[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Iowa such time 
as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will shortly offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself, Senators Murray, Rockefeller, Wofford, Daschle, and 
Feingold.
  First of all, I want to congratulate the distinguished Senator from 
Tennessee for bringing a tough budget onto the floor. It is tough. But, 
overall, it is fair. Obviously, each of us could design one differently 
in regard to how we feel. But it has been a very tough assignment for 
the Senator from Tennessee.
  He has done a superb job in putting it altogether and bringing a 
budget here that continues to cut the deficit and bring the deficit 
down.
  The Senator from Tennessee deserves all of our thanks and our praise 
for making sure that we cut the deficit and bring the deficit down. I 
want to compliment him on that and recognize his efforts in continuing 
this effort to bring our budget deficit down.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I thank my friend from Iowa for his very 
kind comments. I would ask my friend from Iowa if he would be good 
enough to add me as a cosponsor of his amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be honored to have the distinguished chairman as a 
cosponsor of this amendment and will so add his name.
  Madam President, my amendment will transfer the proposed $513 million 
increase for Star Wars to a critical public safety program, the Edward 
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and 
again to cut more wasteful spending and reduce the deficit further.
  If you were to ask a group of average Americans about their concerns 
for this country and what is uppermost in their minds, two words would 
be heard again and again. One is ``crime'' and the other is 
``deficit.''
  Madam President, we must take action to address these issues. I am 
proud to have supported the two most significant pieces of legislation 
addressing them in many years. First, the President's Budget 
Reconciliation Act, which has spurred the recent improvement in the 
economy and is bringing our deficit down day by day and week by week. I 
also supported the Senate crime bill, which addresses crime on a broad 
front.

  Unfortunately, Madam President, the budget resolution before us would 
eliminate a vital formula grant program that has helped hundreds of 
communities nationwide to fight crime and drugs. The Drug Control and 
System Improvement Grant Program, which is the formula grant component 
of the Edward Byrne programs, is the primary source of Federal 
financial assistance for State and local drug law enforcement efforts. 
This year, some $358 million in block grants were distributed to State 
and local law enforcement agencies through this formula grant program.
  On Monday, I announced the award of some $3.8 million in Byrne grant 
funds for my State of Iowa. But under the budget report, future funds 
under this program would be entirely eliminated. The reason this 
formula grant program is so important is that these funds are getting 
down to our local departments and really making a difference. Just last 
week, the Appanoose County sheriff in Iowa shut down one of the largest 
businesses in the county, an indoor marijuana-producing operation 
producing an estimated $15 million in street value of drugs was 
uncovered.
  In Decatur County, a methamphetamine laboratory was recently shut 
down. Some of these drug dealers are coming in from big cities and 
other places in the country to rural areas, drawn to the open spaces 
where the nearest neighbor could be a one-half mile or more away.
  Our State law enforcement agencies have reacted to this threat. In 
1987, we had only two drug task forces in the State. Today, there are 
23 drug task forces, and 58 of Iowa's 99 counties participate in one or 
more of the drug task forces. Many of these agencies are recipients of 
Federal funds through the Byrne Federal Formula Program.
  Without the formula grant funding, many valuable antidrug efforts 
would be eliminated in my State and in many other States. Just last 
weekend, Madam President, I met on Saturday afternoon with 14 of Iowa's 
most prominent law enforcement officials. They told me what these 
Edward Byrne funds have meant to law enforcement efforts in Iowa.
  For example, the Polk County sheriff's office receives about $200,000 
per year from this program to fund its drug task force. Well, how has 
that money paid off? Well, Sheriff Bob Rice, an outstanding sheriff of 
Polk County, said that in the last 3 years, the task force has arrested 
over 500 persons, filed nearly 1,000 criminal charges, and seized over 
$2.5 million in assets.
  Both Sheriff Rice and Police Chief Bill Moulder of the Des Moines 
police force pointed out to me how effective the Byrne funds were. 
There is a State match of 25 percent. Once the formula grant goes out, 
the State and local government has to match it by 25 percent. But as 
both Chief Moulder and Sheriff Rice told me, the Byrne money actually 
doubles in size in their areas. They have been able to use it on their 
drug task forces, which seize tainted assets, which they then turn 
around and sell. Really, it has afforded them the ability to double the 
amount of money that the Byrne formula grant would otherwise produce. 
So this program has had a major impact in Polk County, the county of 
the state capital, Des Moines. Without these funds, it would be very 
difficult to operate this program. In fact, Sheriff Rice told me that 
if the Byrne formula grant money was done away with, they would lose 
five drug enforcement officers this year and they would not be able to 
continue the type of programs that they have had.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HARKIN. So, Madam President, restoring the Byrne funds is a top 
priority of law enforcement groups, who know the impact this program 
has had on crime and drugs--but not only just in arrests and 
convictions and seizures of assets; the Byrne money has also been used 
for prevention.
  We all know how effective the DARE Program is in local law 
enforcement in our areas, because we know local law enforcement 
officers are part of the DARE Program. They go into our schools and 
work with high school students. By all accounts, I think the DARE 
Program has been very effective throughout this country.
  Sheriff Bill Davis of Calhoun County, IA, who has jurisdiction over 
these DARE Programs in Iowa, told me on Saturday at this meeting how 
necessary the Byrne money is for the DARE Program. They have 35 local 
projects in Iowa. They are using this money, not just to arrest, but to 
go into high schools and use it very effectively for preventive 
measures. I was told that, overall, about 60 percent of the Byrne 
Program money goes to the uniformed police officers; about 40 percent 
goes to local jurisdictions, local agencies, for prevention, for 
corrections, and also for prosecutions.
  Every one of the law enforcement officers I talked to on Saturday 
said that what the Byrne money allows is for them to be proactive, 
rather than just to react to drug crimes. It allows them to actually go 
out in a proactive manner, both in prevention and in sting operations, 
and in uncovering laboratories and things like that for 
methamphetamines. It allows them to act proactively.
  I mentioned prosecution. In Iowa, we have nine prosecutors that are 
solely dedicated to the drug task enforcement project in Iowa. These 
nine prosecutors are funded out of the Byrne formula grant money that 
comes to Iowa. The attorney general's office in Iowa said these nine 
prosecutors would be out in July if the funding was cut.
  So, again, whether it is for the uniformed officers and police 
forces, whether it is for prevention in the DARE Programs, or whether 
it is for prosecutions, the Byrne formula grant money has been the 
underpinning of our efforts in drug enforcement in our country.
  Almost all of the forces, police forces and others, in this country 
support this program. The National Association of Police Organizations 
and the National Sheriffs Association have both written to me 
supporting continuation of this program. The bipartisan leadership of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee also recognizes its importance. In the 
report of the Budget Committee on this bill, Senators Biden, Thurmond, 
Simpson and Brown, all of the Judiciary Committee, express their 
support for the Byrne Formula Grant Program.
  At the same time, Madam President, we are asked to cut the vital 
Byrne Program, the budget resolution incredibly provides an 18.7 
percent increase in star wars. That is right. You may have thought star 
wars was dead and gone, but it is still around. Quite frankly, it 
amazes me that we are trying to put an 18-percent increase into star 
wars again this year. We do not call it that anymore; we call it BMD, 
ballistic missile defense. More than half of that BMD budget now goes 
to theater missile defenses. That is the defense against the real 
threat of the shorter-range missiles like the Scud missiles. But over 
$1.2 billion of the BMD budget still goes for the old star wars pipe 
dream: stopping a sudden long-range nuclear strike by the Soviet Union, 
or since that does not exist my longer, by whoever else might be out 
there.
  In fact, this national BMD account has been increased in the fiscal 
1995 budget request from $1.1 billion to $1.21 billion. I believe we 
ought to be putting some money into theater ballistic missile defenses 
for the short-range missiles. That is where we ought to be 
concentrating. But this old pipe dream of orbiting laboratories and 
laser beams and particle beams and x-ray lasers, and all these fancy 
things that are going to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles 
is a relic of the past. This program not only funds that, but it 
increases it from last year.
  How can we justify funding for a missile shield against a nuclear 
attack by the Soviet Union, which does not exist any longer, when our 
people in this country are facing a very real crime threat on our 
streets every night, every week, every month of the year? Where are our 
priorities?
  My amendment is actually very modest. It will cut star wars back to 
this year's level of $2.74 billion. In my judgment, I think we ought to 
cut it deeper, but we made a modest cut. Maybe we can reduce funding 
later on in the year. My amendment still leaves $2.74 billion for 
ballistic missile defense. The Pentagon can still spend the $2 billion 
it has requested for fiscal 1995 for theater missile defenses.
  Again, I want to point out that my amendment will in no way cut into 
the Pentagon's request for theater missile defense programs. The 
Pentagon can take it out of the long-range missile defense program.
  So what this would do is amount to about a $405 million increase for 
theater missile defense over last year, about a 25-percent increase. I 
wanted to make it clear that this amendment does not cut the theater 
missile defense programs. My amendment would transfer these funds from 
the old star wars kind of program to restore the discretionary portion 
of the Byrne Program to its fiscal 1994 level, with the remainder going 
to reduce spending.
  So, Madam President, my amendment transfers $513 million out of star 
wars; of that, $358 million goes to the Byrne formula grant program and 
about $155 million goes for deficit reduction.
  A few weeks ago, Madam President, many Members of this body, 
including myself, voted for proposed amendments to the Constitution to 
require a balanced budget. But the hard choices needed are choices like 
this. How do we want to spend the money we are going to spend next 
year? How do we want to set up our budget? Well, I know which one I 
think will contribute more to our Nation's long-term security.
  By transferring these funds, we send a signal that we have our 
priorities straight.
  I call my amendment star wars to street wars. We do not have star 
wars. We do not even see anywhere on the horizon that we are going to 
have this kind of long range ballistic missile attack coming in on the 
United States.
  But I can tell you that tonight in Washington, DC, and in New York, 
and in our major cities and many of our smaller communities, people 
will be killed, drug transactions will take place, and young people 
will get hooked on drugs for the first time. This will happen tonight 
and it will happen tomorrow night and it will happen every night this 
week. That is the real threat to this country. And the Byrne formula 
grant program is a very effective part of dealing with that real threat 
to this country.
  So, with this amendment, Star Wars to Street Wars, let us make our 
choices. What are our priorities?
  Again, I want to point out that this amendment does not bind the 
appropriations process, but it sends a clear message of the intent of 
this body that I believe will have a real impact on final 
appropriations for this program.
  If you want money to go into the Byrne formula grant program to fight 
crime and to fight drugs, this is a chance to say so right here. 
Otherwise, it is not going to happen; the money is going to go into 
star wars.
  It is clear to me that the problem of drugs and the deficit far 
outweighs the need for increased funding for star wars. I hope that my 
colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to also add the present 
occupant of the chair, Senator Boxer, as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I 
used in my statement in which I explained my amendment be charged 
against my time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1558

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:.

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Sasser, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1558.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam 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 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $155,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $155,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, decrease the amount by $158,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $158,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, decrease the amount by $158,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $158,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 7, line 4, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 7, line 5, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 7, line 8, decrease the amount by $158,000,000.
       On page 7, line 9, decrease the amount by $217,000,000.
       On page 7, line 10, decrease the amount by $148,000,000.
       On page 7, line 11, decrease the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 7, line 12, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 8, line 7, decrease the amount by $158,000,000.
       On page 8, line 8, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.
       On page 8, line 9, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 8, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 8, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 10, line 3, decrease the amount by $513,000,000.
       On page 10, line 4, decrease the amount by $236,000,000.
       On page 10, line 11, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 10, line 18, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 10, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 35, line 8, increase the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 35, line 9, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 35, line 16, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 35, line 23, increase the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 36, line 6, increase the amount by $18,000,000.

