[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 4539, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Faircloth Amendment No. 1825, to certify that White House 
     employees administering the drug testing program do not have 
     a history of drug abuse.
       DeConcini Amendment No. 1830, to extend the civil service 
     retirement provisions of inspectors and canine enforcement 
     officers of the United States Customs Service.

  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

                    amendment no. 1825, as modified

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is by the Senator 
from North Carolina. I have talked to him this morning and there are 
two very minor changes that he has agreed to.
  On behalf of the Senator, I send them to the desk and ask the 
amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Authority has been granted to modify the 
amendment, and it is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1825), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding any provision of law, the President, or his 
     designee, must certify to Congress, annually, that no person 
     or persons with direct or indirect responsibility for 
     administering the Executive Office of the President's Drug-
     Free Workplace Plan are themselves subject to a program of 
     individual random drug testing.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment as modified. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] is 
absent because of illness in the family.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     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
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     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
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Dodd
     Stevens
       
  So the amendment (No. 1825), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  I would direct this to the manager of the bill, the senior Senator 
from Arizona. I have an amendment which is part of the UC agreement, as 
does Senator Domenici. I wonder, for those others who have matters 
pending, if we could, with the consent of the manager and the ranking 
member on this bill, have an agreement that Senator Domenici would 
offer his amendment and that when he finishes, I could offer my 
amendment. Would that be appropriate?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, we will lay the pending amendment aside 
in a moment, and I do not want to ask for unanimous consent, but that 
is agreeable with Mr. Bond. We will go to the Senator's amendment after 
the Domenici amendment, and I will do everything I can to see that the 
Senator gets the floor.
  Mr. REID. For those people in the offices in the Capitol, Senator 
Domenici has 20 minutes; I have 50 minutes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. So the Senator may be advised, the majority leader is 
working on a unanimous consent to stack these votes later in the day.
  Mr. REID. I am not talking about the voting.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I am sorry.
  Mr. REID. Just the fact the Senator can have some ability to know the 
people who will offer amendments, and they in the offices will know 
when to come over here.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici].


                           Amendment No. 1831

       (Purpose: To add reporting requirements)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1831.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

       At the end of the bill add the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The Office of Management and Budget shall 
     report to the Congress no later than October 1, 1994, for 
     each agency for which the budgetary resources available to 
     the agency in fiscal year 1995 would be canceled in an 
     appropriations act to achieve savings in procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses, of the manner in which these 
     savings are to be achieved.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each agency 
     for which the budgetary resources available to the agency in 
     fiscal year 1995 would be canceled in an appropriations act 
     to achieve savings in procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses, such cancellation shall occur on October 31, 1994, 
     or 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget submits 
     the report required by subsection (a) of this section, 
     whichever date is earlier.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators have 20 minutes equally divided 
on this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will you advise me when I have used 6 
minutes. I do not know whether I want any more than that.
  Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides from the 
appropriators' standpoint--by not just the floor managers but the 
chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and their 
staffs.
  Let me try to explain to the Senate what this does. While it appears 
complex, it is very, very important and I hope the managers will, when 
they go to conference, even though it has some appearance of being kind 
of an arcane, esoteric, budgetese amendment, I hope they will 
understand that it has a very important significance for the 
appropriations process in the Senate and the House, so let me give a 
bit of history.
  On June 8, the Senate passed S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act. This procurement reform bill will make many changes 
in law pertaining to both the Department of Defense and civilian 
agencies with reference to procurement contracts, make it less 
cumbersome, more businesslike, and hopefully will save money. This 
legislation will have significant budgetary impact as well. According 
to the National Performance Review, savings of $22.5 billion could be 
gained through procurement reform. The President's 1995 budget includes 
$10.6 billion in savings from procurement reform over 5 years. About 45 
percent of that is expected to come from the Department of Defense, for 
those who are interested in defense activities.
  What concerns me is the method the administration is going to use to 
achieve these savings. On March 16, the administration sent a budget 
amendment implementing the savings from the procurement reform bill. 
And incidentally, that was well before the bill had passed, that is, 
the procurement reform bill.
  The transmittal letter from OMB Director Panetta admits, ``These 
savings amounts are calculated based on Governmentwide procurement 
activities,'' which probably means the savings are estimated on some 
theoretical, across-the-board percentage reduction with no relation to 
the bill, or this bill.
  Now, the language in the budget amendment, while very specific about 
the dollar amounts being saved, is not very specific about how the 
savings are to be achieved. That is, what is being cut to achieve the 
savings. And in general the language reads as follows:

        Of the budgetary resources available to the Department 
     during fiscal year 1995, x dollar amount is permanently 
     canceled. The Secretary shall allocate the amount of 
     budgetary resources canceled among the Department's accounts 
     available for procurement.

  So that over the years, $10.6 billion will be cut in the manner that 
I have just described. The danger with this is that if the agencies do 
not achieve savings through this reform measure, they may be forced to 
cancel or delay procurement to meet these mathematically determined 
targets. This language in the amendment, the language in the 
President's budget request, puts too much discretion in the hands of 
the administration and of those in departments that are handling 
procurement. It basically is a blank check rescission. The 
administration could use this language to avoid funding congressional 
priorities in the procurement area and we would have absolutely no 
recourse.
  That is why this amendment, the one that is pending at the desk, is 
important. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to report to 
Congress on how these managed savings in the procurement area would be 
achieved. No budgetary resources could be canceled until 30 days after 
the submission of a report to the Congress required in this amendment.
  The administration's language has already been included in several 
appropriations bills this year including the one we are considering 
today. I intend to pay special attention to agency actions with regard 
to achieving these procurement savings. Most of them would occur in 
revisions of contractor requirements, promotion of procurement of off-
the-shelf commercial items and the raising of thresholds for small 
businesses.
  So what we are suggesting in this amendment is that rather than give 
a blank check for rescissions up to $10.6 billion for savings to be 
achieved in procurement, the administration submit to Congress the 
specifics on what they intend to cancel, that is, rescind, do away with 
in terms of program authority, what they intend to do with specificity, 
so that we have 30 days to look at it.
  Now, we are not trying to say it is inoperative or ineffective. We 
could have done that and given us more authority, but I chose a balance 
here; that they must do it specifically, advise us of the plan within 
30 days prior to its being effected.
  Mr. President, I do not intend to use any additional time unless 
somebody has questions of me. I am absolutely confident that when the 
Senators in charge understand the significance of the unilateral 
ability to cancel and rescind that they will insist that this kind of 
amendment become part of the appropriations process.
  Mr. President, I want to take 30 seconds.
  Frankly, this just says that the White House does not have authority 
under procurement savings to take it out of other programs to meet that 
goal. They have to show us precisely where the savings are in a report 
submitted to us within 30 days before it takes effect.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Domenici] has indeed been a leader in this area in procurement. I think 
his amendment is a good amendment. We are prepared to accept it on this 
side.
  Mr. BOND. We are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The amendment (No. 1831) was agreed to.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1832

(Purpose: To strike language prohibiting the collection of land border 
         processing fees by the United States Customs Services)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1832.

  Mr. REID. 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 81, strike lines 3 through 6.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering will greatly 
reduce the gridlock that is hindering our Federal law enforcement 
Border Patrol operations.
  Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It really is. It strikes a 
small provision currently included in the Treasury-Postal bill that we 
are now debating. The provision that will be stricken reads as follows:

       None of the funds made available to the United States 
     Customs Service may be used to collect or impose any land 
     border processing fee at ports of entry along the United 
     States-Mexico border.

