[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 96 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is H.R. 4603, which the 
clerk will state by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and 
     related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations 
     for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments, as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken as shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                               H.R. 4603

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

          TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           justice assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984, as amended, [$94,100,000] $96,600,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by section 
     1001 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of 
     which $750,000 of the funds provided under the Missing 
     Children's Program shall be made available as a grant to a 
     national voluntary organization representing Alzheimer 
     patients and families to plan, design, and operate the ``Safe 
     Return'' Program.


               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for 
     State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance 
     Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 
     of said Act, [$68,500,000] $68,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of title I of 
     said Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), 
     of which: (a) $50,000,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of 
     said Act, for discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne 
     Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs; 
     (b) $12,000,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter B of subpart 2 of part E of title I of 
     said Act, for Correctional Options Grants; (c) $6,000,000 
     shall be available for implementation of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation's National Instant Background Check System[; 
     and (d) $500,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     provisions of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
     519), for grants to be used in combating motor vehicle theft, 
     of which $200,000 shall be available pursuant to subtitle B 
     of title I of said Act, and of which $300,000 shall be 
     available pursuant to section 306 of title III of said Act: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available in fiscal year 
     1995 under chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
     amended: (a) $2,000,000 shall be available for the activities 
     of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Drug 
     Enforcement Task Force; and (b) not to exceed $500,000 shall 
     be available to make grants or enter contracts to carry out 
     the Denial of Federal Benefits program under the Controlled 
     Substances Act, as amended by the Crime Control Act of 1990 
     (21 U.S.C. 862)]: Provided, That funds made available in 
     fiscal year 1995 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
     amended, may be obligated for programs for the prosecution of 
     driving while intoxicated charges and the enforcement of 
     other laws relating to alcohol use and the operation of motor 
     vehicles: Provided further, That funds made available in 
     fiscal year 1995 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
     amended, may be obligated for programs to assist States in 
     the litigation processing of death penalty Federal habeas 
     corpus petitions.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance, to be allocated and distributed in 
     accordance with section 506(a) of part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 3756), notwithstanding the provisions of 
     section 511 of said Act, [$804,280,000] $423,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to carry out the provisions 
     of--
       (1) subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for grants 
     to States under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance [Programs,
       [(2) section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
     of 1986, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1365), to reimburse States for 
     costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, and
       [(3) section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536) 
     to upgrade State criminal history records]
     Programs in addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, and other assistance authorized by section 106(b) 
     of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public 
     Law 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536), $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to upgrade State criminal history 
     records.


                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, 
     [$146,500,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by section 299 of part I of title II and section 
     506 of title V of said Act, as amended by Public Law 102-586, 
     of which: (a) $100,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     authorized by parts A, B, and C of title II of said Act; (b) 
     $7,500,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     sections 281 and 282 of part D of title II of said Act for 
     prevention and treatment programs relating to juvenile gangs; 
     (c) $15,000,000] $144,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 299 of part I of title II 
     and section 506 of title V of said Act, as amended by Public 
     Law 102-586, of which: (a) $100,000,000 shall be available 
     for expenses authorized by parts A, B, and C of title II of 
     said Act; (b) $10,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     authorized by sections 281 and 282 of part D of title II of 
     said Act for prevention and treatment programs relating to 
     juvenile gangs; (c) $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     expenses authorized by section 285 of part E of title II of 
     said Act; (d) $4,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     authorized by part G of title II of said Act for juvenile 
     mentoring programs; and (e) $20,000,000 shall be available 
     for expenses authorized by title V of said Act for incentive 
     grants for local delinquency prevention programs.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, [$11,250,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by sections 214B, 218, and 224 
     of said Act, of which: (a) $500,000 shall be available for 
     expenses authorized by section 213 of said Act for regional 
     children's advocacy centers; (b) $2,000,000 shall be 
     available for expenses authorized by section 214 of said Act 
     for local children's advocacy centers; (c) $2,000,000 shall 
     be available for technical assistance and training, as 
     authorized by section 214A of said Act, of which $1,500,000 
     is for a grant to the American Prosecutor Research 
     Institute's National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, 
     and of which $500,000 is for a grant to the National Network 
     of Child Advocacy Centers] $9,750,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by sections 214B, 218, and 224 
     of said Act, of which: (a) $500,000 shall be available for 
     expenses authorized by section 213 of said Act for regional 
     children's advocacy centers; (b) $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for expenses authorized by section 214 of said Act 
     for local children's advocacy centers; (c) $1,500,000 shall 
     be available for technical assistance and training, as 
     authorized by section 214A of said Act, of which $1,500,000 
     is for a grant to the American Prosecutor Research 
     Institute's National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse; 
     (d) $1,000,000 shall be available for training and technical 
     assistance, as authorized by section 217(b)(1) of said Act 
     for a grant to the National Court Appointed Special Advocates 
     program; (e) $5,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     authorized by section 217(b)(2) of said Act to initiate and 
     expand local court appointed special advocate programs; and 
     (f) $750,000, notwithstanding section 224(b) of said Act, 
     shall be available to develop and distribute model technical 
     assistance and training programs to improve the handling of 
     child abuse and neglect cases, as authorized by section 
     223(a) of said Act, for a grant to the National Council of 
     Juvenile and Family Court Judges.


                          [community policing

       [For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized in H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, for the Cops on the Beat 
     Program, including salaries and expenses in connection 
     therewith to be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriations for Justice Assistance, $1,332,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.]


                       STATE CORRECTIONAL GRANTS

       For grants to States to develop, construct, or expand 
     correctional facilities, including military style boot camp 
     prison programs and regional prisons, in order to provide 
     secure prison space for the confinement of violent and non-
     violent offenders, as authorized in H.R. 3355, the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, as passed by 
     the Senate, $175,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                              DRUG COURTS

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance to implement drug court programs which combine 
     intensive probationary supervision and mandatory drug testing 
     and treatment as an alternative punishment for young, non-
     violent drug offenders, as authorized in H.R. 3355, the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, as 
     passed by the Senate, $100,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


             GRANTS TO COMBAT VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance to develop and strengthen effective law 
     enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent 
     crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen victim 
     services in cases involving crimes against women, as 
     authorized in the Violence Against Women Act contained in 
     H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1993, as passed by the Senate, $86,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                  COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SUPERVISION GRANTS

       For grants to community-based organizations to provide 
     year-round supervised sports programs, and extracurricular 
     and academic programs for children in order to promote the 
     positive character development of such children, as 
     authorized in H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1993, as passed by the Senate, 
     $40,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                    public safety officers benefits

       For payments authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), 
     as amended, such sums as are necessary, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 
     100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340), and, in addition, $2,072,000, 
     to remain available until expended, for payments as 
     authorized by section 1201(b) of said Act.

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, [$119,904,000] $121,267,000; of which 
     not to exceed $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the 
     offsetting collections credited to this account, $37,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       In addition, for expenses necessary to implement the 
     President's Immigration Initiative as authorized in [H.R. 
     3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, or similar legislation, $24,069,000] H.R. 3355, the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, as 
     passed by the Senate, $24,300,000, of which not to exceed 
     $6,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1996.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $30,500,000; including not to exceed 
     $10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
     character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney 
     General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance and 
     operation of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation: Provided, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $24,000 are permanently 
     canceled.


                           COMMUNITY POLICING

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized in H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, as passed by the Senate, for 
     the Cops on the Beat Program, including salaries and expenses 
     in connection therewith, $1,300,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph may also be available to carry out the provisions 
     of section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
     1986, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1365).


                       Weed and Seed Program Fund

       For necessary expenses, including salaries and related 
     expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to 
     implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, [$13,150,000] 
     $13,456,000, to remain available until expended for 
     intergovernmental agreements, including grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts, with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and 
     Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements 
     or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of 
     Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified 
     by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' 
     program strategy: Provided, That funds designated by Congress 
     through language for other Department of Justice 
     appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program 
     activities shall be managed and executed by the Attorney 
     General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed: 
     Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct the 
     use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in 
     support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after 
     the Attorney General notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                          working capital fund

       Of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $387,000 are permanently canceled.

                    United States Parole Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized by law, $7,451,000.

                            Legal Activities


            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia; [$411,786,000] $428,664,000; of which not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 for litigation support contracts shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the funds 
     available in this appropriation, not to exceed $50,099,000 
     shall remain available until expended for office automation 
     systems for the legal divisions covered by this 
     appropriation, and for the United States Attorneys, the 
     Antitrust Division, and offices funded through ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'', General Administration: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be 
     available to the United States National Central Bureau, 
     INTERPOL, for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1342, the 
     Attorney General may accept on behalf of the United States 
     and credit to this appropriation, gifts of money, personal 
     property and services, for the purpose of hosting the 
     International Criminal Police Organization's (INTERPOL) 
     American Regional Conference in the United States during 
     fiscal year 1995: Provided further, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $99,000 are permanently 
     canceled.
       In addition, for expenses necessary to implement the 
     President's Immigration Initiative as authorized in [H.R. 
     3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, or similar legislation, $4,695,000] H.R. 3355, the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, as 
     passed by the Senate, $2,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $1,250,000 shall remain available until September 30, 1996.
       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $2,500,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund, as authorized by section 6601 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1989, as amended by Public 
     Law 101-509 (104 Stat. 1289).


                 civil liberties public education fund

       For research contracts and public education activities, and 
     to publish and distribute the hearings, findings, and 
     recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
     Internment of Civilians, pursuant to section 106(b) of the 
     Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-383), $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


               salaries and expenses, antitrust division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, [$75,655,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, not to exceed $35,460,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees collected for 
     premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
     Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1995, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $40,195,000: 
     Provided further, That any fees received in excess of 
     $35,460,000 in fiscal year 1995 shall remain available until 
     expended, but shall not be available for obligation until 
     October 1, 1995:] $85,155,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, not to exceed $33,460,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees collected for 
     premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
     Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1995, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $51,695,000: 
     Provided further, That of the offsetting collections credited 
     to this account, $155,000 are permanently canceled.


             salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Attorneys, including intergovernmental agreements, 
     [$820,177,000] $832,723,000, of which not to exceed 
     $2,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 1996 for 
     the purposes of (1) providing training of personnel of the 
     Department of Justice in debt collection, (2) providing 
     services to the Department of Justice related to locating 
     debtors and their property, such as title searches, debtor 
     skiptracing, asset searches, credit reports and other 
     investigations, (3) paying the costs of the Department of 
     Justice for the sale of property not covered by the sale 
     proceeds, such as auctioneers' fees and expenses, maintenance 
     and protection of property and businesses, advertising and 
     title search and surveying costs, and (4) paying the costs of 
     processing and tracking debts owed to the United States 
     Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for 
     automated litigation support contracts shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $180,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       [In addition, for expenses necessary to implement the 
     President's Immigration Initiative as authorized in H.R. 
     3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, or similar legislation, $6,799,000, of which not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1996.]
       In addition, for reasonable and necessary expenses to 
     implement the Attorney General's Violent Crime Task Force 
     Initiative, $25,000,000, including the reasonable and 
     necessary expenses of intergovernmental, interlocal, 
     cooperative and task force agreements, however denominated, 
     and contracts with State and local prosecutive and law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of crimes of violence and drug trafficking 
     crimes.


                   united states trustee system fund

       For the necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, [$100,469,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 589a(a), 
     to remain available until expended, for activities authorized 
     by section 115 of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States 
     Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public 
     Law 99-554), of which $61,593,000 shall be derived from the 
     United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That deposits to 
     the Fund are available in such amounts as may be necessary to 
     pay refunds due depositors: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $38,876,000 of offsetting collections derived from fees 
     collected pursuant to section 589a(f) of title 28, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 111 of Public Law 102-140 
     (105 Stat. 795), shall be retained and used for necessary 
     expenses in this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     $100,469,000 herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 1995, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
     estimated at not more than $61,593,000: Provided further, 
     That any of the aforementioned fees collected in excess of 
     $38,876,000] $104,889,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     589a(a), to remain available until expended, for activities 
     authorized by section 115 of the Bankruptcy Judges, United 
     States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 
     (Public Law 99-554), of which $64,292,000 shall be derived 
     from the United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That 
     deposits to the Fund are available in such amounts as may be 
     necessary to pay refunds due depositors: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to 
     exceed $40,597,000 of offsetting collections derived from 
     fees collected pursuant to section 589a(f) of title 28, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 111 of Public Law 
     102-140 (105 Stat. 795), shall be retained and used for 
     necessary expenses in this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the $104,889,000 herein appropriated shall be reduced as 
     such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 
     1995, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $64,292,000: 
     Provided further, That any of the aforementioned fees 
     collected in excess of $40,597,000 in fiscal year 1995 shall 
     remain available until expended, but shall not be available 
     for obligation until October 1, 1995: Provided further, That 
     of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $218,000 are permanently canceled.


      salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $830,000.


         salaries and expenses, united states marshals service

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and 
     operation of vehicles and aircraft, and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles for police-type use without regard 
     to the general purchase price limitation for the current 
     fiscal year; [$390,185,000] $403,055,000, as authorized by 28 
     U.S.C. 561(i), of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $95,000 are permanently canceled.


                   support of united states prisoners

       For support of United States prisoners in the custody of 
     the United States Marshals Service as authorized in 18 U.S.C. 
     4013, but not including expenses otherwise provided for in 
     appropriations available to the Attorney General; 
     [$299,465,000] $298,216,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     561(i), to remain available until expended.


                     fees and expenses of witnesses

       For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of 
     witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and 
     supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel 
     expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by law, including advances, $78,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; of which not to exceed $4,750,000 
     may be made available for planning, construction, renovation, 
     maintenance, remodeling, and repair of buildings and the 
     purchase of equipment incident thereto for protected witness 
     safesites; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may be made 
     available for the purchase and maintenance of armored 
     vehicles for transportation of protected witnesses; and of 
     which not to exceed $4,000,000 may be made available for the 
     purchase, installation and maintenance of a secure automated 
     information network to store and retrieve the identities and 
     locations of protected witnesses.


           salaries and expenses, community relations service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
     $20,379,000, of which not to exceed $10,001,000 shall remain 
     available until expended to make payments in advance for 
     grants, contracts and reimbursable agreements and other 
     expenses necessary under section 501(c) of the Refugee 
     Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422; 94 Stat. 
     1809) for the processing, care, maintenance, security, 
     transportation and reception and placement in the United 
     States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 501(e)(2)(B) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422; 94 Stat. 1810), 
     funds may be expended for assistance with respect to Cuban 
     and Haitian entrants as authorized under section 501(c) of 
     such Act.


                         assets forfeiture fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B), 
     (C), (F), and (G), as amended, $55,000,000 to be derived from 
     the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
       Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year 
     1995 are reduced by $92,000.

                    Radiation Exposure Compensation


                        administrative expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with 
     the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,655,000.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                    organized crime drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation, 
     and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime 
     drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include 
     intergovernmental agreements with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, [$383,250,000] $369,943,000, of which 
     $50,000,000 shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That any amounts obligated from appropriations under this 
     heading may be used under authorities available to the 
     organizations reimbursed from this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That any unobligated balances remaining available at 
     the end of the fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney 
     General for reallocation among participating organizations in 
     succeeding fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming 
     procedures described in section 605 of this Act.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for detection, investigation, and 
     prosecution of crimes against the United States; including 
     purchase for police-type use of not to exceed 1,815 passenger 
     motor vehicles of which 1,300 will be for replacement only, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of 
     aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General; [$2,178,218,000] 
     $2,210,511,000, of which not to exceed $35,000,000 for 
     automated data processing and telecommunications and 
     technical investigative equipment and $1,000,000 for 
     undercover operations shall remain available until September 
     30, 1996; of which not to exceed $14,000,000 for research and 
     development related to investigative activities shall remain 
     available until expended; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     is authorized to be made available for making payments or 
     advances for expenses arising out of contractual or 
     reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement 
     agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug 
     investigations; of which $84,400,000, to remain available 
     until expended, shall only be available to defray expenses 
     for the automation of fingerprint identification services and 
     related costs; and of which $1,500,000 shall be available to 
     maintain an independent program office dedicated solely to 
     the relocation of the Criminal Justice Information Services 
     Division and the automation of fingerprint identification 
     services: Provided, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That of the offsetting collections credited 
     to this account, $572,000 are permanently canceled.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be 
     expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; 
     expenses for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to 
     exceed 1,265 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,115 will be 
     for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; [$742,497,000] $760,801,000, of which not to exceed 
     $1,800,000 for research shall remain available until 
     expended, and of which not to exceed $4,000,000 for purchase 
     of evidence and payments for information, not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 for contracting for ADP and telecommunications 
     equipment, and not to exceed $2,000,000 for technical and 
     laboratory equipment shall remain available until September 
     30, 1996, and of which not to exceed $50,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $439,000 are permanently canceled.

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, 
     including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
     type use (not to exceed [346] 813 of which 177 are for 
     replacement only) without regard to the general purchase 
     price limitation for the current fiscal year, and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and 
     operation of aircraft; and research related to immigration 
     enforcement; [$1,098,602,000] $1,164,856,000, of which not to 
     exceed $400,000 for research shall remain available until 
     expended, and of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for costs associated with the Training program for 
     basic officer training: Provided, That none of the funds 
     available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall 
     be available for administrative expenses to pay any employee 
     overtime pay in an amount in excess of $25,000 during the 
     calendar year beginning January 1, 1995: Provided further, 
     That uniforms may be purchased without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That of the offsetting collections credited 
     to this account, $1,240,000 are permanently canceled.
       In addition, for expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     necessary to implement the President's Immigration Initiative 
     as authorized in [H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994, or similar legislation, to 
     include purchase of uniforms and not to exceed 467 passenger 
     motor vehicles for police-type use without regard to the 
     general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year, $251,157,000, of which not to exceed $116,842,000] H.R. 
     3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1993, as passed by the Senate, $264,200,000, of which not to 
     exceed $199,000,000 for procuring automation, communications 
     and technical systems and equipment shall remain available 
     until expended.


                              CONSTRUCTION

       For planning, construction, renovation, equipping and 
     maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not 
     otherwise provided for, $100,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                       IMMIGRATION EMERGENCY FUND

       For necessary expenses of the immigration emergency fund as 
     authorized by section 404(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, $8,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                         Federal Prison System


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 736 of which 
     383 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles; and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments; [$2,356,404,000] $2,354,104,000: 
     Provided, That there may be transferred to the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration such amounts as may be 
     necessary, in the discretion of the Attorney General, for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief 
     for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with 
     a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the FPS: Provided further, That uniforms may 
     be purchased without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000,000 for the activation of new 
     facilities shall remain available until September 30, 1996: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided for Contract 
     Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 for the care and security in the 
     United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided 
     further, That any unobligated balances available for the care 
     of Mariel Cuban detainees under the heading, ``Salaries and 
     Expenses, Community Relations Service'' are transferred to 
     this heading, and shall remain available until expended.


                   National Institute of Corrections

       For carrying out the provisions of sections 4351-4353 of 
     title 18, United States Code, which established a National 
     Institute of Corrections, and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments, [$10,344,000] $10,144,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                        buildings and facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility; 
     purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling and 
     equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use, 
     including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by 
     contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and 
     equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing 
     penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary 
     expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account; 
     [$238,094,000] $243,324,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be 
     available to construct areas for inmate work programs: 
     Provided, That labor of United States prisoners may be used 
     for work performed under this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed 10 per centum of the funds 
     appropriated to ``Buildings and Facilities'' in this Act or 
     any other Act may be transferred to ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'', Federal Prison System upon notification by the 
     Attorney General to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate in compliance with 
     provisions set forth in section 605 of this Act: Provided 
     further, That unless a notification as required under section 
     605 of this Act is submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate, none of the funds in 
     this Act for the Cooperative Agreement Program shall be 
     available for a cooperative agreement with a State or local 
     government for the housing of Federal prisoners and detainees 
     when the cost per bed space for such cooperative agreement 
     exceeds $50,000, and in addition, any cooperative agreement 
     with a cost per bed space that exceeds $25,000 must remain in 
     effect for no less than 15 years: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $9,903,000 shall 
     be available for the renovation and construction of United 
     States Marshals Service prisoner holding facilities.


                federal prison industries, incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 104 
     of the Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program set forth in the 
     budget for the current fiscal year for such corporation, 
     including purchase of (not to exceed five for replacement 
     only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles.


