REID. Requiring a very short period of time. I think if we can
get past this, we would be in a position to give the Senator a finite
number of amendments that still need to be debated and voted on.
Mr. GREGG. That is excellent news, obviously. We are also making good
progress on our side. Hopefully, we can go to a vote and maybe make
some more progress.
I yield to the Senator from Utah whatever remains of my 10 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I won't take long. The amendment exempts
juveniles and the mentally ill from the reforms accomplished by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, which was passed in 1996. This was my
bill. This amendment would subject State prison systems to
micromanagement by the Federal courts. Keep in mind, I am also the
author of Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons, which is to take
care of a lot of these difficulties. I cast the deciding vote back in
the late 1970s passing that bill.
Currently everyone whose Federal or constitutional rights have been
violated retains the ability to bring suit and to have any violation of
their rights remedied by a Federal court. All this Congress did in 1996
was to say courts could not go beyond remedying people's Federal rights
to micromanage prison systems.
I am opposed to this amendment because of that. I know the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota is trying to do something right,
but basically it flies in the face of what the reform basically says.
If true constitutional rights are being violated, they have a right to
go to court under current legislation, both in the Civil Rights Act for
Institutionalized Persons and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
we passed in 1996.
I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment because I believe that
basically the current law takes care of it. His amendment would allow
micromanagement of the Federal courts.
I am happy to yield the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote with me
on this, and I believe there will be a motion to table. I hope they
will vote to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, so Senator Leahy can vote--I am very
proud to have his support--I will add as an organization that supports
this the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and I yield back the
remainder of my time.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to table the Wellstone amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 1303. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Gramm) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--40

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

[[Page S9028]]

NOT VOTING--4

Gramm
Kennedy
McCain
Shelby
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________