  That is what it does. It strikes that provision. It does nothing more 
than just that.
  Mr. President, let me make it clear. This amendment does not--I 
repeat, underline, and underscore ``does not''--create a border-
crossing fee. It simply removes language prohibiting the Customs 
Service department from working with the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service on border enforcement. This prohibitive language does not serve 
the interests of anyone. It unduly burdens the INS effort to implement 
border-crossing fee pilot programs, and it needlessly exacerbates 
relations between two Federal law enforcement agencies engaged in a 
common mission.
  Both INS and Customs are charged with responsibility for protecting 
our borders. Customs, of course, is more concerned about the unlawful 
entry of contraband or narcotics while INS is more concerned about the 
unlawful entry of individuals. But both serve very important and 
legitimate governmental functions. Because both are charged with the 
responsibility of protecting our borders, it is logical to expect that 
both would engage in cooperative ventures. You cross a border. You 
recognize that is the case.
  This language prohibits such cooperative efforts such as border-
crossing fees. It prohibits Customs from receiving money that could be 
used to establish programs, even pilot programs, that could test the 
merit of a border-crossing fee. If these programs, pilot in nature, 
work, maybe we could expand them. If they do not, at least people 
cannot say that Congress is not attempting to deal with problems that 
we face with our borders.
  My understanding is that the administration believes that a border-
crossing fee may be a good idea and that their implementation, at least 
on a pilot project basis, may be warranted. This is according to Doris 
Meisner at her confirmation hearing. She said she ``had no objection to 
a border fee at all'' because, again, ``a user tax is acceptable.''
  We have also been in touch these past several days with the Justice 
Department and INS, and they have voiced support to this amendment that 
I now have before the body.
  There is a great case to be made that border-crossing fees work, that 
they produce the desired result of bringing greater management to the 
protection of our borders, and they do so in a cost-effective manner.
  I was walking over here for this last vote, Mr. President, with the 
Senator from New Mexico who offered this last amendment. We talked 
about border-crossing fees. He said, ``Where are we going to get the 
money?'' To my knowledge, the most appropriate way of getting more 
money to have a proper border enforcement, is through crossing fees.
  It is ironic that we are debating this issue as part of an 
appropriations measure. We are operating under some of the most severe 
budget restrictions in the history of this country. The state of 
economic affairs which we have in this country today places burdens 
upon all of us. But it is necessary for balancing the budget to make a 
realistic effort to stretch dollars. The irony is that the border-
crossing fee is a self-funding means of increasing our law enforcement 
efforts on our borders. Certainly, it is something reasonable.
  Indeed, according to the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], a 
$1 border-crossing fee to be applied at all land borders would generate 
over $400 million a year. This would allow us to provide a significant 
increase in our Border Patrol presence. The legislation I have before 
Congress, Mr. President, would have more than a $1 border-crossing fee.
  It would allow us to improve and expand existing facilities necessary 
for efficient border management. But, most importantly, Mr. President, 
it would allow us to do all this without having to resort to other less 
plausible means of supporting this improvement, like taxes. The revenue 
brought in by the imposition of a nominal border fee would clearly 
allow the INS and Customs to increase their presence and thus enhance 
their operations at the border. It would improve the cooperative 
coordination efforts of all parties charged with border responsibility.
  I recently had the opportunity to review a 1991 GAO report that 
surveyed the U.S. border infrastructure. One of the findings of this 
report evidences the necessity of voting in favor of this amendment. 
From GAO:

       Border operations are interdependent by nature involving 
     services and infrastructure such as inspectors, border 
     stations, highways and bridges provided by many parties. This 
     interdependence places great demands for coordination on all 
     the parties involved.

  The report concluded that ``some of the problems can occur because of 
inadequate coordination between these parties.''
  All my amendment does is remove a statutory barrier precluding 
enhancement of coordinated law enforcement efforts between the INS and 
Customs. The GAO report also examines the problems caused by inadequate 
staffing at the border.
  I think it is clear that we do not need a try to establish that we 
have inadequate personnel at the border. That has already been 
established significantly many times previously.
  We have some pretty impressive border facilities used by these 
agencies. But the report said they are not fully utilized because they 
are understaffed. The report found that the Customs office had a 
difficult time filling their authorized staffing positions.
  For example, in San Ysidro, the largest crossing across the United 
States-Mexico border, there are 24 primary lanes for going through 
Customs. However, only 16 of these lanes are open, on an average, and 
some less, during the busiest periods of the weekdays. Likewise, the 
three inspection facilities serving the city of Laredo, TX, has a 
combined capacity for 16 primary lanes, but the maximum number of lanes 
open is 12.