   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,463,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

       Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available to the Attorney General for official reception 
     and representation expenses in accordance with distributions, 
     procedures, and regulations established by the Attorney 
     General.
       Sec. 102. Subject to subsection (b) of section 102 of the 
     Department of Justice and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1993, authorities contained in Public Law 96-132, ``The 
     Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal 
     Year 1980'', shall remain in effect until the termination 
     date of this Act or until the effective date of a Department 
     of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, whichever is 
     earlier.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 104. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 103 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 105. Pursuant to the provisions of law set forth in 18 
     U.S.C. 3071-3077, not to exceed $5,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available for rewards to individuals who furnish 
     information regarding acts of terrorism against a United 
     States person or property.
       Sec. 106. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That this 
     section shall not apply to any appropriation made available 
     in title I of this Act under the heading, ``Office of Justice 
     Programs, Justice Assistance'': Provided further, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 107. In fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, amounts in 
     the Federal Prison System's Commissary Fund, Federal Prisons, 
     which are not currently needed for operations, shall be kept 
     on deposit or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, 
     the United States and all earnings on such investments shall 
     be deposited in the Commissary Fund.
       Sec. 108. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of Justice during fiscal year 1995, $23,830,000 
     are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Attorney General shall allocate the amount of 
     budgetary resources canceled among the Department's accounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses. 
     Amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the amount 
     allocated to such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       Sec. 109. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 or any other law, 
     in litigation involving unusually high costs, the Department 
     of Justice may receive and retain reimbursement for salaries 
     and expenses, for fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, from any 
     other governmental component being represented in the 
     litigation.
       Sec. 110. Paragraph 524(c)(9) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by amending subparagraph (D) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(D) Subject to the notification procedures contained in 
     section 605 of Public Law 103-121, and after satisfying the 
     transfer requirement in subparagraph (B) above, any excess 
     unobligated amounts remaining in the Fund on September 30, 
     1994 shall be available to the Attorney General, without 
     fiscal year limitation, for any federal law enforcement, 
     litigative/prosecutive, and correctional activities, or any 
     other authorized purpose of the Department of Justice. Any 
     amounts provided pursuant to this section may be used under 
     authorities available to the organization receiving the 
     funds. For purposes of this paragraph, `excess unobligated 
     amounts' means total unobligated amounts in the Fund on 
     September 30 less the sum of amounts unavailable for 
     obligation except by court order, amounts previously declared 
     as a surplus available to the Attorney General for 
     obligation, and amounts required to be reserved to ensure the 
     availability of funds in the next fiscal year for purposes 
     authorized under paragraph (1).''.
       Sec. 111. Public Law 103-121 (107 Stat. 1161) is amended by 
     inserting the words ``and California'' after the phrase ``for 
     projects on the northern border of the United States''.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                       Commission on Civil Rights


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, [$9,500,000] 
     $8,413,000: Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used 
     to employ consultants: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ 
     in excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of 
     the Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for 
     each Commissioner [whose compensation shall not exceed the 
     equivalent of 150 billable days at the daily rate of a level 
     13 salary under the General Schedule:] Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     used to reimburse Commissioners for more than 75 billable 
     days, with the exception of the Chairman who is permitted 125 
     billable days.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b); nonmonetary awards to private citizens; not 
     to exceed $26,500,000, for payments to State and local 
     enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant 
     to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
     sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment 
     Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1991; [$238,000,000] $240,000,000: 
     Provided, That the Commission is authorized to make available 
     for official reception and representation expenses not to 
     exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided further, That of 
     the budgetary resources available in fiscal year 1995 in this 
     account, $242,000 are permanently canceled: Provided further, 
     That amounts available for procurement and procurement-
     related expenses in this account are reduced by such amount: 
     Provided further, That as used herein, ``procurement'' 
     includes all stages of the process of acquiring property or 
     services, beginning with the process of determining a need 
     for a product or services and ending with contract completion 
     and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2).

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; not 
     to exceed $600,000 for land and structures; not to exceed 
     $500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to 
     buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed sixteen) and 
     hire of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; [$166,832,000, of which not to 
     exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1996, for research and policy studies: Provided, That 
     $116,400,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed and 
     collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 1995, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
     estimated at $50,432,000: Provided further, That any 
     offsetting collections received in excess of $116,400,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995 shall remain available until expended, but 
     shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1995] 
     $198,232,000, of which not to exceed $300,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1996, for research and policy 
     studies: Provided, That $116,400,000 of offsetting 
     collections shall be assessed and collected pursuant to 
     section 9 of title I of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
     amended, and shall be retained and used for necessary 
     expenses in this appropriation, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 1995, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 1995 appropriation estimated at 
     $81,832,000: Provided further, That of the budgetary 
     resources available in fiscal year 1995 in this account, 
     $197,000 are permanently canceled: Provided further, That 
     amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in this account are reduced by such amount: Provided 
     further, That as used herein, ``procurement'' includes all 
     stages of the process of acquiring property or services, 
     beginning with the process of determining a need for a 
     product or services and ending with contract completion and 
     closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2): Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used 
     to repeal, to retroactively apply changes in, or to continue 
     a reexamination of, the policies of the Federal 
     Communications Commission with respect to comparative 
     licensing, distress sales and tax certificates granted under 
     26 U.S.C. 1071, to expand minority ownership of broadcasting 
     licenses, including those established in the Statement of 
     Policy on Minority Ownership of Broadcasting Facilities, 68 
     F.C.C. 2d 979 and 69 F.C.C. 2d 1591, as amended 52 R.R. 2d 
     1313 (1982) and Mid-Florida Television Corp., 69 F.C.C. 2d 
     607 (Rev. Bd. 1978), which were effective prior to September 
     12, 1986, other than to close MM Docket No. 86-484 with a 
     reinstatement of prior policy and a lifting of suspension of 
     any sales, licenses, applications, or proceedings, which were 
     suspended pending the conclusion of the inquiry: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated to the Federal 
     Communications Commission by this Act may be used to diminish 
     the number of VHF channel assignments reserved for 
     noncommercial educational television stations in the 
     Television Table of Assignments (section 73.606 of title 47, 
     Code of Federal Regulations): Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to repeal, to 
     retroactively apply changes in, or to begin or continue a 
     reexamination of the rules and the policies established to 
     administer such rules of the Federal Communications 
     Commission as set forth at section 73.3555(d) of title 47 of 
     the Code of Federal Regulations, other than to amend policies 
     with respect to waivers of the portion of section 73.3555(d) 
     that concerns cross-ownership of a daily newspaper and an AM 
     or FM radio broadcast station.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission 
     as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act of 
     1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1111), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; 
     $18,569,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; 
     [$95,428,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $35,460,000 of offsetting 
     collections derived from fees collected for premerger 
     notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 
     Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 1995, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
     estimated at not more than $59,968,000: Provided further, 
     That any fees received in excess of $35,460,000 in fiscal 
     year 1995 shall remain available until expended, but shall 
     not be available for obligation until October 1, 1995: 
     Provided further, That section 605 of Public Law 101-162 (103 
     Stat. 1031), as amended, is further amended by striking 
     ``$25,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$45,000''] 
     $98,928,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $33,460,000 of offsetting 
     collections derived from fees collected for premerger 
     notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust 
     Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 1995, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
     estimated at not more than $65,468,000: Provided further, 
     That section 605 of Public Law 101-162 (103 Stat. 1031), as 
     amended, is further amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$40,000'': Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available to the Federal Trade 
     Commission shall be available for obligation for expenses 
     authorized by section 151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242, 105 
     Stat. 2282-2285): Provided further, That of the budgetary 
     resources available in fiscal year 1995 in this account, 
     $145,000 are permanently canceled: Provided further, That 
     amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in this account are reduced by such amount: Provided 
     further, That as used herein, ``procurement'' includes all 
     stages of the process of acquiring property or services, 
     beginning with the process of determining a need for a 
     product or services and ending with contract completion and 
     closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2)] : Provided 
     further, That the funds appropriated in this paragraph are 
     subject to the limitations and provisions of sections 10(a) 
     and 10(c) (notwithstanding section 10(e)), 11(b), 18, and 20 
     of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act of 1980 
     (Public Law 96-252; 94 Stat. 374), except that this proviso 
     shall cease to be effective upon enactment of an Act 
     authorizing appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission 
     for fiscal year 1995.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       [For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $900,000, of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used toward 
     funding a permanent secretariat for the International 
     Organization of Securities Commissions, and of which not to 
     exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for 
     consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff 
     to exchange views concerning developments relating to 
     securities matters, development and implementation of 
     cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and 
     provision of technical assistance for the development of 
     foreign securities markets, such expenses to include 
     necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the 
     expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in 
     attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (i) 
     such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such 
     attendance, (ii) any travel or transportation to or from such 
     meetings, and (iii) any other related lodging or subsistence: 
     Provided,] For necessary expenses for the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission, including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year 
     leases) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to 
     exceed $3,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses, $57,856,000, of which not to exceed $10,000 may be 
     used toward funding a permanent secretariat for the 
     International Organization of Securities Commissions, and of 
     which not to exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses 
     for consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff 
     to exchange views concerning developments relating to 
     securities matters, development and implementation of 
     cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and 
     provision of technical assistance for the development of 
     foreign securities markets, such expenses to include 
     necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the 
     expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in 
     attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (i) 
     such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such 
     attendance, (ii) any travel or transportation to or from such 
     meetings, and (iii) any other related lodging or subsistence: 
     Provided, That immediately upon enactment of this Act, the 
     rate of fees under section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 
     (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)) shall increase from one-fiftieth of 1 per 
     centum to one twenty-ninth of 1 per centum and such increase 
     shall be deposited as an offsetting collection to this 
     appropriation, to remain available until expended, to recover 
     costs of services of the securities registration process: 
     Provided further, That such fee increase shall be repealed 
     upon enactment of legislation amending the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 to establish a new fee system in fiscal 
     year 1995 for full cost recovery of Commission expenses: 
     Provided further, That of the budgetary resources available 
     in fiscal year 1995 in this account, $902,000 are permanently 
     canceled: Provided further, That amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in this account 
     are reduced by such amount: Provided further, That as used 
     herein, ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       In addition, upon enactment of legislation amending the 
     Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.), 
     and subject to the schedule of fees contained in such 
     legislation, such fees may be collected and shall be 
     deposited as an offsetting collection to this appropriation 
     to recover the costs of registration, supervision, and 
     regulation of investment advisers and their activities: 
     Provided, That such fees shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That any such fees collected in 
     excess of $8,595,000 shall not be available for obligation 
     until October 1, 1995.