  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise this afternoon to support the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Iowa. With this amendment, 
Senator Harkin, I believe, wisely directs resources toward the 
chronically underfunded domestic programs and away from a single, 
consistently overfunded military program.
  What the Harkin amendment seeks to do, as he has explained, is 
increase funding for Federal grants to State and local governments for 
community policing and drug patrols, while reducing the planned funding 
increases for the ballistic missile defense programs.
  The Senator from Iowa, I am sure, has been struck by the fact that we 
no longer call it star wars. They have changed the name now. It is no 
longer star wars or the strategic defense initiative. It is now the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Program.
  But Senator Harkin's amendment, unlike many of those we consider in 
this body, offers specific program cuts to pay for his proposed 
increases. I commend the Senator for taking that approach. It is always 
very easy to come up with a nonspecific spending reduction to pay for 
an add-on, but the Senator is taking the responsible approach, I think, 
in stating specifically what he would reduce to pay for the amendment 
that he is offering, therefore, making his amendment deficit neutral.
  This country has already spent over $32 billion on ballistic missile 
defense research. I commend the administration for its efforts in 
scaling back the proposal that it inherited from the Bush 
administration. But the administration still plans to spend an 
additional $18 billion over the next 5 years for ballistic missile 
defense.
  For 1995, the President's budget request includes some $3.3 billion 
for ballistic missile defense activities, an increase of $800 million 
over last year's level, increasing spending on ballistic missiles 
defense activities by $500 million over last year's level.
  In testimony before the Budget Committee, the Department of Defense 
indicated that this increase of nearly 20 percent--when we are cutting 
300 domestic discretionary programs--this increase of 20 percent makes 
ballistic missile defense one of the fastest growing programs in the 
Pentagon. Based on my knowledge of the President's request, this kind 
of increase would make it one of the fastest growing programs in the 
entire Federal budget. We hear a lot about the growth in entitlements, 
but this Ballistic Missile Defense Program is growing faster than any 
of the entitlement programs on which so much attention is focused.
  Most of this half-billion-dollar increase is earmarked for theater 
missile defense programs. Nobody has any theater missiles that can 
strike the United States. These theater missile defense programs are of 
much greater benefit to our allies than they are to the United States. 
In fact, of the $18 billion the administration plans to spend on 
ballistic missile defense in the 5-year period from 1995 to 1999, over 
one-half of this total is intended for the theater missile defense 
programs.
  The truth is that our allies, many of them, live daily under the 
threat of an attack by shorter-range theater missiles, and many more 
could come within range in the near future. But despite this immediate 
and direct threat, our allies are doing precious little about theater 
missile defense. And why should they? Let Uncle Sugar finance all the 
research and development on these theater missile defense systems.
  If I were a German citizen or a German political leader, I would say 
why should I endanger any of my domestic programs? Why should I 
endanger the health programs to the German citizens? Why should I 
undermine the unemployment compensation system to the French citizens? 
Why should I take away from infrastructure development for Belgian 
citizens to develop ballistic missile defenses? There is no need to do 
that, let the Government of the United States pay for it. Let them cut 
the programs for their citizens to pay for this ballistic missile 
defense program that will largely go to defending us.
  I do not blame them for doing that. I think that is smart on their 
part. I do not think it is very wise of us, however, to continue to 
shoulder the burden of doing this to the tune of raising our 
expenditures up to $3.3 billion--$500 million over last year.
  This amendment offered by our friend from Iowa, which I am proud to 
cosponsor, is not going to damage the U.S. ballistic missile defense 
effort. The funding for ballistic missile defense would still total 
about $2.8 billion, and that is more than all our allies combined, even 
though, as I said earlier, their countries are at greater risk of 
ballistic missile attack. This would preserve, even with the Harkin 
spending reduction for ballistic missile defense, a very robust 
ballistic missile defense program. And the Harkin amendment would allow 
our Government to devote additional resources to address the problems 
encountered by millions of Americans each and every day: crime and 
drugs.
  If you went down the streets of the major cities in this country, or 
if you went down the main streets of the small towns and municipalities 
in this country, and you asked any citizen you came in contact with, 
``What do you think is the greatest threat, a ballistic missile attack 
or being mugged by a criminal on the street?'' we all know the answer 
to that. If you asked them what is the greatest threat--being hit by a 
missile, is that the greatest threat to our society? Or is it drugs and 
what they are doing to our young people? Without exception, I think 
they will tell you uniformly--not just 98 percent--100 percent would 
say a much greater threat to our safety and to our country is 
criminality, criminal conduct, drugs, the whole host, the whole 
constellation of antisocial conduct that surrounds drugs--that is a 
much greater threat to our society and to our country than ballistic 
missiles.
  So I commend our friend from Iowa. I think he is leading an effort 
here to adjust our fiscal priorities. He is doing it without increasing 
the Federal budget deficit. What he is saying is yes, we are going to 
maintain a robust ballistic missile defense program, but we are not 
going to inflate that program to the point we are robbing other very 
important and very crucial domestic priorities such as police work, and 
doing something about the drugs in this country.
  So I commend the Senator and I urge my colleagues to support the 
Harkin amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I used 
speaking in favor of the Harkin amendment be charged against the 
proponents of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, 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. WOFFORD. Madam President, I rise to add my name as a cosponsor to 
Senator Harkin's amendment. The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local 
Law Enforcement Assistance Program has proven an essential element in 
Pennsylvania's fight against crime and drugs.
  In Pennsylvania, the Byrne Program provides total support for the 
Commonwealth's Drug Control and System Improvement [DCSI] Program. DCSI 
has supported many important and effective law enforcement projects 
across the State including: local drug enforcement and prevention task 
forces, crime victim's service programs, alternative sentencing 
programs such as bootcamps, child abuse prosecution task forces, and 
other community-based crime prevention programs. In addition, the DCSI 
is currently funding projects statewide related to improving criminal 
history records information which are essential to fulfilling the 
background check requirements of the Brady law.
  I have received numerous letters from legislators and criminal 
justice officials in Pennsylvania stressing the importance of 
maintaining funding of the Byrne Program. Police Chief Paul L. Wood of 
the borough of Wilkinsburg captured that sentiment in his letter from 
which I quote:

       Wilkinsburg desperately needs the help offered in [the 
     Byrne Grant Program]. We are a distressed community and do 
     not have the money to increase our staff, to operate local 
     drug task forces, and to fight drug related activity. The 
     last week in February, our officers confiscated over $4,000 
     worth of crack cocaine and a large amount of money from 
     juveniles. Wilkinsburg has serious problems and we need the 
     services this [Program] provides.

  Quite simply, the Byrne Program works for Pennsylvania and works for 
the Nation. At a time when we are searching for successes in fighting 
crime and drugs, when we are exploring ways to best deploy our limited 
crime-fighting resources, we cannot do so at the expense of those 
programs that are proven successes.
  Madam President, now is the time that we need to forge a new 
definition of our national security, one that looks to guaranteeing our 
citizens security in their towns, in their neighborhoods and in their 
homes. With this amendment Senator Harkin has taken an important step 
in that direction and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
letters that I have received from Pennsylvanians supporting continued 
funding for the Byrne Program.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,


                                               County of York,

                                          York, PA, March 9, 1994.
     Hon. Harris L. Wofford, Jr.,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wofford: I recently learned of the President's 
     recommendation to terminate the Edward Byrne Memorial State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program in the FY 
     1995 budget. This program is the mainstay of Pennsylvania's 
     Drug Control and System Improvement Program which program has 
     provided me with the capability to establish the York County 
     Drug Task Force and a special child abuse prosecution unit. 
     The impact of these programs has been unprecedented in York 
     County.


                      york county drug task force

       The York County Drug Task Force is comprised of county, 
     state, federal, and local law enforcement officers. The 
     purpose of the task force is twofold: interdiction and 
     education/demand reduction. Prior to its inception, 
     coordination of investigations across jurisdictional lines 
     was virtually non-existent. Since the establishment of the 
     York County Drug Task Force, there has been a 152% increase 
     in narcotics cases which are prosecuted by my office. The 
     funds received by York County from the Byrne Grant have 
     provided for the overtime pay of police officers assigned to 
     the drug task force and the necessary equipment required 
     therefor. The presence of our drug task force has facilitated 
     the cooperation and exchange of information among all levels 
     of law enforcement in this county. I cannot imagine returning 
     to pre-task force methods of drug law enforcement.
       In the area of education, a portion of the funds we receive 
     is employed to put an officer into every 5th and 6th grade 
     classroom in the county for a series of three classes. These 
     classes focus on peer pressure, drug education, and self-
     awareness. This county has noticed a decrease in the number 
     of juveniles being charged with possession of narcotics since 
     the introduction of demand reduction education.
       The number of law enforcement officers is not the only 
     available weapon in combatting the escalating crime epidemic 
     facing our nation. While additional officers can always be 
     used, the task force concept is a force multiplier--one that 
     we can ill afford to lose in the war against drugs.


                york county child abuse prosecution unit

       Unlike most other crimes, the investigation and prosecution 
     of child abuse involves people and agencies other than law 
     enforcement. Successful resolution of cases, therefore, 
     requires coordination during the investigation among all 
     those involved--the prosecutor, police, child protective 
     services, the medical community, and mental health 
     therapists.
       The York County Child Abuse Unit was initiated in 1990 and 
     consisted of a Child Abuse Prosecutor and a Unit Coordinator. 
     Through monies from Pennsylvania's Drug Control and System 
     Improvement Program, the unit was able to add an Investigator 
     and a Paralegal in 1992. The unit was created to serve the 
     special needs of child victims. It is designed to assist the 
     child victim as his or her case proceeds through the criminal 
     justice system.
       In York County, we maintain a conviction rate of 96 percent 
     with many of these cases being resolved with guilty pleas, a 
     direct result of perpetrator confessions to our well-trained 
     investigators. The success of our unit would not have been 
     possible without money from the Drug Control and Systems 
     Improvement Program.
       I urge you to oppose the President's recommendation to 
     terminate the Edward Byrne Memorial as the impact to our 
     Child Abuse Unit as well as newly established units across 
     Pennsylvania would suffer as would our abused children.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                H. Stanley Rebert,
                                                District Attorney.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

                                    Harrisburg, PA, March 7, 1994.
     Re FY 1995 Budget/Byrne formula grants.
     Hon. Harris L. Wofford, Jr.,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wofford: As a member of the Pennsylvania 
     Commission on Crime and Delinquency, I was recently advised 
     that the President's budget recommendations for FY 1995 
     include a recommendation to terminate the Edward Byrne 
     Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula 
     Grant Program. That program totally supports Pennsylvania's 
     Drug Control and System Improvement (DCSI) Program. In 1994, 
     Pennsylvania received $15,216,000 from the Byrne Formula 
     Grants.
       Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to review 
     hundreds of proposals that depend upon DCSI funding 
     throughout Pennsylvania. In addition, I have been fortunate 
     to personally observe the benefits of these programs. I know 
     the President wants to put 100,000 more police officers on 
     the streets, but at what cost to existing programs?
       Numerous state and local agencies have had the opportunity 
     to experiment and be innovative in producing long-lasting 
     criminal justice solutions. DCSI grants have funded a wide 
     variety of projects, a few of which include the following:
       Criminal Justice Training.
       Local Drug Task Force Operations.
       Combatting of Drug Gang Activities.
       Motivational Boot Camps.
       Intermediate Punishment.
       Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC).
       Juvenile/Organized Crime Drug Traffickers.
       Dangerous Drug Offender Unit.
       Community Policing.
       School-Based Probation.
       It is my opinion that these programs will do far more good 
     than spreading 100,000 police officers around the country. I 
     believe it is essential for Congress to preserve the present 
     mechanism for delivery of federal funds to the state. I urge 
     you to examine the impact on these programs closely when the 
     budget comes up for consideration.
       If you need any additional information, do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Albert H. Masland.
                                  ____