  Incredibly, while the existing facilities were not being used due to 
lack of staffing, new or expanded facilities were being constructed. I 
do not know how we are going to pay to staff them. No one doubts that a 
border-crossing fee would allow us to provide for hiring and training 
more border law enforcement officers.
  I did not support NAFTA, but I hope it works. The minute it passed, I 
discontinued saying anything negative about NAFTA. I hope it works. I 
hope that I am wrong and that all those people who said it would not 
work are wrong. I hope we have a lot more intercourse between Mexico 
and the United States. I hope commerce flows more freely, and that it 
is good for both countries. If that is the case, we are going to need 
more help with the borders rather than less.
  Some of the opponents of my amendment may argue that the current 
prohibition applies only to the operation of a border control crossing 
fee by the Customs Service and not any other Federal agencies, as if 
Customs was so separate and distinct from the INS and other border law 
enforcement that the prohibition was frivolous and meaningless. That is 
not true. This is a specious argument put forward by lawyers, that 
simply does not hold any water.
  First, Customs and INS have an agreement to jointly staff primary 
inspection stations, and Customs will only open as many lanes as INS 
can staff, not Customs. Therefore, to the extent that a border-crossing 
fee will be used to hire additional personnel, both agencies must 
receive equitable staffing increases.
  Second, this argument is premised on the notion that the best border 
control strategy is to allow the agencies involved to come up with 
their own solutions. This is patently absurd. All of the agencies and 
officials with border responsibilities share a common and binding 
mission: Protection of our borders from undocumented individuals, or 
contraband, or narcotics. Yes, they are all interdependent, but their 
missions are not mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to disregard all 
that Vice President Gore has done in his recommendations to us in his 
thorough report on reinventing Government.
  Allow me to emphasize again--and I cannot express the importance of 
this enough--my amendment removes the language prohibiting the Customs 
Service from receiving any funds to be used to collect or impose any 
border processing fee. I would like to have offered an amendment on 
this bill to have a border fee, but I have listened to the authorizing 
committees and others saying, ``Give us a little time, and let us come 
up with something on our own.'' Well, I am willing to go along with 
that and not offer an amendment on this bill to establish a border-
crossing fee, but I think the prohibition that is in this bill will 
stop an orderly development of a border-crossing fee.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this when they vote on my amendment, 
and understand that we need to make improvements in the way we are 
handling immigration in this country. This is a small step forward. 
What if the administration wants, for example, to establish a pilot 
program on the southern border, similar to the successful pilot program 
run in Blaine, WA--they would not be able to unless this amendment 
passes--or perhaps try another innovative idea requiring enhanced 
border presence? The language included in the current bill hinders--and 
I believe precludes--any such plans. Why not avoid any possible 
conflict by simply voting in favor of my amendment to remove this 
barrier?
  As I speak on this floor, Mr. President, Governor Symington from 
Arizona, Governor Wilson from California, and Governor Chiles from 
Florida, are testifying before the Appropriations Committee. Why? 
Because those States are being overburdened by the negligence of the 
Federal Government. It is unfair to those States and other States that 
we do not do a decent job controlling our borders. Why should we care? 
We just dump the responsibility off on the States.
  Those Governors are there because they are concerned about their 
States. We in this body should, in effect, cut them some slack, and one 
way of beginning this slack is to pass this amendment. We are not 
establishing border-crossing fees with this amendment. We, though, 
would allow at a later time innovative work to see if it would work.
  I am intrigued by my opponents' opposition to this amendment. They 
warn that any involvement by Customs in the collection or imposition of 
a border-crossing fee will curtail their efforts for preventing the 
unlawful entry of contraband or narcotics; that somehow, their efforts 
in these areas would be compromised. This, Mr. President, is 
disingenuous and ignores the many law enforcement benefits that border-
crossing fees have realized in other areas.
  It is important to remember that the border-crossing fees are not a 
radical idea. They are used on bridges and highways across our land and 
serve legitimate governmental purposes. Thousands and thousands of 
people are willing to pay a $3 crossing fee to pass over the Chesapeake 
Bay Bridge on the way to the Maryland and Delaware shores each weekend. 
Are they happy about the toll they pay? I do not know. Probably not. 
But they realize that the toll serves an important interest: Providing 
car travelers with the peace of mind that their 4-mile trek across the 
bridge will be safe and that law enforcement is there to ensure that 
other drivers will abide by the laws.
  Is a border-crossing fee at our land borders really any different 
than border-crossing fees at our airports? It is to the extent that, 
under current law, international air travelers currently pay a $10 fee 