                        State Justice Institute


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by The State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1992 (Public Law 102-572 (106 Stat. 4515-4516)), 
     $13,550,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

                    TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


             scientific and technical research and services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, [$279,420,000] $260,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which not to exceed 
     $8,500,000 may be transferred to the ``Working Capital 
     Fund''.


                     industrial technology services

       For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership, the Advanced Technology Program and the Quality 
     Program of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, [$495,960,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $315,000,000 shall not be available for 
     obligation until May 1, 1995; and of which not to exceed 
     $1,600,000 may be transferred to the ``Working Capital 
     Fund''] $554,000,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $1,710,000 may be transferred to the 
     ``Working Capital Fund'': Provided, That notwithstanding the 
     time limitations imposed by 15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(1) and (5) on 
     the duration of Federal financial assistance that may be 
     awarded by the Secretary of Commerce to Regional Centers for 
     the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology (``Centers''), such 
     Federal financial assistance for a Center may continue beyond 
     six years and may be renewed for additional periods, not to 
     exceed three years each, at a rate not to exceed one-third of 
     the Center's total annual costs, subject before any such 
     renewal to a positive evaluation of the Center and to a 
     finding by the Secretary of Commerce that continuation of 
     Federal funding to that Center is in the best interest of the 
     Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology 
     Program.


                  construction of research facilities

       For construction of new research facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering design, not otherwise provided 
     for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as 
     authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278c-278e, $64,686,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  operations, research, and facilities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including acquisition, maintenance, operation, and hire of 
     aircraft; not to exceed 439 commissioned officers on the 
     active list; as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; 
     construction of facilities, including initial equipment as 
     authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i; grants, contracts, or other 
     payments to nonprofit organizations for the purposes of 
     conducting activities pursuant to cooperative agreements; and 
     alteration, modernization, and relocation of facilities as 
     authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i; [$1,792,978,000] 
     $1,850,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     [That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 but consistent with 
     other existing law, in addition to fees currently being 
     assessed and collected, additional fees shall be assessed, 
     collected, and credited to this appropriation as offsetting 
     collections to be available until expended, to recover the 
     costs of administering living marine resources, marine 
     sanctuary, and aeronautical charting programs: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropropriated from the general 
     fund shall be reduced as such additional fees are received 
     during fiscal year 1995, so as to result in a final general 
     fund appropriation estimated at not more than $1,751,978,000: 
     Provided further,] That any such additional fees received in 
     excess of $41,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 shall not be 
     available for obligation until October 1, 1995: Provided 
     further, That in addition, $55,500,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery 
     Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': 
     [Provided further, That hereafter all receipts received from 
     the sale of aeronautical charts that result from an increase 
     in the price of individual charts above the level in effect 
     for such charts on September 30, 1993, shall be deposited in 
     this account as an offsetting collection and shall be 
     available for obligation] Provided further, That grants to 
     States pursuant to sections 306 and 306(a) of the Coastal 
     Zone Management Act, as amended, shall not exceed $2,200,000 
     and shall not be less than $500,000: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $22,000,000 shall be available for the integrated program 
     office for convergence of civilian and military polar-
     orbiting meteorological satellites: Provided further, That of 
     the offsetting collections credited to this account, $123,000 
     are permanently canceled.


                      coastal zone management fund

       Of amounts collected pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1456a, not to 
     exceed $7,800,000, [for purposes set forth in 16 U.S.C. 
     1456a(b)(2)] of which not to exceed $3,671,000 may be used 
     for program administration costs and of which $4,129,000 
     shall be used for the purposes set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1455.


                              construction

       For repair and modification of, and additions to, existing 
     facilities and construction of new facilities, and for 
     facility planning and design and land acquisition not 
     otherwise provided for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, [$52,000,000] $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That subject to the 
     availability of appropriations provided in advance for these 
     purposes, the Secretary of Commerce is granted approval to 
     enter into a contract with Florida State University which 
     shall: (1) provide the University with funds to assist in the 
     construction and associated expenses, including parking, of a 
     meteorological sciences building on its Tallahassee, Florida, 
     campus; and (2) include a space agreement with the University 
     at no cost to the Government, other than for operational 
     expenses, for space in this building for use as the Weather 
     Forecast Office: Provided further, That if the Secretary of 
     Commerce determines that the property that was transferred to 
     the United States by the City of Clovis, California, by a 
     deed dated November 20, 1984, for use as a weather 
     forecasting office, is no longer needed for such use, title 
     to that property, and improvements thereto, shall revert to 
     the City of Clovis, California.


            fleet modernization, shipbuilding and conversion

       For expenses necessary for the repair, construction, 
     acquisition, leasing, or conversion of vessels, including 
     related equipment to maintain and modernize the existing 
     fleet and to continue planning the modernization of the 
     fleet, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, $23,040,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                 [Fishing Vessel Obligations Guarantees

       [For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990, of guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, $459,000.]


            Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund

       For carrying out the provisions of section 3 of Public Law 
     95-376, not to exceed $1,273,000 to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1980 (b) and (f), to remain 
     available until expended.


                      fishermen's contingency fund

       For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law 
     95-372, not to exceed $999,000 to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until 
     expended.


                     foreign fishing observer fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law 
     96-339), the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627) and the American 
     Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), there are 
     appropriated from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery 
     observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed 
     $400,000, to remain available until expended.

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $36,510,000: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $17,000 are permanently canceled.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), [$16,900,000] $17,250,000.

                          Bureau of the Census


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, [$141,272,000] $135,000,000: Provided, That of the 
     offsetting collections credited to this account, $225,000 are 
     permanently canceled.


                     periodic censuses and programs

       For expenses necessary to collect and publish statistics 
     for periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     [$142,576,000] $145,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, [$48,615,000] $46,937,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $2,000 are permanently 
     canceled.


         economics and statistics administration revolving fund

       There is hereby established the Economics and Statistics 
     Administration Revolving Fund which shall be available 
     without fiscal year limitation. For initial capitalization, 
     there is appropriated $1,677,000 to the Fund: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to disseminate 
     economic and statistical data products as authorized by 15 
     U.S.C. 1525-1527 and, notwithstanding 15 U.S.C. 4912, charge 
     fees necessary to recover the full costs incurred in their 
     production. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, receipts received 
     from these data dissemination activities shall be credited to 
     this account as offsetting collections, to be available for 
     carrying out these purposes without further appropriation.

                   International Trade Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms to include a 
     grant of $9,000,000 for the National Textile Center 
     University Consortium, without regard to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 
     3703; full medical coverage for dependent members of 
     immediate families of employees stationed overseas and 
     employees temporarily posted overseas; travel and 
     transportation of employees of the United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service between two points abroad, without regard 
     to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and aliens by 
     contract for services; rental of space abroad for periods not 
     exceeding ten years, and expenses of alteration, repair, or 
     improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle; 
     obtain insurance on official motor vehicles; and rent tie 
     lines and teletype equipment; [$268,723,000, to remain 
     available until expended] $262,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the provisions of the first 
     sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the 
     Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these 
     activities without regard to 15 U.S.C. 4912; and that for the 
     purpose of this Act, contributions under the provisions of 
     the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall 
     include payment for assessments for services provided as part 
     of these activities.

                         Export Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; rental 
     of space abroad for periods not exceeding ten years, and 
     expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law; 
     [$38,823,000] $36,161,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the provisions of the first sentence 
     of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these 
     activities.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     minority business development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     [$42,428,000, of which $30,300,000 shall remain available 
     until expended] $44,000,000, of which $31,872,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.

            United States Travel and Tourism Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Travel and 
     Tourism Administration including travel and tourism 
     promotional activities abroad for travel to the United States 
     and its possessions without regard to 44 U.S.C. 501, 3702 and 
     3703, including employment of American citizens and aliens by 
     contract for services abroad; rental of space abroad for 
     periods not exceeding five years, and expenses of alteration, 
     repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; advance of 
     funds under contracts abroad; payment of tort claims in the 
     manner authorized in the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672, 
     when such claims arise in foreign countries; and not to 
     exceed $15,000 for official representation expenses abroad; 
     [$14,907,000] $17,907,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph shall be available to carry out the provisions 
     of section 203(a) of the International Travel Act of 1961, as 
     amended: Provided further, That in addition to fees currently 
     being assessed and collected, the Administration shall charge 
     users of its services, products, and information, fees 
     sufficient to result in an additional $3,000,000, to be 
     deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury.

                      Patent and Trademark Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office 
     provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted 
     against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; 
     [$88,329,000] $75,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be derived from deposits in the Patent and 
     Trademark Office Fee Surcharge Fund as authorized by law: 
     Provided, That the amounts made available under the Fund 
     shall not exceed amounts deposited; and such fees as shall be 
     collected pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 
     376, shall remain available until expended.

                       Technology Administration

       Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology/Office of Technology Policy, [$10,000,000] 
     $11,237,000, of which not to exceed $2,000,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1996.

                [National Technical Information Service


                          ntis revolving fund

       [For expenses necessary to implement the American 
     Technology Preeminence Act, $12,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $140,000 are permanently canceled.]

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
     [$21,056,000] $20,981,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $2,000 are permanently canceled: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the 
     Secretary of Commerce is authorized to retain and use as 
     offsetting collections all funds transferred, or previously 
     transferred, from other Government agencies for all costs 
     incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and 
     related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication 
     Sciences of the NTIA in furtherance of its assigned functions 
     under this paragraph and such funds received from other 
     Government agencies shall remain available until expended.