                                           The City of Harrisburg,


                                             Bureau of Police,

                                Harrisburg, PA, February 28, 1994.
     Hon. Harris L. Wofford, Jr.,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wofford: Allow me to bring to your attention a 
     concern which has been raised within my organization and 
     within law enforcement agencies throughout the Commonwealth.
       President Clinton's budget recommendation for FY 1995 
     includes a recommendation to terminate the Edward Byrne 
     Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant 
     Program (DCSI).
       As Chief of Police for a mid-sized municipal agency, I can 
     verify that the DCSI Program provides police administrators 
     with the fiscal means to develop and test various innovative 
     approaches to preventing and controlling crime.
       Recently, this Bureau submitted a grant application for the 
     Neighborhood Dispute Settlement of Dauphin County. We intend 
     to use the NDS to mediate disputes between neighbors rather 
     than having the district officer issue criminal complaints 
     and spend needless time in court. Through the use of 
     mediation services it is likely serious crime between 
     neighbors can and will be prevented and an added benefit will 
     be the freeing up of officers to address the more serious 
     crimes in our community.
       This serves to illustrate only one example of how the DCSI 
     Program can support and assist in developing these innovative 
     approaches to addressing crime on a local level.
       It is certainly my belief that state and municipal 
     governments are in the best position to develop and evaluate 
     programs to be used at the local level.
       Congress needs to support this mechanism for the delivery 
     of federal crime control funds to this level of government if 
     we as municipal agencies are to continue to be innovative in 
     our approach to addressing the many issues of crime in our 
     society.
       Your active support in this very important matter will be 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard S. Shaffer,
                                                  Chief of Police.
                                  ____

         Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Commission 
           on Sentencing,
                             State College, PA, February 28, 1994.
     Hon. Harris L. Wofford, Jr.,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wofford: I am writing to express my opposition 
     to a recommendation that the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program be 
     terminated. This program totally supports Pennsylvania's Drug 
     Control and System Improvement Program. I have been 
     personally involved in a number of projects supported through 
     these programs grants.
       These monies in Pennsylvania have supported a number of 
     very effective and worthy projects including the development 
     of computer information systems for law enforcement, county 
     jails, district attorneys, victim service agencies, and adult 
     probation. There are plans to develop an automated sentence/
     sentencing, guidelines application program. There are also a 
     number of projects currently being funded related to 
     improving criminal history records information which are 
     crucial to fulfilling background checks under the Brady Bill.
       Additionally, these monies are used for training and 
     educational programs for those involved in the criminal 
     justice field. This has been especially important in the area 
     of developing and implementing safe, secure, and viable 
     sentencing alternatives for nonviolent offenders. Numerous 
     programs in Pennsylvania which were given ``seed'' money 
     through these grants, are not either self-supporting or 
     supported through local or state government. If not for the 
     initial start-up monies [which are matched with local 
     dollars], there is a very high probability that none of these 
     programs would be in existence.
       Congress needs to maintain this mechanism for supporting 
     the state's criminal justice initiatives. Please do not allow 
     a budget that removes this vital funding to be approved.
       Thank you, in advance, for your continued support of the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Formula Grant Program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Iodeen M. Hobbs,
                                               Associate Director.
                                  ____

                                           Pennsylvania Department


                                               of Corrections,

                                     Camp Hill, PA, March 2, 1994.
     Hon. Harris Wofford, Jr.,
     U.S. Senate,
     Federal Building, Harrisburg, PA.
       Dear Senator Wofford: I am writing to you concerning 
     President Clinton's budget proposal which calls for the 
     elimination of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Grant Program. I wanted to make you 
     aware of how devastating it would be to Pennsylvania to lose 
     this program and the accompanying $15,216,000 that it 
     received in fiscal year 1994.
       These funds, administered through the Pennsylvania 
     Commission on Crime and Delinquency, support Pennsylvania's 
     Drug Control and System Improvement Program (DCSI) which has 
     given local jurisdictions an opportunity to enhance their 
     crime prevention and victim assistance programs, develop 
     model programs, test new ideas, and share information and 
     experiences with others across the Commonwealth. The beauty 
     of the program has been its incentive for creativity and its 
     ability to assist in the development of community level 
     initiatives to improve the justice system by encouraging 
     cooperative efforts between agencies.
       Prior to my employment with the Pennsylvania Department of 
     Corrections, I worked for fourteen years in the Philadelphia 
     District Attorney's Office. As Director of Victim Services 
     for that agency, I was privileged to work with several 
     community based programs that were funded through the DCSI 
     program, which covered initiatives such as developing model 
     programs designed to enhance security in the home for 
     domestic violence victims and an anti-violence education 
     program in the Philadelphia School System.
       Many statewide initiatives enhancing victim services have 
     also been funded, such as, the development of a Victim 
     Service Agency's computer information system, multi-
     disciplinary approaches to child abuse prosecution, and 
     comprehensive victim services. These programs would never 
     have gotten off the ground without the initial funding 
     provided through the DCSI program. Without your continued 
     support from this funding stream, no new initiatives will 
     rise in Pennsylvania if the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program is 
     eliminated.
       I ask your careful review of this portion of the 
     President's budget and the great impact it will have on 
     community initiatives in Pennsylvania. I hope that you will 
     support the continuation of this program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mary Achilles,
                                        Director, Victim Services.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

                                    Harrisburg, PA, March 4, 1994.
     Senator Harris Wofford,
     Russell Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Harris: President Clinton's budget request for FFY 
     1995 recommended that the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program be 
     terminated so that funds are available to put 100,000 more 
     police officers on the street.
       As a Commissioner on the Pennsylvania Crime and Delinquency 
     Commission and as a member of the House Judiciary and 
     Appropriations Committees, I call on you to oppose this 
     recommendation.
       Byrne Formula Grants completely support Pennsylvania's Drug 
     Control and System Improvement (DCSI) Program. Among other 
     things, DCSI monies have provided services to crime victims; 
     funded community based crime prevention strategies; assisted 
     drug intervention, treatment, and rehabilitation initiatives; 
     helped criminal justice agencies share and develop 
     information; supported boot camps and other intermediate 
     sanction mechanisms; and assisted in child abuse prosecution.
       Pennsylvania received $15,216,000 in FFY 1995 under this 
     grant program.
       Increasing the number of police in our communities may or 
     may not be a laudable goal, but the DCSI Program is too 
     valuable to sacrifice to it. Again I urge that the Byrne 
     Grants be preserved.
           Yours,
                                                  Babette Josephs.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
Senator Harkin's amendment to restore funding for the Edward Byrne 
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, because 
this program has been the bedrock for local justice systems to combat 
drugs and violent crime.
  At a time when public alarm over drugs and violent crime is 
escalating, it seems to me to be a penny-wise but pound-foolish 
decision to cut funding for such an effective grassroots program for 
law enforcement. Personally, I believe that one of the real strengths 
of the Byrne Program is that it is a formula grant that States and 
local communities can rely on to use as a foundation to fight crime 
year in and year out. The program helps forge a local partnership 
because it requires matching funds which ensure that communities are 
involved.
  This program fills a vital need, especially in rural areas, where 
community policing cannot be effective because of the nature of rural 
areas like West Virginia. All of our communities are concerned about 
violent crime, and all of them deserve Federal support and incentives.
  But the people who are most convincing on this issue, are the law 
enforcement officials themselves who are on the front lines every day 
in the fight against crime. I want to share with my colleagues samples 
of letters from West Virginia law enforcement officials about this 
program, and ask for unanimous consent that copies of letters from Col. 
Thomas L. Kirk, superintendent of the West Virginia State Police, and 
the Honorable Virgil Miller be printed in the Record following my 
statement.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   West Virginia State Police,

                           South Charleston, WV, February 8, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: On Friday, February 4, 1994, the 
     Washington Post printed an article outlining President 
     Clinton's plans to terminate one hundred and fifteen federal 
     programs. This plan includes the block grant portion of the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Grant program, which is administered by 
     the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
       I have corresponded with you and spoken with members of 
     your staff in the recent past concerning reductions in this 
     program. It appears that our worst fears are coming to pass 
     since the President apparently intends to eliminate this most 
     important program.
       Every day, as police officers, we are urged to tailor our 
     efforts to combat the ever rising violent crime rate. To work 
     towards the accomplishment of this task requires broad based 
     support, yet this support is now being threatened. The 
     termination of this program would eliminate a resource which 
     is critical to our efforts.
       Our task forces are purposely designed to combat both drug 
     trafficking and violent crime. This design was an obvious 
     choice, since the two are so closely interrelated. The 
     elimination of this funding would result in personnel 
     reductions, shortages in investigative resources, and would, 
     overall, seriously jeopardize the cooperative policing 
     efforts which have been so successful to date.
       There have been suggestions that funds from the block grant 
     program may be shifted to a discretionary grant program, 
     thereby providing for closer scrutiny of each request. If 
     this happens and the present trend continues, West Virginia 
     will most likely not receive necessary funding in support of 
     its policing efforts. In the past this type of funding has 
     routinely been awarded to larger metropolitan areas, despite 
     the fact that they already had more law enforcement 
     resources available, both in terms of their individual tax 
     base and in terms of the existing Federal law enforcement 
     presence. West Virginia has never fallen within this 
     category and if final approval is received, the Firearms 
     Task Force grant which we are currently applying for will 
     be a first for our state. Based upon past experience, 
     President Clinton's plan, if implemented, will be 
     devastating to public safety in West Virginia.
       I would also note that rural states in general, West 
     Virginia included, have already been overlooked by the 
     President's initiatives to increase the number of police 
     officers on the street. My staff has reviewed the parameters 
     of the Police Hiring Supplement Program in detail. By its 
     very design it simply is not applicable to rural 
     jurisdictions, nor does it appear to be applicable to any 
     ``state level'' law enforcement entity. Although rural states 
     such as ours received a smaller share, since the Byrne 
     Memorial block grant program is population based, it was at 
     least something we felt we could count on. It now appears 
     that rural law enforcement may be completely cut off from 
     support which is crucial to our efforts. The people of West 
     Virginia pay Federal taxes like all other Americans; they are 
     entitled to better treatment than this.
       I urge you to strongly support the preservation of the 
     state administered federal assistance delivery system 
     currently in place under the United States Department of 
     Justice administered Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program.
       We, in the West Virginia law enforcement community, are 
     aware of the importance of controlling federal spending, 
     however, there is no more critical need in this nation than 
     to reduce crime and violence. The law enforcement community 
     is grateful for the assistance you have rendered in the past 
     and again we ask for your help in preserving the integrity of 
     this vitally important program.
           Sincerely,
                                              Col. Thomas L. Kirk,
                                                   Superintendent.
                                  ____