that is added to the price of their plane ticket to support the INS and 
Customs Service efforts. It is done at airports right now. Arguably, 
the freebie we currently provide on our land border entrants is 
facially discriminatory toward our international air traveler entrants.
  I have a note handed to me and, as I indicated, the Governors are 
testifying one at a time. The first to testify is Governor Wilson, who 
is now calling for border fees in the appropriations hearing. Should we 
not at least have the ability to have Customs involved in this?
  One of the Senators told me, ``I cannot go for that; it will mess up 
our relations with Mexico.'' How about messing up relations with our 
own people? We have been most cooperative with Mexico. I have the 
greatest admiration and respect for the people of Mexico. They have 
made tremendous strides in the development of that country, and I want 
to work with them however I can. But having a border-crossing fee that 
applies to anyone, not just Mexicans, certainly seems fair.
  My amendment is progressive, realistic, and will provide us with many 
more options to consider when the hard decisions are made later, on how 
we can best improve our border operations. It fosters cooperative 
efforts between the agencies involved in the maintenance of our 
borders, and without it we will again be accused of doing nothing about 
our growing border problem.
  Let this vote stand as a measure of our intent to stand up to the 
critics that say the Federal Government is unwilling today to do 
anything about what is inherently a Federal Government responsibility.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I yield whatever time the Senator 
from Missouri cares to take.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Bond] is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the Chair and my colleague.
  There are just a few problems that I think we ought to highlight 
about trying to institute Southwest border fees.
  First, with respect to infrastructure, Mexico does not have an 
automated system to allow for record checks as part of the application 
review process. Border facilities are inadequate. The facilities that 
are there may make a segregation of vehicles from the remainder of 
traffic difficult, especially at border crossings. In Texas, for 
example, there are many crossings over the bridge where there is no 
feasible way to increase lanes without using lanes available to other 
vehicles.
  These are very practical problems that come about from instituting a 
system of border fees as contemplated in this amendment.
  The real risk along the United States-Mexico border is a very real 
and serious one. It requires oversight to make sure that illegals do 
not cross and that drugs are not brought into the country.
  The function of collecting additional fees would necessarily take 
away from the staff utilized to look for illegal entrants and for 
illegal drugs or other contraband being brought into the United States.
  If there was a dedicated lane set up or some process set up for 
collecting fees, staff would have to be assigned to the lanes, from 
both the Customs and INS. That would require staff to be pulled from 
existing duties at port of entry in other locations in the United 
States. That would take staff away from those ports where they should 
be processing border crossing cards and apprehending illegal aliens or 
drug smugglers.
  I think there are some very real problems with Federal inspection 
agencies being inundated with illegal aliens. The Customs enforcement 
responsibilities include trying to stop drug smuggling from the State 
of Sonora, Mexico, which is at an all-time high.
  This is a very, very important law enforcement activity, and it is of 
a much higher priority to keep the traffic moving over these borders 
than to have a designated commuter lane or to collect fees from people 
crossing the borders without the risk of increased smuggling activities 
without the additional enforcement authority required to thwart 
smuggling.
  The real problem, as I understand it, is that there has been 
inadequate staffing by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This 
is a policy of the Department of Justice. The Customs Agency has had an 
agreement that they go jointly with INS. But when there is a backup, a 
significant backup, Customs is sending its people out to man the 
booths, to man the stations, to make sure that the traffic flow is 
impeded to the least extent possible.
  In the last 5 to 6 years, Customs has placed some 1,500 to 1,600 more 
employees on the border and they are doing their job. The real problem 
comes about when the Department of Justice does not adequately staff 
the INS facilities along the Southwest border.
  Madam President, I believe that this amendment, while well 
intentioned, would cause significant problems for Customs, and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona controls 20 minutes 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, first, I want to say the Senator from 
Nevada is well intended in his effort here. I talked to him about it. 
He worked very hard on immigration issues. There is no question that 
his State suffers, as my State does and as do many States here, from 
undocumented people, and not having enough people to enforce the drug 
laws. We know that from our cities, from the local government to the 
Federal Government.
  Yet I have to oppose the Senator's amendment for a number of reasons.
  First of all, the prohibition in our bill was purposely put into the 
bill several years ago and has been there for some time. The reason is 
that, Customs, on its own, without authority of Congress, had decided 