                          public Broadcasting

                 facilities, planning and construction

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, [$26,000,000] $30,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by section 391 of said 
     Act, as amended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,200,000 
     shall be available for program administration as authorized 
     by section 391 of said Act: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 391 of said Act, 
     the prior year unobligated balances may be made available for 
     grants for projects for which applications have been 
     submitted and approved during any fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding the provisions of sections 391 
     and 392 of the Communications Act, as amended, not to exceed 
     [$700,000] $1,500,000 appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for the Pan-Pacific Educational and Cultural 
     Experiments by Satellite program (PEACESAT).


                   information infrastructure grants

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, [$70,000,000] $52,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by section 391 of said 
     Act, as amended: Provided, That not to exceed $5,000,000 
     shall be available for program administration and other 
     support activities as authorized by section 391 of said Act 
     including support of the Advisory Council on National 
     Information Infrastructure: Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 percent may be 
     available for telecommunications research activities for 
     projects related directly to the development of a national 
     information infrastructure: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the requirements of section 392(a) and 392(c) 
     of such Act, these funds may be used for the planning and 
     construction of telecommunications networks for the provision 
     of educational, cultural, health care, public information, 
     public safety or other social services.

            endowment for children's educational television

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     National Endowment for Children's Educational Television Act 
     of 1990, title II of Public Law 101-437, including costs for 
     contracts, grants and administrative expenses, $2,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, Public Law 91-304, and such laws that were in effect 
     immediately before September 30, 1982, [and for trade 
     adjustment assistance, $338,524,000] $412,198,000: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this heading may be used directly or 
     indirectly for attorneys' or consultants' fees in connection 
     with securing grants and contracts made by the Economic 
     Development Administration: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Commerce may provide financial assistance for projects to be 
     located on military installations closed or scheduled for 
     closure or realignment to grantees eligible for assistance 
     under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 
     as amended, without it being required that the grantee have 
     title or ability to obtain a lease for the property, for the 
     useful life of the project, when in the opinion of the 
     Secretary of Commerce, such financial assistance is necessary 
     for the economic development of the area: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Commerce may, as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate, consult with the Secretary of Defense 
     regarding the title to land on military installations closed 
     or scheduled for closure or realignment.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     [$32,205,000] $36,000,000: Provided, That these funds may be 
     used to monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the 
     Public Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community 
     Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce

       Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by said Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary that such payments 
     are in the public interest.
       Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902).
       Sec. 203. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and 
     activities that are under the control of the United States 
     Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds provided in this or any 
     previous Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department 
     of Commerce shall be available to reimburse the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund or any other fund or account of the Treasury to 
     pay for any expenses paid before October 1, 1992, as 
     authorized by section 8501 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for services performed after April 20, 1990, by individuals 
     appointed to temporary positions within the Bureau of the 
     Census for purposes relating to the 1990 decennial census of 
     population.
       Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 206. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of Commerce during fiscal year 1995, $12,355,000 
     are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of Commerce shall allocate the amount of 
     budgetary resources canceled among the Department's accounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses. 
     Amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the amount 
     allocated to such account: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $6,177,000 may be allocated to the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

                        TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme 
     Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and 
     grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance and 
     operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to 
     exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate 
     Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice 
     may approve, [$24,157,000] $24,323,000.


                    care of the building and grounds

       For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the 
     Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon 
     him by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-13b), 
     [$3,000,000] $3,045,000, of which $260,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers 
     and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as 
     authorized by law, [$13,438,000] $13,362,000.

               United States Court of International Trade


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries 
     of the officers and employees of the court, services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the 
     court, as authorized by law, [$11,685,000] $11,765,000.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including 
     judges of the territorial courts of the United States), 
     justices and judges retired from office or from regular 
     active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other 
     officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise 
     specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the 
     courts, as authorized by law, [$2,323,455,000] $2,399,318,000 
     (including the purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which 
     not to exceed $14,454,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for space alteration projects; of which not to 
     exceed $11,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     furniture and furnishings related to new space alteration and 
     construction projects; and of which $500,000 is to remain 
     available until expended for acquisition of books, 
     periodicals, and newspapers, and all other legal reference 
     materials, including subscriptions.
       In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the 
     National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed 
     $2,250,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


                           defender services

       For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community 
     Defender organizations, the compensation and reimbursement of 
     expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under 
     the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, the 
     compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons 
     furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the 
     Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)), the compensation 
     (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act maximums) and 
     reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to assist 
     the court in criminal cases where the defendant has waived 
     representation by counsel, the compensation and reimbursement 
     of travel expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of 
     financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in 
     connection with transfers from the United States to foreign 
     countries with which the United States has a treaty for the 
     execution of penal sentences, and the compensation of 
     attorneys appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for 
     the protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 
     U.S.C. 1875(d), $250,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006A(i): Provided, That 
     not to exceed $19,800,000 shall be available for Death 
     Penalty Resource Centers.


                    fees of jurors and commissioners

       For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of 
     commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to 
     rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 
     U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)); [$62,692,000] $56,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     compensation of land commissioners shall not exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the highest rate payable under section 5332 of 
     title 5, United States Code.


                             court security

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     incident to the procurement, installation, and maintenance of 
     security equipment and protective services for the United 
     States Courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas, including 
     building ingress-egress control, inspection of packages, 
     directed security patrols, and other similar activities as 
     authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702); [$97,000,000] 
     $97,532,000, to be expended directly or transferred to the 
     United States Marshals Service which shall be responsible for 
     administering elements of the Judicial Security Program 
     consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by the 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts and the Attorney General.

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor 
     vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and 
     rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, [$46,500,000] 
     $47,734,000, of which not to exceed $7,500 is authorized for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Judicial Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, [$18,828,000] $19,739,000; 
     of which $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 
     30, 1996, to provide education and training to Federal court 
     personnel; and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized 
     for official reception and representation expenses.

                       Judicial Retirement Funds


                    payment to judiciary trust funds

       For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $21,000,000, to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $6,900,000, and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $575,000.

                  United States Sentencing Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code, 
     [$8,468,000] $9,200,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is 
     authorized for official reception and representation 
     expenses.

                   General Provisions--The Judiciary

       Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this 
     title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 302. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for salaries and expenses of the Special Court 
     established under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 
     1973, Public Law 93-236.
       Sec. 303. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in 
     this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but 
     no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers: Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this 
     section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under 
     section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts, 
     courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses 
     of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, 
     That such available funds shall not exceed $10,000 and shall 
     be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts in his capacity as Secretary of 
     the Judicial Conference.
       Sec. 305. Section 612(l) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended by deleting ``1994'' and inserting ``1999''.
       Sec. 306. Section 377 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(p) Upon an election by a bankruptcy judge or magistrate 
     judge under subsection (f) of this section, all of the 
     accrued employer contributions and accrued interest on those 
     contributions made on behalf of the bankruptcy judge or 
     magistrate judge to the Civil Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund as defined under section 8348 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be transferred to the fund 
     established under section 1931 of title 28, United States 
     Code: Provided, however, That if the bankruptcy judge or 
     magistrate judge elects under section 2(c) of the Retirement 
     and Survivors' Annuities for Bankruptcy Judges and 
     Magistrates Act of 1988, Public Law 100-659, to receive a 
     retirement annuity under both this section and title 5, 
     United States Code, only the accrued employer contributions 
     and accrued interest on such contributions made on behalf of 
     the bankruptcy judge or magistrate judge for service credited 
     under this section may be transferred.''.
       This title may be cited as ``The Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 1995''.

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Maritime Administration


                    operating-differential subsidies

                  (liquidation of contract authority)

       For the payment of obligations incurred for operating-
     differential subsidies as authorized by the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936, as amended, $214,356,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                        operations and training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, [$76,100,000] $78,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Transportation may use proceeds derived from the sale or 
     disposal of National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels that are 
     currently collected and retained by the Maritime 
     Administration, to be used for facility and ship maintenance, 
     modernization and repair, conversion, acquisition of 
     equipment, and fuel costs necessary to maintain training at 
     the United States Merchant Marine Academy and State maritime 
     academies: Provided further, That reimbursements may be made 
     to this appropriation from receipts to the ``Federal Ship 
     Financing Fund'' for administrative expenses in support of 
     that program in addition to any amount heretofore 
     appropriated.


                          ready reserve force

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses to acquire and maintain a surge 
     shipping capability in the National Defense Reserve Fleet in 
     an advanced state of readiness and for related programs, 
     [$179,415,000] $120,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That reimbursement may be made to the 
     Operations and Training appropriation for expenses related to 
     this program.
       [Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $27,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That of the 
     total amount rescinded, $9,000,000 shall be derived from 
     amounts proposed to be reprogrammed from funds appropriated 
     for Fleet Additions to Maintenance and Operations.]
       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $158,000,000 are rescinded.


          maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the 
     Merchant Marine Act of 1936, $25,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $2,000,000, which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training.


           administrative provisions--maritime administration

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities 
     and services and make necessary repairs in connection with 
     any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government 
     property under control of the Maritime Administration, and 
     payments received therefor shall be credited to the 
     appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That 
     rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy 
     for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs 
     shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal 
     year from the construction fund established by the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the 
     appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in 
     any prior appropriation Act, and all receipts which otherwise 
     would be deposited to the credit of said fund shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

                    Commission on Immigration Reform


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Immigration 
     Reform pursuant to section 141(f) of the Immigration Act of 
     1990, [$1,494,000] $1,894,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $1,090,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

                     Competitiveness Policy Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Competitiveness Policy 
     Council as authorized by section 5209 of the Omnibus Trade 
     and Competitiveness Act of 1988, $1,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended, 
     [$1,320,000] $1,384,000.

           Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
     Federal Holiday Commission, as authorized by Public Law 98-
     399, as amended, $300,000.

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $20,949,000, of which $2,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                     Small Business Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     101-574, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     [$258,900,000] $233,468,000: Provided, That the Administrator 
     is authorized to charge fees to cover the cost of 
     publications developed by the Small Business Administraton; 
     certain loan servicing activities; and installing and 
     servicing the agency's computer-based electronic bulletin 
     board; and to help defray the cost of the Small Business 
     Development Center Program: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, revenues received from all 
     such activities shall be credited to this account, to be 
     available for carrying out these purposes without further 
     appropriation. Of the total amount appropriated in this 
     paragraph, [$73,300,000] $72,000,000 shall be available for 
     grants for performance in fiscal year 1995 or fiscal year 
     1996 for Small Business Development Centers as authorized by 
     section 21 of the Small Business Act, as amended, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be available to carry out Defense economic 
     transition technical assistance as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 
     648(c)(3)(G): Provided further, That not more than $500,000 
     of the total amount in this paragraph shall be available to 
     pay the expenses of the National Small Business Development 
     Center Advisory Board and to reimburse Centers for 
     participating in evaluations as provided in section 20(a) of 
     such Act, and to maintain a clearinghouse as provided in 
     section 21(g)(2) of such Act.
       [None of the funds appropriated for the Small Business 
     Administration under this Act may be used to impose any new 
     or increased user fee or management assistance fee for the 
     Small Business Development Center Program.]