                                                  Court House,

                                Buckhannon, WV, February 10, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Upshur/Lewis/Harrison Drug Task Force, which also includes 
     the cities of Clarksburg and Bridgeport working in 
     conjunction with the W.Va State Police, DEA, FBI, and IRS to 
     urge you to preserve the integrity of the State Administrated 
     Federal Assistance Delivery systems currently in place under 
     the U.S. Department of Justice--administered Edward Byrne 
     Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
     discretionary and formula grant programs and to employ that 
     delivery system in the distribution of any future criminal 
     justice grant-in-aid programs, including financial assistance 
     specifically intended for local government.
       The HLUCTF urges you to support the full funding for the 
     Byrne Memorial grant program in the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget. 
     When the Federal Office of Management & Budget submits its 
     recommendations to Congress for spending for the federal 
     agencies and programs, we are hopeful the recommendations 
     covering the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
     Programs will include a sufficient allotment to preserve the 
     viability of the Byrne Memorial grant program.
       The Drug Control and Systems improvement/Byrne Memorial 
     grant program (1998-present) have provided state and local 
     governments with the impetus and financial means to develop 
     and implement new and innovative approaches to preventing and 
     controlling crime.
       In the Fiscal Year 1994, the appropriation of the Byrne 
     Memorial grant program was reduced by six percent from the 
     previous funding level, after being sustained at $473 million 
     each year for three fiscal years. However, the strength of 
     these grant-in-aid programs has been in the inducement and 
     flexibility that they have provided the state and the local 
     governments to identify crime priorities and to experiment 
     with new programs that address crime problems. This 
     experimentation and innovation by state and local governments 
     under the Safe Streets Acts Grant-In-Aid Program produces and 
     continues to produce under the Byrne Memorial grant program, 
     many significant and lasting criminal justice initiatives.
       We applaud and support your efforts to increase federal aid 
     to state and local governments and urge you to employ the 
     Byrne Memorial grant funds delivery system in the 
     distribution of any future criminal justice grant-in-aid 
     program, including financial assistance specifically intended 
     for local units of government and to support full funding of 
     the Byrne Memorial grant program in the fiscal year 1995 
     budget.
       Certainly, there is no more critical need in this nation 
     that to reduce crime and violence. The public has every right 
     to expect to be safe and secure at home and in the streets 
     and turn to the government for the will and resources to meet 
     this expectation. We look forward to working with you in this 
     matter of mutual interest. With kindest and personal regards 
     and sincere best wishes.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Virgil D. Miller,
                                            Sheriff Upshur County.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa.
  I rise briefly today to speak in strong support of this amendment, 
and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of it.
  As the chairman knows, I spoke this morning regarding the need for 
responsible amendments that named specific cuts. The Senator from Iowa, 
[Mr. Harkin] has once again shown the leadership we have come to expect 
from him by offering this amendment.
  I always say that the budget needs more everyday common sense, and 
that is what this amendment is about that has been offered by the 
Senator from Iowa.
  I recently held a series of violence forums around the State of 
Washington. I heard firsthand from many teenagers and violent offenders 
about what we need to do to keep our streets safe. I talked with law 
enforcement officials who told me how important programs like this are. 
The Byrne Formula Grant Program gets to the heart of the needs in our 
neighborhoods. It is an investment which will have a direct impact on 
our neighborhoods that each one of us will see.
  My good friends, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from 
Tennessee, our chairmen, have made a compelling case for this 
amendment.
  I will not take any more time except to say I fully support this 
amendment. I thank them for their leadership. I am convinced it will 
move to speedy adoption.
  Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back her time, or does 
she give it back to the Senator from Iowa?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my time back to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield myself a couple minutes.
  I again want to thank the Senator from Washington for her support for 
this amendment. I again thank her for all of her input and leadership 
on both the issue of getting our budget deficit down in a meaningful 
way to make sure that we do reduce that deficit and, second by making 
sure we have our spending priorities in order. I want to thank the 
Senator from Washington for her support.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I inquire, how much time does Senator Harkin have 
remaining on the first-degree amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 27 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assume since the chairman is in favor of the 
amendment that I have the hour in opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, would the Senator from Washington, 
Senator Gorton, like 20 minutes, 15 minutes?
  Mr. GORTON. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes of that time to Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 57 minutes remaining, and he 
yields 15 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, Edward Byrne was a young New York City 
policeman killed in action by drug lords in the 1980's. You would think 
that in his tough talk on crime, the President would have remembered 
this heroic officer whose name has done more to take dope pushers off 
our streets than perhaps any other. But the President has proposed we 
eliminate funding for the Byrne grants. At a time when our families and 
neighborhoods need effective law enforcement more than ever, we cannot 
afford to forget this successful program.
  The distinguished Senator from Iowa has proposed to restore this 
program to exactly the level at which it found itself last year. With 
that proposition, I agree in part with. The method by which he proposes 
to pay for it, I disagree profoundly.
  So I intend to use this 15 minutes, first, to amplify on the remarks 
of the distinguished Senator from Iowa as to what this program means 
with respect to law enforcement, the field in which we agree 
completely, and then to suggest that when all time has been yielded 
back, that I will have a second-degree amendment to amendment of the 
Senator from Iowa which will do two things:
  First, it will restore not just the amount of the Byrne grants which 
they have been in the current year, but the amount for which they were 
authorized and which they received up to the current year, which is 
some $423 million a year as against the $358 million, about which is 
the subject of this amendment.
  And, second, to take that money not out of national defense, the 
single function which is and continues to lose more than any other 
function in our budget, but taking a leaf from the proposals of a more 
broad nature made by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico in the 
Budget Committee itself to take it from allowances with a specific 
reference to the amount of money that we, in the Federal Government, 
spend across the board on furniture and on furnishings.
  With that introduction, I should like to go back and speak to the 
Byrne grants themselves for a particular period of time.
  As the Senator from Iowa well knows, the National Governors 
Association, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National 
Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police all have expressed support 
for full restoration of the Byrne formula grants.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters in 
support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 21, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the 22,000 members of the 
     National Sheriffs' Association, I am writing to thank you for 
     your efforts to preserve the Edward Byrne Grant Program. 
     Elimination of these funds will have the most devastating 
     impact on law enforcement, especially on small and rural 
     jurisdictions. This comes at a time when there is no more 
     critical need in this nation than to reduce crime and 
     violence. The sheriffs of this nation applaud your stand and 
     commend you for your efforts. As always, NSA is prepared to 
     support legislation in the best interest of law enforcement 
     and the public.
       I would be grateful if you would keep me informed of any 
     progress regarding your amendment. Thank you for your 
     endeavors.
           Sincerely,
                                            Charles ``Bud'' Meeks,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

         National Governors' Association, National Criminal 
           Justice Association,
                                                   March 21, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: We are writing on behalf of the 
     National Governors' Association and the National Criminal 
     Justice Association to applaud your statement on the floor of 
     the Senate on March 16, 1994, in support of preservation of 
     the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance formula grant program.
       The Byrne Memorial program, as you so aptly pointed out in 
     your statement, is a vital source of financial assistance for 
     states and local governments' efforts to halt the epidemic of 
     violent crime in this country. Byrne Memorial funds have 
     underwritten most of the major advances in the field of 
     criminal justice; including community policing, boot camps, 
     and multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement task forces, such 
     as those in place under Byrne funding in your own state of 
     Washington.
       The Byrne Memorial program is as equitable, efficient, 
     effective, and accountable a grant-in-aid initiative as any 
     the federal government has to offer. The program's strength 
     lies in the flexibility that it provides the states and local 
     governments to identify crime priorities and to develop, 
     test, and replicate new and innovative approaches to 
     preventing and controlling crime.
       Governors, state legislators, state and local police 
     officials, and numerous other public policymakers and 
     criminal justice officials are united in their commitment to 
     continuation of the Byrne Memorial program and in their 
     belief that President Clinton's proposal to eliminate the 
     Byrne Memorial formula grant program in his fiscal year 1995 
     budget should not be allowed by the Congress to go forward.
       We understand that you plan to offer an amendment during 
     floor debate of the budget resolution in support of the Byrne 
     Memorial grant program. We wholeheartedly support that action 
     and hope that your colleagues in the Senate will lend their 
     support to your amendment.
       Thank you again for your commitment to preserving the Byrne 
     Memorial program.
           Sincerely,

                                               Nolan E. Jones,

                            Director of Justice and Public Safety,
                                  National Governors' Association.

                                               Gwen A. Holden,

                                         Executive Vice President,
                            National Criminal Justice Association.
                                  ____

                                         International Association


                                          of Chiefs of Police,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 22, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The International Association of 
     Chiefs of Police (IACP) is in full support of all efforts to 
     maintain and enhance funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     State and local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs and the 
     Regional Information Sharing Program (RISS) in the FY' 1995 
     Budget.
       The IACP understands that several sources of funding are 
     under consideration from reducing consulting services to 
     reducing funding for Star Wars projects. The Congress is in 
     the best position to determine which programs can best be 
     reduced. The IACP knows however that these grant monies are 
     vital to law enforcement to fund multi-jurisdictional 
     narcotics task force that are the main defense against drug 
     traffickers at the local level. Without this support, a 
     coordinated and cost effective law enforcement effort is 
     impossible and leaves communities across America vulnerable 
     to unchecked drug trafficking.
       The IACP and its members urges continuation of the Byrne 
     Formula Grant and RISS programs in the FY' 1995 Budget.
           Sincerely,
                                          Sylvester Daughtry, Jr.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, as we look at the various programs which 
are contained in this budget, one of the overwhelming demands of the 
American people is for effectiveness in the spending of Federal money. 
If every Federal program were as cost effective as the Byrne grants, we 
would have very little need for some of the more drastic changes in our 
budget which have been proposed here.
  According to the Washington State Patrol which supervises the 
exercise of these grants in Washington State, for every program dollar, 
either from the Federal Government or by match, spent on 
multijurisdictional task forces within the Byrne grants, $8.40 worth of 
drugs are removed from the streets. Not only is the program cost 
effective, it is unusually successful.
  In the State of Washington, the conviction rate for those prosecuted 
after being arrested by these drug task forces under Byrne grants is 90 
percent. For arrests outside of these Byrne grant task forces, the 
conviction rate is 42 percent.
  Let me go through just a few of the ways in which this program 
operates in the State of Washington, which I believe is typical of all 
of the States which utilize these Byrne grants.
  In the State of Washington, there are 21 such programs occupying 
almost all of the counties and the great and overwhelming majority of 
the population of the State of Washington. As you can note from this 
map, many of them cross county lines; all of them cross various 
jurisdictional lines within counties. They are the primary source of 
drug interdiction in Washington State. Considering the millions of 
dollars in assets seized every year in the prevention of drug abuse, 
the Byrne Grant Program in Washington State is among the wisest 
investments of Federal taxpayer money.
  Designed to provide State and local flexibility and control over law 
enforcement strategies, Byrne grant money is distributed directly to 
all States on a population-based formula.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the 
amounts each State has received in fiscal year 1994 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Byrne Formula Grant Program

                           [Fiscal year 1994]

        Allocation of funds                                  Allocation
Alabama......................................................$5,827,000
Alaska........................................................1,595,000
Arizona.......................................................5,465,000
Arkansas......................................................3,756,000
California...................................................37,704,000
Colorado......................................................5,033,000
Connecticut...................................................4,808,000
DC............................................................1,597,000
Delaware......................................................1,717,000
Florida......................................................16,980,000
Georgia.......................................................8,946,000
Hawaii........................................................2,278,000
Idaho.........................................................2,167,000
Illinois.....................................................14,765,000
Indiana.......................................................7,647,000
Iowa..........................................................4,248,000
Kansas........................................................3,904,000
Kentucky......................................................5,373,000
Louisiana.....................................................6,007,000
Maine.........................................................2,368,000
Maryland......................................................6,748,000
Massachusetts.................................................8,048,000
Michigan.....................................................12,149,000
Minnesota.....................................................6,237,000
Mississippi...................................................4,012,000
Missouri......................................................7,088,000
Montana.......................................................1,878,000
Nebraska......................................................2,810,000
Nevada........................................................2,477,000
New Hampshire.................................................2,220,000
New Jersey...................................................10,184,000
New Mexico....................................................2,780,000
New York.....................................................22,502,000
North Carolina................................................9,055,000
North Dakota..................................................1,653,000
Ohio.........................................................14,032,000
Oklahoma......................................................4,725,000
Oregon........................................................4,445,000
Pennsylvania.................................................15,216,000
Rhode Island..................................................2,093,000
South Carolina................................................5,192,000
South Dakota..................................................1,743,000
Tennessee.....................................................6,886,000
Texas........................................................21,950,000
Utah..........................................................3,057,000
Vermont.......................................................1,575,000
Virginia......................................................8,500,000
Washington....................................................7,020,000
West Virginia.................................................3,056,000
Wisconsin.....................................................6,866,000
Wyoming.......................................................1,451,000
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, States and localities must match up to 
25 percent of the cost of the program, and no more than 10 percent of 
the formula grant to a State can be used for administrative purposes. 
Most of it, in fact, gets through to the streets, to the law 
enforcement agencies which deal with drugs themselves.
  Twenty different law enforcement activities are included within Byrne 
grants. Multijurisdictional task forces that integrate Federal, State 
and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, demand reduction 
education programs like the DARE Program, programs designed to target 
clandestine drug labs, community and neighborhood crime prevention 
programs and white collar crime and organized crime.
  Of all the activities permitted under Byrne grants, the 
multijurisdictional task forces are among the most cost effective and 
productive in the fight against crime.
  In the State of Washington, a total 21 multijurisdictional task 
forces, the drug prosecution assistance program, and several community 
policing programs were funded with Byrne grants during this current 
fiscal year for a total of $7 million.
  More than half of that amount was dedicated toward the task forces, 
with the Washington State Patrol playing an important role as 
coordinator and supervisor. Uncommon cooperation among State and local 
law enforcement has made Washington State's task forces renowned for 
their efficiency and effectiveness.
  Listen to some specific examples, Madam President. According to Capt. 
Hal Mahnke of the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Narcotics Task Force, right here, 
in 1993 alone that task force arrested 442 suspected drug dealers, 
seized 21 automobiles from drug dealers and $57,000 in cash. Captain 
Mahnke told me that ``most crimes that police officers investigate can 
be traced to drug activity. And we have plenty of drug activity. If we 
lose more drug investigative ability, we will see a definite increase 
in the crime rate in our area.''
  Comdr. Al Shelstad of the Snohomish County Regional Narcotics Task 
Force, which is here just north of Seattle, reports that since 1988 his 
task force has seized more than $19 million in narcotics, $367,000 in 
drug dealer vehicles, and $322,000 in cash.
  Detective Sgt. Brent Pfundheller, supervisor of the Spokane Regional 
Drug Task Force, in the eastern part of the State, tells me in the fall 
of 1992 the Spokane Task Force ended one of the largest marijuana 
investigations in the State of Washington's history. More than 7,000 
plants were seized with a street value of $7 to $10 million. Last year, 
the task force arrested more than 120 individuals for possession and/or 
trafficking in narcotics.
  Detective Sgt. Dave Rekow of the South King County Task Force, in the 
metropolitan area of Seattle, reports that his group just last January 
seized more than 2 kilograms of cocaine in west Seattle. That seizure 
led to another one in Everett, WA resulting in 25 kilograms of cocaine, 
nearly half a million dollars in cash and several weapons. He told me, 
and I quote:

       Without the assistance of the Edward Byrne Memorial fund, 
     we would, because of budgetary restraints, dissolve the South 
     King County Task Force and reassign those officers to other 
     enforcement efforts.

  Sergeant. Kennelly of the Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force reports that 
241 individuals were arrested last year by the eight task force members 
for narcotics-related offenses. He adds that--

       Without the grant money, the Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force 
     would not be able to operate. Each individual agency would 
     then be burdened with trying to cope with the volume of 
     narcotics that are so prevalent in the Tri-City area. Without 
     the manpower and resources available to each agency which the 
     task force provides as a unit, it would be an impossible task 
     for the agencies to effectively combat the drug program.

  We have similar quotes from Grays Harbor County, from Clark and 
Skamania Counties' drug task force, from the Interagency Narcotics Task 
Force Team in Grant County, from the West Sound Narcotics Enforcement 
Team, from Bob Thurston of the Quad Cities Drug Task Force.
  And finally, Lt. Jim Pryde, of the Thurston County Narcotics Task 
Force, reports that since 1990 more than $12 million in illegal drugs, 
238 firearms and 522 felony arrests have been made. He says:

       Loss of the drug grant funding would severely and 
     negatively impact the quality of life we are fighting to 
     maintain in Thurston County and the State of Washington.

  This is what we face if this program is wiped out.
  This second chart illustrates what the Washington State Patrol says 
would be the devastating impact of the loss of Byrne grants. On this 
two-colored map of the State of Washington, those in red are counties 
and areas in the State in which drug task forces are operating. Those 
in green are ones that have not participated. Some 90 percent of the 
people of the State of Washington live in areas supported by Byrne 
grants.
  The Washington State Patrol says that--

       The loss of interjurisdictional cooperation would be 
     greatly impaired. Loss of the BJA funding would cause 
     approximately 80 percent of the multijurisdictional task 
     forces to disband. The effectiveness of the remaining 20 
     percent would be greatly reduced. Rural areas would suffer 
     the most because they do not have funds to replace lost 
     Federal dollars; and drug control strategy is adversely 
     impacted if task forces fold. Traffickers will move into 
     areas where there is lower law enforcement presence.

  Madam President, law enforcement officials across the country shake 
their heads in disbelief as they hear about page 97 of the fiscal year 
1995 budget summary for the Department of Justice as proposed by the 
President, which reads as follows:

       The elimination of the Byrne formula grants is requested in 
     order to support expansion of Juvenile Justice Program crime 
     prevention activities and provide some of the funding 
     necessary for the Department to maintain its primary Federal 
     law enforcement responsibilities. Further, the administration 
     believes that many new State and local assistance programs 
     provisions, offered by the pending Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act, will more than offset the loss of the Byrne 
     program formula grants. These new State and local programs, 
     authorized in the crime bill, will include grants for 
     community policing, criminal history records upgrades, boot 
     camps, drug courts for youthful and nonviolent offenders and 
     drug treatment in prisons and jails.