to negotiate with INS and start these commuter lanes coming in from 
Canada. They were going to charge people if you came in from Canada and 
you wanted to get a card and pay a premium price so you could go 
through a little faster.
  Someone might say that is not too unreasonable. It may not be too 
unreasonable. And we said: Yes, why do you not go ahead and try it? You 
go ahead and try it. But we do not want you unilaterally setting up 
what might be a discriminatory tax or tariff coming into this country 
without congressional approval.
  So the INS in Blaine, WA, along with Customs, and also in Detroit, 
have developed such a plan, so that people who come across from 
Canada--not Mexico, but from Canada--can attempt to set up this lane 
and see if it works.
  Now, that may work, and it is in the stage right now of testing it.
  But I believe, and I think the Senator from Nevada has not so 
concluded and does not agree with me, that Congress should set these 
fees, if there are going to be any fees. Otherwise Customs will go 
ahead and set a fee and INS will go ahead and set a fee.
  Who is going to oversee that? Who is going to pass legislation and 
oversee it? That is what I think we need to do.
  The Senator, I think, has pending legislation, and I know the Senator 
from California has pending legislation that does institutes fees, and 
those fees would be used for border crossing, staffing, and what have 
you. But that is going to take an act of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, signed by the President, to institute those fees. I 
think that is the way we have to proceed.
  Dealing with Mexico, which is my neighbor, I cannot think of anything 
worse than to let some administrative office like Customs set a fee so 
everybody who comes from Mexico has to pay something, whether it is in 
a vehicle or a person walking. Even though there are those who were 
against NAFTA, NAFTA is there now. We are opening our borders. I do not 
see any reason to insult Mexico by doing this. It may be in violation 
of NAFTA; but those who are against NAFTA, maybe they do not care about 
that.
  But it certainly is not in the spirit of a neighborly thing to do on 
the international level.
  What if Mexico turns, and all of a sudden decides: We want a fee now? 
We want you to pay 200 pesos to come into the country each time you 
come in. I think there would be a lot of objection from citizens here 
and, of course, from the people on the border. And what if Mexico just 
let it happen by any agency, instead of national legislative action? I 
think we would have even more problems. So there are pilot projects to 
see if this works.
  The GAO has recommended consideration of these programs. Customs and 
INS are supposed to staff it 50-50. It so happens that Customs is 
providing more staffing now, up to 70 percent, because INS is 
underfunded.
  As the Senator from Missouri pointed out, the Justice Department, 
until this Attorney General, has never, to my recollection, while I 
have been here, asked for any increased staffing for the INS, and 
particularly the Border Patrol. This administration has done that for 
the first time.
  The only problem Customs has with filling positions is because the 
work is so dangerous and so demanding that they do have some attrition. 
But this is not going to help that. We have funded $370 million for 
border facility improvements. The INS and Customs said they are 
adequate today; they are satisfactory, and they do not need any 
addition.
  So to justify this fee that we are going to use to build new border 
structures, if you go all along the border, from Brownsville to San 
Diego, we are building new border stations. This is for the Southwest 
border. That is in place. We do not need that money.
  I like to collect money and I would like to see Customs have 
additional funds, and Border Patrol, too. But I think it has to be a 
legislative act.
  So I hope we do not proceed with this. I think it would be a very, 
very unwise piece of legislation that would affront our neighbors.
  I think the Canadians would feel the same way if all of a sudden they 
get charged by an administrative agency, an executive agency, without a 
national policy and debate in this country. The Canadians may turn 
around and say: Let us charge every car that comes in here, or every 
car that is blue, or every car that wants to go through this lane.
  Besides that, on the Mexican border it is particularly difficult, 
because the Mexicans do not have an infrastructure to create a commuter 
lane, a preference lane. They use the Rio Grande bridges to take people 
across. They are narrow bridges. They do not have the capacity to 
create such a lane.
  It is impossible to use this commuter lane on many of the border 
stations on the Mexican and the United States border.
  So I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment from my 
distinguished friend from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the argument put forward by my friend kind 
of reminds me of a murder case that I handled once, where a young man 
killed his parents. Well, the word around the courthouse was that, as a 
defense, I should use the fact that he was an orphan as part of the 
defense.
  Well, this is kind of what we are hearing here; that is, the best 
defense is a good offense.
  The arguments that they have put forward do not answer the question: 
Why do we have to have a prohibition from having a fee established on a 
pilot project or some other basis?
  My friend from Missouri talked about the fact that there is 
tremendous understaffing at the border. That is why this Congress has 
to consider changing the way we do business.