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $8,500,000.


                     business loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, [$8,500,000] $9,221,000, and 
     for the cost of guaranteed loans, [$321,067,000] 
     $277,143,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which 
     $1,216,000 shall be for the micro-loan guarantee program and 
     shall be available until expended, and of which $30,000,000 
     shall be used to pre-pay the Federal Financing Bank for 
     debentures guaranteed by the Administration pursuant to 
     section 503 of the Small Business Investment Act: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $97,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.


                     disaster loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of 
     the Small Business Act, as amended, $52,153,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
     this or any other Act may be used for the cost of direct 
     loans to any borrower under section 7(b) of the Small 
     Business Act to relocate voluntarily outside the business 
     area in which the disaster has occurred.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $78,000,000, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriations for Salaries and Expenses.
       In addition, for the cost of emergency disaster loans and 
     associated administrative expenses, $125,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That these funds, or any 
     portion thereof, shall be available beginning in fiscal year 
     1995 to the extent that the President notifies the Congress 
     of his designation of any or all of these amounts as 
     emergency requirements under the Budget Enforcement Act of 
     1990: Provided further, That Congress hereby designates these 
     amounts as emergency requirements pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D).


                 surety bond guarantees revolving fund

       For additional capital for the ``Surety Bond Guarantees 
     Revolving Fund'', authorized by the Small Business Investment 
     Act, as amended, $5,369,000, to remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note.


        administrative provisions--small business administration

       Sec. 401. [None of the funds provided by this Act for the 
     Small Business Administration may be used to guarantee any 
     participating securities authorized by Public Law 102-366 
     until legislation has been enacted which directly or 
     indirectly prohibits the filing of a petition under the 
     Bankruptcy Code by a small business investment company 
     licensed under subsection (c) or (d) of section 301 of the 
     Small Business Investment Act of 1958 or regulations 
     implemented to reduce risks to the Small Business 
     Administration from companies licensed under section (c) or 
     (d) of section 301 of the Small Business Investment Act of 
     1958.
       [Sec. 402.](a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Small Business Administration during fiscal year 1995, 
     $1,021,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Administrator of the Small Business Administration 
     shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled 
     among the agency's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       Sec. 402a. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Small 
     Business Administration in this Act may be transferred 
     between such appropriations, but no such appropriation shall 
     be increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: 
     Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.

                       Legal Services Corporation


               Payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     as amended, [$415,000,000; of which $350,700,000 is for basic 
     field programs; $9,390,000 is for Native American programs; 
     $13,830,000 is for migrant programs; $1,435,000 is for law 
     school clinics; $1,305,000 is for supplemental field 
     programs; $870,000 is for regional training centers; 
     $10,800,000 is for national support; $11,585,000 is for State 
     support; $785,000 is for client initiatives; $1,145,000 is 
     for the Clearinghouse; $655,000 is for computer assisted 
     legal research regional centers; and $12,500,000] 
     $400,000,000; of which $341,865,000 is for basic field 
     programs; $8,950,000 is for Native American programs; 
     $12,759,000 is for migrant programs; $1,402,000 is for law 
     school clinics; $1,274,000 is for supplemental field 
     programs; $795,000 is for regional training centers; 
     $9,611,000 is for national support; $10,564,000 is for State 
     support; $100,000 is for client initiatives; $1,101,000 is 
     for the Clearinghouse; $651,000 is for computer assisted 
     legal research regional centers; and $10,928,000 is for 
     Corporation management and administration.


          administrative provision--legal services corporation

       Sec. 403. (a) Funds appropriated under this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation and distributed to each grantee 
     funded in fiscal year 1995, pursuant to the number of poor 
     people determined by the Bureau of the Census to be within 
     its geographical area, shall be distributed in the following 
     order:
       (1) Grants from the Legal Services Corporation and 
     contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation 
     under section 1006(a)(1) of the Legal Services Corporation 
     Act, as amended, shall be maintained in fiscal year 1995 at 
     not less than the annual level at which each grantee and 
     contractor was funded in fiscal year 1994 pursuant to Public 
     Law 103-121.
       [(2) 50 percent of new basic field funds shall be awarded 
     to grantees and contractors funded at the lowest levels per-
     poor-person (calculated for each grantee or contractor by 
     dividing each such grantee or contractor's fiscal year 1994 
     grant level by the number of poor persons within its 
     geographical area under the 1990 census) so as to fund the 
     largest number of programs possible at an equal per-poor-
     person amount.
       [(3) 50 percent of new basic field funds shall be allocated 
     to grantees and contractors in an amount that is 
     proportionate to the number of poor people in such grantee or 
     contractor's service area as enumerated in the 1990 census.]
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose 
     prohibited or limited by or contrary to any of the provisions 
     of--
       (1) section 607 of Public Law 101-515, and that all funds 
     appropriated for the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
     subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in 
     section 607 of Public Law 101-515, except that the funding 
     formulas and provisos 15, 20 and 22 shall not apply, and all 
     references to ``1991'' in section 607 of Public Law 101-515 
     shall be deemed to be ``1995'', unless subparagraph (2) 
     applies; and
       (2) authorizing legislation for fiscal year 1995 for the 
     Legal Services Corporation that is enacted into law.

           TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    diplomatic and consular programs

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956, as amended; representation to certain 
     international organizations in which the United States 
     participates pursuant to treaties, ratified pursuant to the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, or specific Acts of 
     Congress; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343, 40 U.S.C. 
     481(c) and 22 U.S.C. 2674; and for expenses of general 
     administration [$1,700,200,000] $1,780,439,000[: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, during 
     fiscal year 1995 the Secretary of State is authorized to 
     charge a fee for processing passports on an expedited basis: 
     Provided further, That in order to control workload demands 
     on passport facilities, expedited passport processing will be 
     available only to those applicants who can demonstrate and 
     document the need to travel on an urgent basis and that such 
     documentation would normally include already-purchased 
     tickets and a formal itinerary: Provided further, That fees 
     allocated under this provision shall be used to fund the cost 
     of providing expedited passport processing and to enhance the 
     quality and efficiency of consular services: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall deposit such fees as an 
     offsetting collection to this appropriation account, to 
     remain available until expended, and shall expend not to 
     exceed $18,000,000 in such fee collections during fiscal year 
     1995. Of the funds appropriated in this paragraph: not to 
     exceed $3,000,000 shall be available for grants, contracts, 
     and other activities to conduct research and promote 
     international cooperation on environmental and other 
     scientific issues; not to exceed $500,000 shall be available 
     to carry out the activities of the Commission on Protecting 
     and Reducing Government Secrecy; $300,000 shall be available 
     for recruitment of Hispanic American students and for the 
     training of Hispanic Americans for careers in the Foreign 
     Service and in international affairs; and not to exceed 
     $300,000 shall be available to carry out the activities of 
     the Office of Cambodian Genocide Investigations. None of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available to 
     carry out the provisions of section 101(b)(2)(E) of Public 
     Law 103-236]: Provided, That hereafter all receipts received 
     from a new charge for expedited passport processing shall be 
     deposited in this account as an offsetting collection and 
     shall be available until expended: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount made available in this paragraph, not less 
     than $5,000,000 shall be available only for payments to the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to section 505 of 
     this Act.
       In addition, not to exceed $700,000 in registration fees 
     collected pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act, as amended, may be used in accordance with section 45 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, 22 U.S.C. 
     2717; and in addition not to exceed $1,223,000 shall be 
     derived from fees from other executive agencies for lease or 
     use of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act 
     (Public Law 90-553, as amended by section 120 of Public Law 
     101-246); and in addition not to exceed $15,000 which shall 
     be derived from reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use 
     of Blair House facilities in accordance with section 46 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     2718(a)).
       Notwithstanding section 502 of this Act, not to exceed 20 
     percent of the amounts made available in this Act in the 
     appropriation accounts, ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' 
     and ``Salaries and Expenses'' under the heading 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs'' may be transferred 
     between such appropriation accounts: [Provided further,] 
     Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of State and the Foreign Service, provided for 
     by law, including expenses authorized by section 9 of the Act 
     of August 31, 1964, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3721), and the 
     State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended, 
     [$385,000,000] $391,373,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $23,850,000.


                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized by section 905 
     of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
     4085), $4,780,000.


              protection of foreign missions and officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     4314) and 3 U.S.C. 208, $9,579,000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available 
     to carry out section 101(b)(4)(A) of Public Law 103-236: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, not to exceed $500,000 shall be available to carry 
     out section 101(b)(4)(B) of Public Law 103-236.


            acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300), and 
     the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as authorized by 
     title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism 
     Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4851), [$396,000,000] $421,760,000 to 
     remain available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 
     2696(c): Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph shall be available for acquisition of 
     furniture and furnishings and generators for other 
     departments and agencies. Of the funds made available in this 
     paragraph [$92,864,000] $117,864,000 shall be available for 
     Maintenance of Buildings and Facility Rehabilitation.


           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service pursuant to the requirement of 31 U.S.C. 
     3526(e) $6,500,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c)[, of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     Repatriation Loans Program Account, subject to the same terms 
     and conditions.]


                   repatriation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $593,000, as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 2671: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct 
     loan program, $183,000 which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the Salaries and Expenses account under Administration 
     of Foreign Affairs.


              payment to the american institute in taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act, Public Law 96-8 (93 Stat. 14), $15,465,000.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $129,321,000.

              International Organizations and Conferences


              contributions to international organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, [$913,941,000, of which not to 
     exceed $40,719,000 is available to pay arrearages, the 
     payment of which shall be directed toward special activities 
     that are mutually agreed upon by the United States and the 
     respective international organization] $873,222,000: 
     Provided, That 20 percent of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph for the assessed contribution of the United States 
     to the United Nations shall be withheld from obligation and 
     expenditure pursuant to section 401(a)(2) of Public Law 103-
     236 until a certification is made under section 401(b) of 
     said Act: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for a 
     United States contribution to an international organization 
     for the United States share of interest costs made known to 
     the United States Government by such organization for loans 
     incurred on or after October 1, 1984, through external 
     borrowings.


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, [$533,304,000, of which not to exceed $288,000,000 
     is available to pay arrearages accumulated in fiscal year 
     1994 and not to exceed $23,092,000 is available to pay other 
     outstanding arrearages] $500,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $277,788,000 is available to pay arrearages: Provided, That 
     funds shall be available for peacekeeping expenses only upon 
     a certification by the Secretary of State to the appropriate 
     committees of the Congress that American manufacturers and 
     suppliers are being given opportunities to provide equipment, 
     services and material for United Nations peacekeeping 
     activities equal to those being given to foreign 
     manufacturers and suppliers.


              international conferences and contingencies

       For necessary expenses authorized by section 5 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for these purposes, contributions 
     for the United States share of general expenses of 
     international organizations and conferences and 
     representation to such organizations and conferences as 
     provided for by 22 U.S.C. 2656 and 2672 and personal services 
     without regard to civil service and classification laws as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5102, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which 
     not to exceed $200,000 may be expended for representation as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 4085.

                       International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:


 international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     [$13,947,000] $12,858,000.