  In other words, the administration is saying, ``Don't worry; you are 
covered.''
  Law enforcement has a right to be skeptical.
  First, few would argue with the need for more juvenile crime justice 
assistance programs. To think, however, that eliminating the main 
defense against drug trafficking will not erode our efforts on behalf 
of children is absurd. Juvenile justice programs and narcotics task 
forces are part of the same effort and cannot be traded off against one 
another.
  Second, it is not clear what the administration means by ``funding 
necessary for the Department to maintain its primary Federal law 
enforcement responsibilities.'' That could mean anything from ethics 
briefings for the White House to salaries and expenses of a special 
prosecutor. Since much of the Byrne money goes to multijurisdictional 
task forces that include Federal law enforcement and pursue interstate 
drug trafficking, it is hard to believe that these are not considered 
primary Federal law enforcement responsibilities.
  Third, law enforcement personnel cannot reasonably rely on the 
administration's belief that the pending Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act will more than offset the loss of the formula grants. 
Considering the fact that there is a $16 billion difference between the 
Senate-passed crime bill and the bill currently being debated in the 
House of Representatives, few can know what, if anything, will emerge 
from the Senate-House conference comparable to the Byrne grants.
  Fourth, the administration seems to neglect the substantial sum, 
nearly $2 billion according to some estimates, that these 
multijurisdictional task forces generate in seized assets.
  Finally, the President's enthusiasm over hiring 50,000 new----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator give me another 5 minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Finally, the President's enthusiasm over hiring 50,000 
new officers perplexes many of those in and outside of law enforcement. 
In doing so, he suggests that eliminating experienced narcotics 
officers who are primarily responsible for drug interdiction before the 
drugs get to the cities can somehow be justified by hiring rookie cops 
in the big cities for a period of 3 years. We desperately need new 
police officers in our cities but not at the expense of law enforcement 
in rural areas. In taking from rural task forces to pay for new city 
police, the President is blatantly suggesting that we rob Peter to pay 
Paul when both are obviously needed.
  Now, Madam President, it is because of the tremendous success of 
these programs that our view is that they should be restored to their 
roughly historic level, and that is why the amount of money that we 
would propose is slightly larger than that in the Harkin amendment. But 
more significant, Madam President, is the fact that in one very real 
sense, in spite of the statement of the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee, none of these amendments are truly specific. The 
pattern of an amendment which I will set up will be identical to that 
of Senator Harkin. They simply change numbers in particular lines on 
particular pages of the budget resolution.
  Fundamentally, however, the Harkin amendment takes all of the money 
for the restoration of these grants out of function 050; that is to 
say, national defense. He advertises and argues that this will come out 
of a portion, not all, of our antiballistic missile defense force. 
Maybe so, maybe not. That will not be decided here on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. It cannot be decided during the course of the budget 
resolution. It does, however, come out of our function for national 
defense, a function which has declined in real terms ever since 1985 
and is declining in absolute terms during the course of this year in 
spite of the fact that the President has said that he wants no more 
cuts in national defense, and in spite of the fact that we already have 
a $20 billion to $40 billion asterisk in the defense funds because the 
amount of money in the function, admittedly by the Department of 
Defense, is insufficient to pay for the defense which the President of 
the United States himself thinks to be necessary.
  So my alternative proposal will be to take it out of allowances and 
earmark it against the money that we are spending on furniture, and it 
would be my intention that it come equally out of all of the functions 
in which those expenditures come, which would include a very modest cut 
in the defense function but it would be one which is directly 
proportional to the size of the defense function as a part of the 
overall budget and not solely and completely out of the defense 
function, which is already very, very short.
  So while I am absolutely convinced that the Senator from Iowa has 
done a great service in speaking about the Byrne grant, and I agree 
with him completely, I think we can do better on the Byrne grant. I 
think we can do better on the functions from which we pay for the Byrne 
grant. I think we can do better for the defense of the United States.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I, on my time, if the Senator, my good 
friend from Washington, will engage in a colloquy with me on where we 
are getting the money--we both agree the Edward Byrne fund ought to be 
saved or increased a little bit, if at all possible. I think that is a 
general sentiment here.
  I guess the question then comes down to where are we going to get the 
money? The Senator is right. I do take it out of 050. I have indicated 
to him in my remarks that it should come from the ballistic missile 
defense fund and that portion which is the star wars program, not the 
theater missile defense. That whole star wars program goes from $1.2 to 
$1.21 billion, and that is where I propose the money come from.
  The Senator is right. Obviously, it has to be appropriated. 
Obviously, an amendment then would be in place on the appropriations 
bill when it comes to the floor.
  So I made it clear where I would get my money. I am still a little 
uncertain as to where the Senator from Washington will get his money to 
put into the Edward Byrne program. I understand what he says; that he 
was going to get portions from every function; a little bit out of 
every function. Well, does that mean some of it will come from 
education? Will some come from health care? Will some come from the 
National Institutes for Health, which we are trying to fund to put 
money into basic medical research? Would some of this come from job 
training? Where would it come from? Will all of it come out of all of 
these? That is what I am asking the Senator from Washington. Would, 
under his proposal, a little bit come out of all of these programs that 
I mentioned?
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I respond to the distinguished Senator 
that the amounts that will come out of each of the functions across the 
board under the alternative proposal of the Senator from Washington 
will be directly proportional to the amount in the allowance section, 
the small print, in the budget directed toward the purchase of 
furnishings for various Federal Government agencies. That, of course, 
is precisely specific, no more or no less specific than the amendment 
of the Senator from Iowa, which comes out of national defense. Of 
course, it would come out of any function of national defense, I 
suppose, if some of these agencies ended up preferring their own 
personal comforts for the work which they were designed to do that they 
might buy their plush furnishings in any event and shortchange their 
own activities.
  It is not the intent of the Senator from Washington-- the intent of 
the Senator from Washington is identical to that of the Senator from 
New Mexico, who had a similar but broader amendment during the course 
of the debate over the budget resolution in the Budget Committee 
itself.
  In any event, it comes out of the allowances section, and the precise 
intent will be to reduce by 50 percent the amount of money all Federal 
agencies spend on furniture and furnishings.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate those remarks. I guess my point is, again, 
the Senator says that, but his amendment does not mean that. It could 
come out of anywhere, just as the Senator from Washington is saying 
about my amendment. Mine comes out of national defense. I have 
indicated it would come out of star wars. Obviously, the appropriators 
can take it out of anywhere. If we take the amendment of the Senator 
from Washington, it does not necessarily have to come out of 
furnishings. It can come out of something else across the board.
  My amendment, then, will send a strong signal to the Appropriations 
Committee about where our priorities are. Again, I do not have any real 
case to make for furnishings. I do not know what the situation is with 
furnishings. I suppose if you run an office, you have to have office 
equipment. I do know about the National Institutes of Health, though. I 
do know that they need equipment. They need lab equipment. They need 
proper furnishings to conduct their research, as do our extramural 
grants that go out to other universities. I suppose that would be 
included in that, too. I do not know exactly what all is included in 
the furnishings.
  But, again, my point is this: We have had a huge increase in the star 
wars budget this year. It has gone up by almost 30 percent over last 
year. Again, is that where our priorities are?
  The Senator from Washington states that we have had all of these big 
cuts in the military spending. I think it is time to start pricking 
that balloon and that myth. The Senator did say that it has come down 
since 1986. He is right. We had a huge buildup under Ronald Reagan, and 
since 1986 it has come down.
  But, Madam President, I have a chart that shows that since the cold 
war started--defining the cold war as starting after the Korean war --
there have been 16 years during that cold war when we had the threat of 
the Soviet Union intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear warfare 
threatening us. In 16 of those years we spent less on defense than we 
are this year in constant dollars. At the height of the cold war, in 16 
of those years, we spent less than we did this year. Most of the years 
in which we spent more were the Vietnam war years.
  I would also point out that if you added up the military budgets of 
every country in the world who could be our potential enemy, Russia, 
Iraq, China, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, add them all 
up, it comes to $52.6 billion.
  This year we are spending $277 billion, five times more than all of 
our potential enemies all put together. Yet, the Senator from 
Washington says that is not enough. Five times more than all of our 
potential enemies all put together, and that is not enough. Well, I am 
sorry. I beg to differ. I think that is more than enough. And I think 
it is time for our allies to start picking up more of the burden and 
not our taxpayers. I think if the taxpayers are putting this money in, 
it ought to go back to fight our street wars, and put it into the 
Edward Byrne Program to fund it. That is why I called my amendment star 
wars to street wars. I guess the Senator from Washington would call his 
``Furniture to Street Wars.'' Maybe he has a name, I do not know. I 
think it is time to put our priorities in order and cut the Star Wars 
Program. How much time do I have left?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Senator has 19 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest that, as I understood the 
way we were going to do things, Senator Harkin was first, and that was 
at the request of the majority. The Republicans would go second. I 
think Senator Gorton is waiting to go second, but we have additional 
time on the Harkin amendment. I am going to use a few minutes and yield 
a few more minutes to Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 37 minutes and 
14 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me see if I can put this matter into perspective as 
I see it. The Senate in this first amendment--and I assume throughout 
the debate on this budget resolution we are going to be talking about 
areas about where Senators from both sides of the aisle think the 
President of the United States made a mistake in his budget. This is a 
big one. This is a very big mistake in the President's budget.
  Frankly, I do not think the Senate is going to let this mistake get 
by without a lot of debate. There are three or four others in the area 
of criminal justice that are not going to get by without a big debate. 
This is a big one because not too many years ago we established a grant 
program for our States, and we named it after a very, very big police 
hero from New York City, as I recall. I think Senator D'Amato brought 
him over because his father came to witness the ceremony of honoring 
this marvelous son who was a policeman and was just blown up by 
somebody who decided to kill him. We named this after that person. It 
is a tremendous fund, because it goes to our sovereign States in a 
manner that is reasonably related to the problems they have in terms of 
dollars. And then they get to use it for a myriad of things that they 
think are important. Believe you me, they are using it for tremendous 
law enforcement advances in our sovereign States. Senator Gorton 
alluded to some of them a while ago.
  What the President did, I believe, in an effort to reach a certain 
level of expenditures and no more in terms of the caps, is tell America 
he was going to invest a lot of money into law enforcement. But the big 
new item for law enforcement was community-based policemen. So a very 
large new program was put in under criminal justice.
  My recollection is that it is over a billion dollars for 50,000 
community-based law enforcement people. Frankly, in order to make room 
for that, the President took the Byrne Grant Program and reduced it 
dramatically. What is going on here today in both the Harkin amendment 
and the Gorton amendment to be proposed, second-degree amendment, is to 
try to reinstate this so-called Byrne fund to its preexisting level, 
before the President cut it, and in some cases to let it go up a little 
bit, because it is thought to be one of the best crime fighting 
expenditures the Federal Government has.
  Frankly, I think everybody understands that the Appropriations 
Committee is not going to cut the Byrne fund as much as the President 
recommended in his budget. It just cannot be. The States are going to 
tell us it is impossible and you cannot do this to us. And the 
President will lose any initiative of being a crime fighter when the 
States are through telling him: You cut more in the Byrne fund, which 
is helpful to us, than all this community police stuff you are talking 
about. It is going to get funded.
  What we are doing here on the floor today, Senator Harkin would say, 
look, I know how it ought to be funded. I am going to cut the Strategic 
Defense Initiative some and that will make up for the money in the 
Byrne fund. To tell you the truth, the President said we should not do 
this. Why did he say that? The President said in two different large 
quotes in his State of the Union Address: I have cut defense all that 
it should be cut. That is paraphrasing. In fact, he said something I 
did not think I would hear: Some of my staff and people that advise 
me--again paraphrasing--wanted me to cut defense more, but I refused 
to. It has been cut enough.
  When you tear away all of what somebody wants this amendment to be--
what Senator Harkin wants it to be--it is another cut in defense to pay 
for what the President did not fund in the criminal justice section, 
the Byrne amendment. It is nothing more, nothing less. There is no 
doubt that this ballistic missile defense fund is not going to be cut 
as much as the Senator says it should be, because the Defense 
Appropriations Committee is going to make that decision. I remind 
everyone that the President himself said we should not be cutting this, 
because we have cut defense enough.
  So, in my opinion, standing on its own, that amendment should not 
pass here today. Frankly, I believe the Senators want to vote for an 
amendment that says we are for putting the Byrne grant program on crime 
prevention back to where it was before, and even raise it a little. As 
I said, it is probably going to happen whether we vote on it here today 
or not, because the appropriators are going to cut someplace else and 
fund that program.
  But if we want to vote to reinstate this fund so we can say we are 
crime fighters--we are even better crime fighters than the President--
then it seems to me that Senator Gorton's idea that we ought to say to 
the agencies of this Government: Do not buy any new furniture, or at 
least 50 percent less, and do not use so many outside consultants; use 
half as many. That is what essentially he intends to do--send a signal 
that it is those kinds of excesses that should have been restrained in 
the President's budget so he would not have had to cut the crime-
fighting Byrne funding for our States and localities.
  With that, I ask the Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 30 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask to speak for 3 minutes in behalf of 
the Byrne amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment of my 
colleague from Iowa, which would, in his words, transfer Federal funds 
from star wars to street wars. It would take money currently slated to 
the missile defense budget and use it to restore cuts proposed to the 
Byrne grant anticrime and antidrug program.
  Star wars to street wars is more than just a catchy phrase, it is a 
good idea. I was, frankly, surprised to see the President propose the 
elimination of the Byrne formula grant program in his budget at 
precisely the time the Federal Government has finally begun to face up 
to its responsibility to address the crime and drug problem in a truly 
tough, smart fashion.
  The fact is that the Byrne Grant Program works. In my home State of 
Wisconsin alone it funds 27 drug task forces and more than 20 drug 
enforcement positions as well as a highly effective program that shuts 
down crack houses in Milwaukee.
  The proposed elimination of this program has prompted more than 50 
law enforcement officials from all over Wisconsin to write and call me.
  They write and call with success stories; stories about the important 
things they have done, and the drug crime that they have fought, with 
the Byrne grant money.
  These are clearly difficult times that compel us to make all sorts of 
tough budget-cutting decisions. It is our responsibility not to shy 
away from these difficult votes. But it is also our responsibility to 
ensure that our budget-cutting knife does not slice the heart out of 
our anticrime and antidrug efforts. We must distinguish muscle from 
fat. Programs that work as well as the Byrne grant program are muscle--
they simply should not be cut.
  So it is for this reason that I strongly support the amendment 
proposed by my colleague from the State of Iowa [Senator Harkin].
  I thank you and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is my understanding that time is charged equally to 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If neither side yields time, that is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Tennessee [Senator Sasser].
  Mr. SASSER. How much time does Senator Harkin have available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 16 minutes and 44 
seconds.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
time will be charged equally against both sides.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Harkin].


                    Amendment No. 1558, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are trying to reach an agreement. First 
of all, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GORTON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
       Replace the matter to be inserted at the designated places 
     with the following:
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, decrease the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, decrease the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
       On page 7, line 4, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 7, line 8, decrease the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 7, line 9, decrease the amount by $179,000,000.
       On page 7, line 10, decrease the amount by $88,000,000.
       On page 7, line 11, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 7, line 12, decrease the amount by $88,000,000.
       On page 8, line 7, decrease the amount by $144,000,000.
       On page 8, line 8, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 8, line 9, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
       On page 8, line 10, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 8, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 35, line 8, increase the amount by $420,000,000.
       On page 35, line 9, increase the amount by $92,000,000.
       On page 35, line 16, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 35, line 23, increase the amount by $147,000,000.
       On page 36, line 6, increase the amount by $21,000,000.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me briefly state what the modification 
is.
  Basically the modification would still reduce star wars by $513 
million. It would increase the amount going to the Byrne program by 
$423 million, and it would reduce the deficit by only $90 million. It 
adjusts all the numbers accordingly.
  That is the modification. I want to make it very clear, it still 
reduces the star wars program by the $513 million. It shifts most of 
that into the Byrne program, but there is $90 million that is used for 
deficit reduction. And that is the modification.
  Mr. President, I have consulted with my friend, the Senator from 
Washington, who feels as strongly I do, I know, about the Byrne 
program. We just have a difference on how to fund it. We have worked 
out an agreement which is acceptable to our side and I know is 
acceptable to their side.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending Harkin amendment be set 
aside; that Senator Gorton be recognized to offer a first-degree 
amendment on the Byrne program; that there be 20 minutes of debate on 
the Gorton amendment equally divided in the usual form; that upon 
conclusion of debate on the Gorton amendment, the Senate proceed 
without any intervening action to vote on or in relation to the Harkin 
amendment, and on disposition of that, to be followed without 
intervening action or debate by a vote on or in relation to the Gorton 
amendment, and that no second-degree amendments be in order to either 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request propounded by the Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves that right.
  Mr. GORTON. Our parliamentarians tell us it is a little bit more 
complicated than that, Mr. President, because, of course, at this 
point, since we are going to vote back to back, this Senator does not 
know which of two amendments to put up. That will depend on the success 
or the failure of the Harkin amendment. So if the unanimous-consent 
agreement should be modified so that I will put up an amendment at this 
point, we will debate it, as per the request of the Senator from Iowa, 
but if the Harkin amendment should pass, that I have unanimous consent 
to substitute a different amendment for this one.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have a gentleman's agreement. I understand what the 
Senator is going to do, and it is perfectly acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will the 
distinguished Senator explain the agreement?
  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand the agreement, it is this. I have just 
modified my amendment. That amendment will be set aside. Senator Gorton 
is going to offer an amendment in the first degree, and upon completion 
of debate on that, we will proceed to vote on my amendment up or down. 
On the disposition of that, we would proceed to the Gorton amendment. 
However--and the Senator is right--if my amendment passes, the 
amendment that he is now debating is moot, and he wants to be able to 
modify that amendment at that point to get an up-or-down vote.
  Let me explain in plain English what we are doing here. I have taken 
the money from star wars to fund the Byrne program. There is a little 
bit left over that goes to deficit reduction. Senator Gorton's 
amendment takes the money out of a furnishings account that is spread 
over all of the different functions to pay for the Byrne program. If my 
amendment wins, Senator Gorton wants to offer an amendment that would 
basically undo what my amendment did. It would take the money out of my 
amendment that was taken out of star wars, put all that money back into 
star wars and take the money out of the furnishings account to pay for 
the Byrne program.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SASSER. If the Senator will yield----
  Mr. GORTON. In other words, this Senator at this point does not know 
whether or not Senator Harkin will prevail. Part of my amendment will 
depend on whether it prevails or does not prevail. I will put up one 
form of it. But if his prevails, I wish to substitute the second form 
for it. The effect will be the same. If Senator Harkin's wins and mine 
loses, the Byrne grants come out of star wars. If mine wins after his, 
it displaces his and the money comes out of the allowances with the 
intention that it be in the furnishings account.
  Mr. SASSER. But in the event his wins, then the Senator will modify 
his amendment and the modification will be in such a way that you still 
fund the Byrne provision but you will take the funds from where at that 
juncture?
  Mr. GORTON. That is correct.
  Mr. SASSER. No.
  Mr. GORTON. I will take them from allowances with the intention that 
they be from the furnishings account, exactly what we have been 
debating all this time.
  Mr. SASSER. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request propounded by the Senator from Iowa? If not, that will be the 
order of the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 1559

   (Purpose: Restore the Edward Byrne formula grants by reducing all 
                      agencies furniture accounts)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order just adopted, the Harkin 
amendment will be set aside. The Senator from Washington is recognized 
to offer an amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it 
be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1559.