  One reason that the American public is upset with what Congress does 
or does not do is the fact that most of the time we do not do anything. 
Why should we prohibit there being the development of pilot programs 
like the one in Blaine, WA, which INS says is working very well?
  In speaking with INS yesterday, they have indicated that they believe 
that the Blaine, WA, program is working very well. Maybe we should try 
it someplace else. If Governor Wilson, Governor Symington, or Governor 
Chiles heard the arguments of my friends from Arizona and Missouri, I 
think they would really be upset. I mean, there is no question that we 
need to do something about our borders.
  In the city of Las Vegas, which has tens of millions of people coming 
there every year, millions and millions of people coming from overseas, 
we have for the INS two people to handle international flights. INS has 
two people. Now, can you imagine that? A 24-hour city, with all the 
problems that come from international flights with narcotics and 
contraband, there are two INS agents.
  Do we need more help? The answer is yes. Does this legislation create 
more help? The answer is no.
  All this does is remove from legislation a prohibition to allow 
Customs to establish border-crossing fees.
  They talk about unfairness in having a fee. We have a fee right now. 
Anyone involved in an international flight pays $10. Are they 
discriminated against? Of course not, because the $10 helps provide for 
an orderly processing of international flights. INS needs to do more; 
Customs needs to do more.
  The Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, said a $1 border-
crossing fee will establish a fund of $400 million a year.
  To have my friend from Arizona say, ``Well, the Reagan and Bush 
administrations did not ask for any additional INS staff and now this 
administration has,'' does that somehow indicate or imply that we do 
not need more?
  Everyone knows we have been shuffling dollars to try to meet the caps 
in spending here. We still have a huge deficit. And we are not meeting 
the problem dealing with our borders.
  This amendment will not create a border-crossing fee but will allow 
us to have a border-crossing fee at a later time if the evidence so 
warrants.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, it is important to realize that the 
administration is looking at the possibility of submitting or 
supporting legislation that would institute a border-crossing fee.
  Just last week, the Judiciary Committee had hearings on this. 
Attorney General Reno testified on various issues, including border-
crossing fees. In response to the question of why we should not charge 
a fee, Ms. Reno replied, ``With respect to a border-crossing fee, that 
is an issue that we would have to look at.'' She further responded by 
saying, ``There will be issues involving trade and trade interests, 
balanced with an appropriate allocation of costs for this process. The 
people may view the charge as a tariff and that would interrupt 
trade.''
  It would be a violation of our free-trade agreement with Canada and 
Mexico.
  She further stated, ``We have to look at it and make sure that we 
address the issue in a thorough way so that we understand all the 
consequences.''
  In light of her testimony, I think it would be irresponsible to 
strike a prohibition without reviewing it. And I agree with Attorney 
General Reno that the issue should be reviewed. This review should also 
be included, and will be included in the recommendations of Barbara 
Jordan, a former member of the House of Representatives from Texas, on 
the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which is due in September, 
not too far away.
  So to strike this, though it does not impose a fee as the Senator 
from Nevada says, it certainly gives a signal to Customs to go ahead 
and put a fee on if you want to. I think that is a big mistake. I 
cannot see the justification for doing that.
  We have tight border crossings in Arizona. Why do we have that? 
Because of drug smuggling. So if a fee were imposed and you started 
moving a huge amount of traffic in without carefully reviewing what 
that traffic is carrying, then you are going to raise the amount of 
drugs coming in, and we are already inundated.
  So there has to be a process so that people are going to be checked 
out if they are granted and charged for a border-crossing card to 
expedite crossing. Mexico cannot handle it. We cannot handle it yet.
  The argument then is, well, charge a fee so you can hire the people 
and the equipment to handle it. But I think you need to have a plan 
before you just permit an agency to impose the fee.
  So, Madam President, it is my hope that the body will turn this down.
  I can tell the Senator from Nevada, I may support a modest, very 
modest, border fee for infrastructure and for staffing. I think we have 
to be very careful that it is not in contradiction with our 
international trade agreements with our neighbors. That is why I cannot 
support something that would permit the Customs Service to set the fee. 
For those reasons, I have to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the statement to me by the Senator from 
Missouri was it is more important to keep the traffic moving. It is not 
more important to keep the traffic moving. It is more important to keep 
the traffic moving that should be moving.
  There was also the argument that this will take away from staff 
utilized in their regular work. We are not talking about them having to 
do any other kinds of work.
  I repeat, this amendment does not give them the authority to do 
anything. It simply removes the following language:

       None of the funds made available to the United States 
     Customs Service may be used to collect or impose any land 
     border processing fee at ports of entry along the United 
     States-Mexico border.

  Why is it is only the United States-Mexico border? Why did they not 
allow this on the Canadian border? I think it is unfair, I think it is 
wrong, and I think it would set back what we are trying to do to have 
an orderly program to revise how we handle immigration in this country.
  As indicated by the three Governors today before the Appropriations 
Committee, this has reached a crisis point.
  What right does Congress have, what authority, why should we exercise 
this authority to stop Customs from doing something that is already 
done on the Canadian border? It is wrong.
  I think it will slow up the process of the establishment of a border-
crossing fee that will come; it is only a matter of time when it will 
come.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona. It should be a modest fee, but 
it should be a fee to help our staffing procedures, because American 
taxpayers cannot pay anymore themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. I yield my time if the Senator from Arizona will yield back 
his time.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back my time.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. 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. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1826, As Modified

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 1826, adopted by the Senate on Tuesday, June 21, be 
modified with the language I now send to the desk. This has been 
approved, Madam President, by the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1826), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     may be used to pay for the expenses of travel of employees, 
     including employees of the Executive Office of the President, 
     or other individuals, not directly responsible for the 
     discharge of the official Governmental tasks and duties for 
     which the travel is undertaken: Provided that this 
     restriction shall not apply to the family of the President, 
     members of Congress, Heads of State of a foreign country or 
     their designee(s), persons providing assistance to the 
     President for official purposes, or other individuals so 
     designated by the President. The name and expense of travel 
     of anyone so designated by the President shall be disclosed 
     to the Congress.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Inquiry, do we need a vote on that?
  Thanks.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the vote on or in relation 
to Senator Reid's amendment (No. 1832) occur at 1:30 p.m., and that no 
amendments to language proposed to be stricken be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I yield the floor. I think the 
Senator from Washington is prepared to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________