                              construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, [$6,644,000] $7,733,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).


              american sections, international commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, as authorized by treaties between the United 
     States and Canada or Great Britain, and for the Border 
     Environment Cooperation Commission as authorized by Public 
     Law 103-182; $5,800,000, of which not to exceed $9,000 shall 
     be available for representation expenses incurred by the 
     International Joint Commission.


                  international fisheries commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $14,669,000: Provided, That the United States share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions, 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.


                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by 
     section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $15,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).

                General Provisions--Department of State

       Sec. 501. Funds appropriated under this title shall be 
     available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and 
     differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of 5 U.S.C.; for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and hire of 
     passenger transportation pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1343(b).
       Sec. 502. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the United States Information Agency 
     in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, 
     but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 503. Funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act or any other Act may be expended for 
     compensation of the United States Commissioner of the 
     International Boundary Commission, United States and Canada, 
     only for actual hours worked by such Commissioner.
       Sec. 504. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of State during fiscal year 1995, $5,566,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of State shall allocate the amount of 
     budgetary resources canceled among the Department's accounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses. 
     Amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the amount 
     allocated to such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       Sec. 505. Section 140 of Public Law 103-236 is amended--
       (1) by inserting after subsection (d)(3) the following new 
     subsection (e):
       ``(e) Fingerprint Checks.--
       ``(1) Effective not later than March 31, 1995, the 
     Secretary of State shall in the ten countries with the 
     highest volume of immigrant visa issuance for the most recent 
     fiscal year for which data are available require the 
     fingerprinting of applicants over sixteen years of age for 
     immigrant visas. The Department of State shall submit records 
     of such fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     in order to ascertain whether such applicants previously have 
     been convicted of a felony under State or Federal law in the 
     United States, and shall pay all appropriate fees.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall prescribe and publish such 
     regulations as may be necessary to implement the requirements 
     of this subsection, and to avoid undue processing costs and 
     delays for eligible immigrants and the United States 
     Government.''; and
       (2) in subsections (d)(4) and (d)(5), by changing the word 
     ``procedure'' to ``procedures'', by changing the words ``this 
     subsection'' each time they appear to ``subsections (d) and 
     (e)'', and by redesignating paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5), 
     respectively, as subsections (f) and (g).
       Sec. 506. (a) Section 212 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, as amended (U.S.C. 1182), is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new subsection (o):
       ``(o) An alien who has been physically present in the 
     United States shall not be eligible to receive an immigrant 
     visa within ninety days following departure therefrom 
     unless--
       ``(1) the alien was maintaining a lawful nonimmigrant 
     status at the time of such departure, or
       ``(2) the alien is the spouse or unmarried child of an 
     individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident 
     status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and 
     Control Act of 1986 at any date, who--
       ``(A) as of May 5, 1988, was the unmarried child or spouse 
     of the individual who obtained temporary or permanent 
     resident status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform 
     and Control Act of 1986;
       ``(B) entered the United States before May 5, 1988, resided 
     in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is not a lawful 
     permanent resident; and
       ``(C) applied for benefits under section 301(a) of the 
     Immigration Act of 1990.''.
       (b) Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
     amended (8 U.S.C. 1255), is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) 
     and (c) of this section, an alien physically present in the 
     United States who--
       ``(A) entered the United States without inspection; or
       ``(B) is within one of the classes enumerated in subsection 
     (c) of this section
     may apply to the Attorney General for the adjustment of his 
     or her status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence. The Attorney General may accept such 
     application only if the alien remits with such application a 
     sum equalling five times the fee required for the processing 
     of applications under this section as of the date of receipt 
     of the application, but such sum shall not be required from 
     an alien who is the spouse or unmarried child of an 
     individual who obtained temporary or permanent resident 
     status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform and 
     Control Act of 1986 at any date, who--
       ``(i) as of May 5, 1988, was the unmarried child or spouse 
     of the individual who obtained temporary or permanent 
     resident status under section 210 or 245A of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act or section 202 of the Immigration Reform 
     and Control Act of 1986;
       ``(ii) entered the United States before May 5, 1988, 
     resided in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is not a 
     lawful permanent resident; and
       ``(iii) applied for benefits under section 301(a) of the 
     Immigration Act of 1990. The sum specified herein shall be in 
     addition to the fee normally required for the processing of 
     an application under this section.
       ``(2) Upon receipt of such an application and the sum 
     hereby required, the Attorney General may adjust the status 
     of the alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence if--
       ``(A) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa 
     and is admissible to the United States for permanent 
     residence; and
       ``(B) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the 
     alien at the time the application is filed.
       ``(3) Sums remitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be disposed 
     of by the Attorney General as provided in sections 286 (m), 
     (n), and (o) of this title.''.
       (c) The provisions of these amendments to the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act shall take effect on October 1, 1994.
       (d) The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall 
     conduct full fingerprint identification checks through the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation for all individuals over 
     sixteen years of age adjusting immigration status in the 
     United States pursuant to this section.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  Arms Control and Disarmament Agency


                arms control and disarmament activities

       For necessary expenses not otherwise provided, for arms 
     control and disarmament activities, $54,500,000, of which not 
     less than $9,500,000 is available until expended only for 
     payment of United States contributions to the Preparatory 
     Commission for the Organization on the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons, and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall 
     be for official reception and representation expenses as 
     authorized by the Act of September 26, 1961, as amended (22 
     U.S.C. 2551 et seq.): Provided, That of the budgetary 
     resources available in fiscal year 1995 in this account, 
     $122,000 are permanently canceled: Provided further, That 
     amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in this account are reduced by such amount: Provided 
     further, That as used herein, ``procurement'' includes all 
     stages of the process of acquiring property or services, 
     beginning with the process of determining a need for a 
     product or services and ending with contract completion and 
     closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2).

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $206,000, as authorized by Public 
     Law 99-83, section 1303.

                     International Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     [$44,200,000] $43,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

               Japan-United States Friendship Commission


               japan-united states friendship trust fund

       For expenses of the Japan-United States Friendship 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 94-118, as amended, 
     from the interest earned on the Japan-United States 
     Friendship Trust Fund, [$1,247,000] $1,000,000; and an amount 
     of Japanese currency not to exceed the equivalent of 
     $1,420,000 based on exchange rates at the time of payment of 
     such amounts as authorized by Public Law 94-118.

                    United States Information Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the United States Information Agency, as authorized by 
     the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as 
     amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended 
     (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
     1977 (91 Stat. 1636), to carry out international 
     communication, educational and cultural activities; and to 
     carry out related activities authorized by law, including 
     employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 1471, and entertainment, including official 
     receptions, within the United States, not to exceed $25,000 
     as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1474(3); [$476,362,000] 
     $480,362,000: Provided, That not to exceed $1,400,000 may be 
     used for representation abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 
     1452 and 4085: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 of the amounts allocated by the United States 
     Information Agency to carry out section 102(a)(3) of the 
     Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, as amended (22 
     U.S.C. 2452(a)(3)), shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1477b(a), 
     for expenses and equipment necessary for maintenance and 
     operation of data processing and administrative services as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1535-1536: Provided further, That not 
     to exceed $7,615,000 to remain available until expended, may 
     be credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from or in connection with English teaching, 
     library, motion pictures, and publication programs as 
     authorized by section 810 of the United States Information 
     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $2,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended may be used to carry out projects involving 
     security construction and related improvements for agency 
     facilities not physically located together with Department of 
     State facilities abroad.


                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3), and in 
     accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), 
     $4,300,000.


               educational and cultural exchange programs

       For expenses of Fulbright, International Visitor, Humphrey 
     Fellowship, Citizen Exchange, Congress-Bundestag Exchange, 
     and other educational and cultural exchange programs, as 
     authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 (91 Stat. 1636), 
     [$237,812,000] $242,388,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2455: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph, [$500,000 is for 
     the American Studies Collections program] $600,000 is 
     available for the Institute for Representative Government and 
     $500,000 is available for the Mike Mansfield Fellowship 
     Program.


                 eisenhower exchange Fellowship Program

                               trust fund

       For payment to the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program 
     Trust Fund as authorized by the Eisenhower Exchange 
     Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-05), [$2,100,000] 
     $2,500,000, to remain available until expended.
       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated to be derived from interest and earnings from 
     the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the Eisenhower Exchange 
     Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-05), $300,000 to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay any salary or 
     other compensation, or to enter into any contract providing 
     for the payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are not in accordance 
     with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform Administrative 
     Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-profit 
     Organizations), including the restrictions on compensation 
     for personal services.


                    israeli arab scholarship program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 1995, to remain 
     available until expended.

                 international broadcasting operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency, as authorized by the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 
     and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, to carry out 
     international communication activities; [$476,796,000] 
     $475,478,000, of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used for 
     official receptions within the United States as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 1474(3) and not to exceed $35,000 may be used for 
     representation abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1452 and 
     4085; and in addition, not to exceed $250,000 from fees as 
     authorized by section 810 of the United States Informational 
     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, to remain 
     available until expended for carrying out authorized 
     purposes: Provided, That $239,735,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Board for International Broadcasting and shall remain 
     available until expended for expenses authorized by the Board 
     for International Broadcasting Act of 1973, as amended, of 
     which not to exceed $45,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: [Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph for the 
     Board for International Broadcasting may be used to relocate 
     the offices or operations of RFE/RL, Incorporated from 
     Munich, Germany:] Provided further, That such amounts 
     appropriated to the Board for International Broadcasting in 
     fiscal year 1994 as are certified by the Office of Management 
     and Budget to the Congress as gains due to the fluctuation of 
     foreign currency, may be used in fiscal year 1995 and 
     thereafter either to offset foreign currency losses or to 
     offset unfunded RFE/RL costs associated with the 
     implementation of Public Law 103-236: Provided further, That 
     obligated but unexpended balances appropriated in fiscal year 
     1990 to fund planned transmitter modernization expenses may 
     be expended in fiscal year 1995 for unfunded RFE/RL costs 
     associated with the implementation of Public Law 103-236.


                           radio construction

       For an additional amount for the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio 
     transmission and reception and purchase and installation of 
     necessary equipment for radio and television transmission and 
     reception as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1471, [$85,314,000] 
     $93,165,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by 22 U.S.C. 1477b(a).


                            [radio free asia

                     [(including transfer of funds)

       [For expenses necessary to carry out the Radio Free Asia 
     program, $10,000,000, to be derived from amounts provided in 
     this Act for ``Radio Construction''.