  Mr. GORTON. 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 35, line 8, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 35, line 9, increase the amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 35, line 15, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 35, line 16, increase the amount by $241,000,000.
       On page 35, line 22, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 35, line 23, increase the amount by $402,000,000.
       On page 36, line 5, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 36, line 6, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 36, line 12, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 36, line 13, increase the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 41, line 12, decrease the amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by $241,000,000.
       On page 41, line 25, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 42, line 1, decrease the amount by $402,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 42, line 8, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 42, line 14, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $423,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself so much of my 10 minutes as 
I may utilize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Iowa has explained the situation, as we 
have set it out, quite accurately. Each of us agrees on the vital 
importance of Byrne grants to effective law enforcement and 
particularly to effective drug interdiction in the United States. The 
Senator from Iowa, in fact, has acceded to me and has listed the amount 
in his amendment to be essentially equal to my own, that is to say, the 
1993 Byrne grant numbers. So we no longer have any difference on the 
importance of Byrne grants to law enforcement and to drug interdiction 
at all.
  We do have a difference on the function or functions from which that 
money should be taken. The Senator from Iowa proposes that it be taken 
out of antiballistic missile defense. This Senator proposes that it be 
taken out of all functions proportionate to the amount of money that 
they spend on furniture and on furnishings which, of course, will 
include a very small amount from the defense function itself.
  So the basic debate in which we are engaged at the present time is 
whether or not we want to restore this money for a vitally effective 
law enforcement function out of national defense or out of furnishings. 
I think it is a very simple proposition. Are we going to take perhaps 
the single most important function of the U.S. Government, its national 
defense, in a time of great unrest in the world, and deprive it of 
another $500 million over all of the cuts in defense which have taken 
place across the course of the last decade, a national defense function 
which the President has said he does not wish to cut, a particular item 
which the President has said he does not wish to cut, or should we take 
that money out of new furniture and new furnishings for all of the 
bureaucracy of the United States at a time, ironically, in which we are 
going to cut 200,000 or 250,000 people off of the Federal payroll.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, the answer to that question is 
obvious. Of course, we should not cut back on national defense because, 
remember, whatever our stated intention that this money come out of 
star wars, it will come out of whatever the body decides it will come 
out of within the whole range of national defense at the time at which 
we finally pass an appropriations bill for the defense of the United 
States.
  We already have a huge asterisk of, what is it, I ask Senator 
Domenici, $20 billion or more by which defense is underfunded for the 
very defense structure which the President of the United States has 
asked? Senator Harkin asks that we add to that asterisk another one-
half billion dollars, we take another one-half billion dollars out of 
defense. This Senator says no. We do need the Byrne Program. It is 
vitally important. Let us take it out of luxuries. Let us not take it 
out of the sinew of our national defense. Consequently, however the 
first vote goes, if you vote for the Gorton amendment on the second 
round, you will have determined that you want the Byrne grant, but you 
will have determined that you are going to take them out of luxuries, 
out of new furnishings for the governmental entities of the United 
States and not out of the sinew of this country's national defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Washington 
that we have to increase the Byrne account and get that money out to 
our police and law enforcement for their programs for prevention and 
for prosecution. However, again, I would point out that the Gorton 
amendment takes the money for this out of all functions. He says it is 
going to come out of furnishings. It does not necessarily have to come 
out of furnishings. There is no specified item in each fund for 
furnishings. It is sort of an object account within every department 
that they have for furnishings. He says it is going to come out. Maybe 
it will; maybe it will not. We do not really know that for a fact. I do 
not know how much money is in furnishings.
  Mr. GORTON. Approximately $1 billion.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator says approximately $1 billion per year we 
spend on furnishings. I am not certain. I take his word for it. I would 
have to look at every function to see.
  But again there is not any specific line item that says furnishings 
that we can go after. So really what he is digging into is all of the 
different functions. It could come out of education. It could come out 
of health, the FBI, the Justice Department, and prosecutions. 
Everything this could come out of. the Senator's amendment does not 
really distinguish the source. It says everything is equal out there; 
this cuts across the board.
  My amendment specifies exactly where that money would come from. We 
had $2.74 billion for the old Star Wars Program last year. The 
President has asked and this budget includes an increase over that of 
about $513 million to $3.25 billion.
  Again, the very accounts that the Senator from Washington is going 
after have all been frozen or cut in previous years. Here is one 
account that was not cut and was not frozen. That is star wars. It is 
increased by $500 million.
  So what I have done is I have carefully drafted my amendment to say 
we will take it from the Star Wars Program, $513 billion. That will 
still leave $2 billion for theater missile defense programs to go after 
the real military threat out there. That is the time of Scud missiles, 
the theater missile programs that we need. We do not need to increase 
at this time the old star wars concept of shooting down 
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
  So I use that money to transfer from star wars to street wars, to put 
it in the Byrne Program.
  I believe the amendment I have offered is a much cleaner amendment. 
It correctly states what our priorities are going to be. It cuts down 
an increase that was made in the Star Wars Program, leaves it at last 
year's level. The Gorton amendment basically cuts into programs that 
have already been frozen or cut themselves. Therein I think lies the 
difference.
  Again, I urge Senators to send a signal loud and clear that we do not 
need $500 million increase in Star Wars, but we do need $500 million 
increase in fighting crime and drugs in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Gorton have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes and 2 seconds.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield such time as he wishes to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and fellow Senators, you have a clear 
vote it seems to me. One, do you support the President of the United 
States when he said we shall not cut defense anymore? He even said, 
``My staff has advised me, some of them have, to cut defense. But it is 
wrong. We have cut defense enough.''
  The Harkin amendment would cut defense some more to pay for what the 
President should have funded from the beginning: The Byrne amendment 
which fights drugs and crimes in our cities and States in probably the 
best way that any Federal money is spent. The other choice is to take 
Senator Gorton's approach, and it will be the second vote, and say we 
do not want to cut defense anymore, but we do want to replenish the 
Byrne Grant Program in its totality. We want to fund it right up to 
current policy which means inflation on top of last year because it is 
a great program.
  Then Senator Gorton says, as I would interpret it, the President 
should never cut the Byrne grants, and said to the agencies of this 
Government, you can spend $1 billion on new furniture. So we say cut 
that in half. I believe had the President been looking at $1 billion 
worth of new furniture or cutting the Byrne grants, he would have said 
cut the furniture. In any event, whether he says it or not, we ought to 
say it here today. That is why we ought to support the second vote.
  Everybody wins. Senator Harkin gets the Byrne grant replenished. The 
United States Senate, which probably to a man and to a woman, wants to 
replenish that program. It is a good program. It should not be cut. It 
will not be cut.
  That version wins, and who loses? The only thing that loses is the 
big allowance account of this Government. If you are worried about 
specificity, it is a $9 billion account, and it is full of 
generalities: rent, across-the-board reductions. It also assumes that 
we are going to have procurement savings, and it has a dollar number 
for it.
  So Senator Gorton's amendment is as real as you can get on a budget 
resolution, and I think it deserves support of the Senate.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 3 minutes, and 48 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to add one thing to what Senator 
Domenici said. The President, in a very passionate moment in his State 
of the Union Address said, ``And some have said cut defense further. 
And I have said no.'' Of course 3 days later, the President's budget 
came out and he cut defense by another $117 billion.
  Unless our alternative passes, it is too late for this budget to 
fulfill the President's promise. But the point is, do not cut defense 
any further than the President cut it after he promised he would not 
cut it.
  So I think the question is, are we going to buy furniture for the 
Government, or are we going to continue to fund national defense, even 
though the President has already cut it $117 billion more than he 
promised he would cut it?
  I think that is the issue. And on that basis, I think it is very 
important that we reject the Harkin amendment and that we accept the 
Gorton amendment to fund DARE, to fund the war on drugs, to fund our 
rural task force effort. I am very much in favor of Byrne funding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] controls 6 minutes and 4 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me clear up a misconception, Mr. President, which I 
think that the Senator from Texas has on this defense spending.
  Quite frankly, I want to make the point again that the Star Wars 
Program was not cut. It was increased by $513 million over last year. 
That is really the issue. Do we want to keep pouring money into the old 
Star Wars Program, Edward Teller's dream, lasers, x-ray particle beams, 
star wars and all that kind of nonsense? We have put $32 billion into 
star wars, and what do we have to show for it? Not a thing.
  What if we were to put that $32 billion into high-speed rail, into 
clean energy systems, or into education and better schools for our kids 
in this country? Then we would have something to show for it. That is 
not enough for the Senator from Texas. Oh, no. He wants another $500 
million to go into the Star Wars Program. I am sorry. My goal is not 
cutting defense. It is cutting the old Star Wars Program. That is what 
we are doing here with this amendment. We are putting it into fighting 
drugs and fighting crime through the Byrne Program.
  Second, I hear all this talk about cutting defense and cutting 
defense. The fact is that since the cold war started, there have been 
16 years during the height of the cold war when we spent less money on 
defense than we are doing today. We are spending more, but the Soviet 
Union no longer exists. There is no big threat to the United States 
security. And the only years in which we spent more were during the 
Vietnam war years.
  So what are we talking about here in terms of cutting defense? We are 
talking about cutting it below what it was when Ronald Reagan built it 
up.
  Last, Mr. President, of all the potential enemies we face in the 
world, Russia, Iraq, China, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, 
add them all, what they spend on defense, it comes to $52 billion. We 
are spending $277 billion, five times more than all of our enemies put 
together. But that is not enough for the Senator from Texas. No, he has 
to spend more on defense.
  Well, there are legitimate needs in defense. But I submit to you, Mr. 
President, that star wars is not one of those. It is time to take the 
President's request, and I believe the President is wrong on this when 
he asked for a half billion dollars more in star wars. Take that 
increase, bring it down to last year's level and put it into the Byrne 
program to fight crime and drugs. That is what the Harkin amendment 
does. I ask for the Senators' support on that amendment to send a 
message loud and clear that Star Wars is gone, over and done with. If 
you want to fund defense, put it into something else, not in star wars.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from 
Washington agree totally on the Byrne grant program. We agree as to its 
effectiveness on the war on drugs and with respect to interdisciplinary 
task forces. We agree on the DARE Program. What they do not agree on is 
how to pay for a program which the President most improvidently took 
out of his budget. The Senator from Iowa believes it ought to come out 
of national defense, and that is all he can do with this resolution, 
but he wishes to earmark it to come out of star wars. In that, he 
disagrees with his own Department of Defense, with his own President of 
the United States, and disagrees, of course, with the budget 
resolutions that came out of the Budget Committee.
  The Senator from Washington believes that our national defense is 
more important than new furnishings for bureaucrats, and believes the 
money ought to come out of those furnishings. It is as simple as that. 
We are going to restore money for Byrne grants, I am convinced of that. 
The question is whether or not we take it out of the defense of the 
United States or furniture allowances.
  The Senator from South Carolina has asked to speak for 4 minutes. I 
suspect I do not have that much time left. I will yield to him whatever 
time I have left, plus the difference between that and 4 minutes off 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 3 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Harkin amendment. I wish to commend the able Senator from Washington 
State for the position he has taken.
  I am astonished that the Senator from Iowa would bring this proposal 
to the floor now--of all times.
  Just last week we learned that North Korea is developing two long-
range ballistic missiles along with their nuclear weapons program. 
Director of Central Intelligence Woolsey has said that if deployed, 
they could project North Korea's offensive reach throughout the 
northwest Pacific.
  Ballistic missiles are the primary choice to deliver weapons of mass 
destruction because there is no effective defense against them. We do 
have the Patriot, but its antimissile capabilities are limited, and it 
may not be effective against chemical or biological warheads.
  Perhaps the Senator from Iowa has not been reading the papers or 
watching the news in the past few weeks. The danger posed by North 
Korea is obvious. What more does it take for this country to get 
serious about ballistic missile defense? We ought to be adding money 
for missile defense and expediting the program, not cutting it further.
  Missiles and weapons of mass destruction are spreading all over the 
world, especially in outlaw states like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. It 
is significant that every nation in the potential column of nuclear 
arms proliferants also has a parallel ballistic missile program.
  If we are serious about stopping the spread of missiles and mass 
destructive weapons, we ought to be building the most effective theater 
missile defense that our technology will permit. Senator Harkin may not 
realize it, but his amendment will hurt theater defense as well as 
homeland defense. First, the so-called star wars homeland defense 
program died long ago. What remains of homeland defense is technology 
work in land-based elements and sensors. It is not the star wars pipe-
dream system as the Senator characterized it. This work has produced 
technologies that enhance theater defense. Second, the threats we are 
facing are approaching intercontinental range. The new North Korean 
missile is a case in point. It may have a range of 3,500 kilometers. 
Third, theater defense is already underfunded. To cut another $523 
million from BMDO will hurt theater defense by crippling the entire 
effort, despite what the Senator may say.
  Only missile defense can make ballistic missiles less useful and thus 
less attractive to would-be aggressors. Without missile defense our 
counterproliferation policy is impotent against a determined 
violator like North Korea. Without better missile defenses our troops 
deployed overseas and our allies are vulnerable to the most potent 
military threat we face today.
  The Harkin amendment will extend this vulnerability. I urge the 
defeat of the Harkin amendment.
  I yield the floor and thank the managers for their courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to say that the Senator from South 
Carolina is right. We should be concerned about North Korea, I say to 
the Senator. We should be concerned about North Korea. But right now, I 
say to the Senator from South Carolina, I do not know if he knows how 
much they spend on their military. Right now, we spend in 5 days what 
North Korea spends in an entire year.
  Here is the chart right here, Mr. President. In 1 year, North Korea 
spends $2.2 billion in defense. We spend $277 billion in defense. Yes, 
we are concerned about North Korea. Of course, we are. But to somehow 
argue that we have to spend even more than what we are spending now to 
swat at a gnat--maybe the Senator from South Carolina is afraid of the 
gnats and ants, but I am not. Our military is up to North Korea any day 
of the week. In 5 days, we spend more on defense than North Korea 
spends in one entire year. If that is not enough, God help us all.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my friend from Iowa certainly raises 
some good points about whether we should be increasing funding for star 
wars.
  He also is right to support the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local 
Law Enforcement Assistance Program; it has been an unqualified success.
  This matching grant program plays an indispensable role in fighting 
drug use in rural America. These grants are distributed fairly, on the 
basis of population, and require State commitment to anticrime efforts 
through matching funds.
  In Iowa, these funds enable more than 20 coordinated State and local 
drug task forces to function. The Byrne grants also increase undercover 
work in smaller communities.
  As drug trafficking has spread to rural areas, less populous areas 
need to address drug problems that had only existed in concentrated 
form in urban centers.
  Without the Byrne grants, localities lacking the population and 
resources to combat drugs would not be able to adequately respond.
  It is unfortunate that the Clinton administration decided to 
eliminate this successful program.
  I agree with the Senator's intention to fund the Byrne Program and I 
voted twice in Budget Committee to restore funding for this program. It 
would have been paid for by reducing funds to the Legal Services 
Corporation, and to mass transit.

  Unfortunately, the Democrats on the committee voted these amendments 
down. It seems they believed it was more important to fund lawyers, not 
fight drugs.
  So I have voted to fund the Byrne Program twice in committee and will 
support the amendment on the floor offered by Senator Gorton that will 
fund this program.
  However, I disagree with my Iowa colleague in wanting to take from 
defense to pay for this domestic program. If defense spending is cut it 
should be used for deficit reduction in my view, not for more spending 
elsewhere.
  This year, I don't subscribe to the liberal view that we should cut 
defense and spend it on social engineering. Rather, we should reduce 
the deficit with defense cuts, and we should prioritize better on the 
domestic side, given the state of the debt and deficits.
  And so I must reluctantly oppose my friend from Iowa, and instead 
support the amendment of the Senator from Washington whose approach is 
consistent with how I believe these funds should be transferred.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to restore funding to 
the formula grant portion of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local 
Law Enforcement Assistance Block Grant Program.
  I know how valuable the Byrne Program is to the State of Hawaii, and 
I have heard from many State and county law enforcement officials 
regarding the critical impact this program has on combating youth and 
domestic violence, expanding treatment facilities for drug abusers, 
improving criminal history records, and stemming the flow of illegal 
drugs.
  During last summer's appropriations debate, I contacted the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to express my serious concern that any 
decrease from previous funding levels would have a significant impact 
on Hawaii.
  I was, therefore, dismayed to learn that the fiscal year 1995 budget 
proposal would eliminate the formula grant portion of this successful 
program. Although the discretionary portion would be doubled, the 
budget proposal could not guarantee that Hawaii would receive the funds 
that have become so valuable in its fight against drugs and crime.
  As I have mentioned before, Hawaii is an island paradise. However, 
there are problems in paradise, and State and local jurisdictions need 
the valuable resource of the Byrne Formula Grant Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1558, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--59

     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  So the amendment (No. 1558), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gorton 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gorton-
Hatch amendment to the budget concurrent resolution. Frankly, I am very 
concerned abut the significant cuts to law enforcement proposed in 
President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget.
  I commend my colleague for his leadership on this issue. I was 
pleased to work with him on this amendment as this has been a priority 
of mine for some time.
  Existing Byrne memorial state and local law enforcement block grants, 
which police have been counting on, are cut in the proposed 1995 
budget. This program currently provides my State of Utah over $3 
million in law enforcement assistance. Utah desperately needs this 
funding. It has become a transshipment point for drug traffickers. 
Gangs are also a serious problem.
  The argument some suggest is that this program is being eliminated in 
order to fund the crime bill's proposed community policing program. 
Yet, the crime bill funding is expected to come from savings earned 
through personnel reductions, not from existing law enforcement grants. 
this program has proven to be both effective and extremely popular. It 
should be retained.
  These grants are used by the States for a variety of law enforcement 
purposes. In fact, over 950 task forces and drug unit have been 
established or expanded throughout the country through the use of these 
formula grants. These grants are also used to hire prosecutors and 
train law enforcement personnel. Ironically, while the administration 
is proposing the elimination of this successful formula program which 
insures that each State gets its fair share of law enforcement 
resources, the department has proposed increasing the funds available 
for discretionary grants.
  There is clearly a need for fiscal restraint and budget cuts. But in 
a budget of $1.5 trillion, priorities can and must be met. We must 
ensure that budget cuts are not borne on the backs of law enforcement 
and crime victims. We cannot permit this administration to further 
impair the Government's ability to meet its obligations to our Nation's 
law abiding citizens. Cutting existing law enforcement grant programs 
is an unwise choice, especially in light of our Nation's crime problem.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton-Hatch 
amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we take up the administration's 
budget request for fiscal year 1995, I rise to add my support to the 
Gorton amendment and demand reconsideration of the administration's 
proposal to completely eliminate the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. Despite President Clinton's 
tough rhetoric on crime, he has seen fit to cut out one of the most 
valuable and cost effective means at our disposal for combating drugs 
and drug related crimes.
  For 1994, the Byrne Program provides $358 million in grants directly 
to the States according to a population based formula. States may use 
the money to perform a variety of law enforcement activities, including 
multijurisdic- tional task forces, neighborhood and community crime 
prevention, location of clandestine drug labs, and white collar and 
organized crime. This flexibility recognizes the rapidly changing 
tactics of drug criminals and allows those on the front lines to adjust 
their enforcement efforts accordingly.
  My State of Alaska received $1,595,000 this year through the Byrne 
programs, and these funds have truly made a difference. Let me 
quickly cite just one example to illustrate this point. Unalaska, AK, 
is probably the last place in the world many people would expect to 
find a thriving cocaine network. Unalaska is a small, isolated 
community located in the Aleutian Island chain, and like many Alaskan 
communities, accessible only by boat or aircraft. With a year-round 
population of only 3,000 people, local law enforcement is 
understandably quite limited.

  Yet State and local agents have recently uncovered a sophisticated 
cocaine distribution system on the island which took advantage of 
isolation, limited law enforcement presence, and the large quantities 
of money generated by the seasonal seafood industry. Although based on 
Unalaska, the drug sales reached northward all the way to communities 
in Bristol Bay and Kodiak, over 500 miles away.
  After an 8-month investigation, officers arrested 27 people, and the 
State has filed 77 criminal charges. The price of cocaine in Unalaska, 
Bristol Bay, and Kodiak has doubled from $100 to $200 a gram, a signal 
that the supply of drugs to these communities has been effectively 
diminished.
  Elimination of Byrne grant funding would devastate Alaska's drug 
enforcement efforts, and severely harm the entire law enforcement 
community. It would mean the loss of nine state troopers and five 
prosecuting attorneys. These figures represent a 35-percent reduction 
of full-time drug enforcement efforts State-wide, and a 9-percent 
reduction in prosecuting attorneys. Byrne grant resources have made it 
possible for the State of Alaska to field the necessary expertise and 
manpower to confront major narcotics operations operating out of the 
Pacific Northwest. In the case of Unalaska, State and local law 
enforcement officials have interrupted the supply of drugs over a 
considerable area of the State.
  Over the last 3 years, Byrne grant funding has been reduced by $142 
million to a 1994 level of $358 million. Despite these cutbacks, State 
and local law enforcement agencies continue to demonstrate impressive 
results. We should not reward the competence and effectiveness of these 
fine men and women by eliminating the funds which make their successes 
possible.
  The Gorton amendment restores these needed funds to the most fiscally 
responsible manner. I am pleased to support this program and this 
amendment.


                       vote on amendment no. 1559

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1559 offered by the Senator from Washington.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] 
and the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--1

       
     Hollings
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dorgan
     Inouye
       
  So, the amendment (No. 1559) was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 63 tomorrow morning at 9 
a.m., there be 20 hours for debate remaining on the resolution, equally 
divided; that Senator Domenici be recognized at 9 a.m. to offer a 
Republican alternative budget amendment and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order to the Domenici amendment or to language that 
may be stricken; that a vote on or in relation to the Domenici 
amendment occur at 11 a.m. tomorrow; that upon disposition of the 
Domenici amendment, Senator Dodd be recognized to offer an amendment 
relating to education, with no second-degree amendments in order, nor 
to the language which may be stricken by the Dodd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I wonder 
if the majority leader would, on the time of voting on the substitute, 
make that an extra half-hour. Instead of 11, could we make it 11:30?
  Mr. MITCHELL. So there would be 2\1/2\ hours?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Correct.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask----
  Mr. DOMENICI. And we may yield back. We can say no later than that if 
the Senator would like.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I then inquire of the chairman, I assume he has no 
objection to that, making it 2\1/2\ hours?
  Mr. SASSER. No objection.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I modify my request to accommodate the 
request of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President, accordingly, there will be no further rollcall votes 
this evening.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member.
  For the information of Senators, it is my hope that we could complete 
action on this resolution by the close of business on Thursday. That is 
our hope and intention. I know there are several amendments remaining, 
but I hope that we can complete this. There are other important matters 
which we will have to act on prior to leaving for the recess. This 
obviously is a very important matter, one required by our procedures, 
and I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

                          ____________________