                         [broadcasting to cuba

                      [radio broadcasting to cuba

       [For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency to carry out the Radio Broadcasting to 
     Cuba Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.) (providing for 
     the Radio Marti Program or Cuba Service of the Voice of 
     America), including the purchase, rent, construction, and 
     improvement of facilities for radio transmission and 
     reception and purchase and installation of necessary 
     equipment for radio transmission and reception as authorized 
     by 22 U.S.C. 1471, $8,625,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1477b(a).]


                          broadcasting to cuba

       For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency to carry out the Radio Broadcasting to 
     Cuba Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.) (providing for 
     the Radio Marti Program or Cuba Service of the Voice of 
     America), the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 
     1465aa et seq.), and the International Broadcasting Act of 
     1994 (title III of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 
     1994, Public Law 103-236), including the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio and 
     television transmission and reception, and purchase and 
     installation of necessary equipment for radio and television 
     transmission and reception, $24,809,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                            radio free asia

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Radio Free Asia 
     program as authorized by section 309 of the International 
     Broadcasting Act of 1994 (title III of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-236), $18,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which $8,000,000 is 
     for the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of 
     facilities for radio transmission and reception and purchase 
     and installation of necessary equipment.


                            east-west center

       To enable the Director of the United States Information 
     Agency to provide for carrying out the provisions of the 
     Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East 
     and West Act of 1960 (22 U.S.C. 2054-2057), by grant to the 
     Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East 
     and West in the State of Hawaii, [$20,500,000] $24,500,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be 
     used to pay any salary, or to enter into any contract 
     providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the rate 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376.


                          [north/south center

       [To enable the Director of the United States Information 
     Agency to provide for carrying out the provisions of the 
     North/South Center Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2075), by grant to 
     an educational institution in Florida known as the North/
     South Center, $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.]


                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act, [$33,000,000] 
     $35,000,000, to remain available until expended.


       administrative provision--united states information agency

       (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the United 
     States Information Agency during fiscal year 1995, $1,440,000 
     are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Director of the United States Information Agency 
     shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled 
     among the Agency's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act or 
     provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United 
     States derived by the collection of fees available to the 
     agencies funded by this Act shall be available for obligation 
     or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) 
     creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
     activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for 
     any project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) 
     reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) 
     contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified fifteen days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act or provided 
     from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States 
     derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies 
     funded by this Act shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a 
     reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 per 
     centum, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing 
     programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 per 
     centum funding for any existing program, project, or 
     activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 per centum as 
     approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general savings 
     from a reduction in personnel which would result in a change 
     in existing programs, activities, or projects as approved by 
     Congress, unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses 
     of Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 606. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the construction, repair (other than 
     emergency repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of 
     vessels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration in shipyards located outside of the United 
     States.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used for the construction, repair (other than emergency 
     repair), conversion, or modernization of aircraft for the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in facilities 
     located outside the United States and Canada.
       Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines 
     of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering 
     harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which such funds are made 
     available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
       Sec. 609. None of the funds provided by this Act may be 
     used to approve any export license applications for the 
     launch of United States origin satellites on launch vehicles 
     of the People's Republic of China or Russia unless--
       (1) there exists an agreement between the United States and 
     the People's Republic of China or Russia dealing with 
     commercial launch services, and
       (2) the United States Trade Representative certifies, in 
     this case, that the People's Republic of China or Russia is 
     in full compliance with the terms of that agreement with 
     regard to the respective satellite, components or technology 
     related thereto for which the export license request is 
     pending.
       Titles I through VI of this Act may be cited as the 
     ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

        TITLE VII--FISCAL YEAR 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

       The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, namely:

                               CHAPTER I

                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                     Small Business Administration

                     Disaster Loans Program Account

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Loans Program 
     Account'' for the cost of direct loans for the Northridge 
     earthquake and other disasters and associated administrative 
     expenses, $400,000,000, which shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of this 
     amount, not to exceed $135,000,000 is for administrative 
     expenses of such loans, including not to exceed $2,500,000 
     for the Inspector General of the Small Business 
     Administration for audits and reviews of disaster loans and 
     the disaster loan program, and said sums may be transferred 
     to and merged with appropriations for ``Salaries and 
     expenses'' and ``Office of Inspector General'': Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                     Federal Highway Administration


                          federal-aid highways

       Under the head, ``Federal-Aid Highways, Emergency Relief 
     Program (Highway Trust Fund)'' in title I of Public Law 103-
     211, delete beginning after ``$950,000,000;'' through ``by 
     the President to the Congress, all''.

                               CHAPTER II

                      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

              International Organizations and Conferences


        contributions for international peacekeeping operations

       For an additional amount for ``Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Operations'', $670,000,000 to be 
     available for obligation and expenditure through September 
     30, 1994: Provided, That 50 percent of this amount shall be 
     withheld from obligation and expenditure pursuant to section 
     401(a)(3) of Public Law 103-236 until a certification is made 
     pursuant to section 401(b) of said Act.

               [TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       [Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines 
     of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering 
     harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which such funds are made 
     available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffery 
Goldstein, on detail to our Senate Appropriations Committee from the 
Defense Logistics Agency, be granted privileges of the floor during 
consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this State, Justice, Commerce bill is 
significant in one major degree. This is a crime bill. But let me 
comment overall.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, 
Justice, and State appropriations bill.
  In total, this recommended bill includes $27.8 billion in budget 
authority. Discretionary appropriations total $26.6 billion, which the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates will result in $25.1 billion in 
outlays.
  The bill is $3.9 billion above fiscal year 1994. The Department of 
Justice and the Judiciary account for $3.1 billion, or about 81 
percent, of that increase. The bill is $580.7 million below the 
President's budget request and $610.8 million above the House-passed 
bill. The recommended bill is at our 602(b) allocation in outlays. Any 
increases proposed by my colleagues will require offsets.
  The priority in this bill is law enforcement--State and local 
assistance as well as Federal. We have fully funded $2.4 billion in 
budget authority and $702.6 million in outlays for programs authorized 
in the Senate-passed crime bill. This includes programs like Cops on 
the Beat, boot camps, drug courts, and restoration of the Byrne Formula 
Grant Program to $423 million. And, if the Attorney General so chooses, 
she may allocate some of the Cops on the Beat funding to reimburse 
States for the cost of housing criminal aliens. The committee report 
provides that these funds, however, should not be used for that purpose 
unless and until it is determined by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service [INS] that the foreign born inmates held in these State prisons 
are, in fact, in this country illegally. As the Commissioner of the INS 
confirmed for the committee last month, we know the foreign born count 
held in these prisons, but identifying their legal status could take an 
additional 12 to 24 months.
  For Federal law enforcement, we have provided $350 million above the 
President's budget request to restore critical on-board agent strength 
to the FBI, DEA, U.S. attorneys, and to address unmet court security 
requirements of the U.S. Marshals Service. Also included in the bill is 
a major new immigration initiative.
  We also have included an oceans initiative under the Department of 
Commerce to get the ``O'' back in NOAA. We have recommended increases 
totaling $134.9 million for NOAA programs like Sea Grant, coastal zone 
management, marine sanctuaries, fisheries, and ocean remote sensing. 
Half of America's population lives within 50 miles of the coasts, yet 
the ocean remains largely unexplored and NOAA's ocean and coastal 
programs have yet to meet the potential that was envisioned when we 
created the agency in 1970.
  Now the priority in the bill, as I have stated, is law enforcement. 
There has been much discussion, Mr. President, about a crime bill and 
whether or not one is passed. The fact of the matter is that, 
appropriations-wise, this is it. We have kept in touch with the 
conferees on our crime bill and we have got in lockstep the various 
measures under consideration there as new initiatives already funded. 
This is State and local assistance as well as Federal.
  We fully funded the $2.4 billion authorized in the Senate-passed 
crime bill. This includes the Cops on the Beat Program, at $1.3 
billion; the Bryne Grants Program, at $423 million; the immigration 
initiative, at $299 million; the violence against women, at $86 
million; the drug courts, at $100 million; the boot camps, at $175 
million; the community schools, at $40 million; and the incarceration 
of aliens that came up at the very end after the bill was submitted by 
the President of a request of $350 million without the money. There is 
no better way to say it.
  Some $57 million was suggested as Federal communication spectrum 
fees. We raised the spectrum fees last year over the objection of 
almost everyone, but we finally got it passed to the tune of $95 
million. It would be next to impossible, in a political sense, to get 
any further fees right now.
  And, otherwise, they cut the matter of law enforcement. Now, they cut 
it some $270 million. And I want to outline how we replace that in the 
full amounts. And to avoid confusion, we can call off the list and you 
can see why we call this the crime bill.


                           justice department

  For U.S. attorneys, $857.7 million, which is $43.9 million over 1994. 
We have proposed an increase of $30.6 million over their request, and 
$30.7 million over the House bill to restore 123 assistant U.S. 
attorney positions and support staff base cut and funds $25 million for 
a Violent Crime Task Force Program.
  For U.S. marshals, $402 million, which is $63.2 million over 1994. 
The committee recommends an increase of $38 million over the budget 
request, and $12.9 million over the House bill to address critical, 
unmet court security requirements.
  For the FBI, $2.211 billion, which is $151.8 million over 1994. We 
have provided an increase of $79.4 million over the request, and $32.3 
million more than the House to restore agent strength to the peak 1992 
level [+436 agents] and headquarters lab and attorney positions.
  For DEA, $760 million, which is $38.8 million over 1994. This is an 
increase of $40.5 million over the request, $18.3 million over the 
House. This level restores agent strength to the peak 1992 level, plus 
311 agents, and restores base cuts in domestic enforcement and State 
and local task forces.
  For INS, $2.222 billion, which is $547 million over 1994. This is an 
increase of $126 million over the request and $188 million over the 
House. It fully funds the President's immigration initiative in the 
crime fund, adds a new $100 million construction program, 700 new 
Border Patrol agents, 220 new land border inspectors, and $8.5 million 
for Immigration Emergency Fund.
  Federal prison construction, $243 million, which is $404 million over 
1994. The recommendation of $105 million will expand the capacity of 
the Federal Prison System by 4,160 beds and an additional $30 million 
will address the high priority detention needs of the U.S. Marshals 
Service.
  Mr. President, that is a crime bill. That is authorizing and hoping 
for and talking about. That is appropriating the money to get the job 
done. It is a bipartisan approach.
  And in emphasizing that, I at this point cannot thank the 
distinguished ranking member, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Domenici], enough. He has been outstanding in his cooperation and 
leadership; and John Shank on his staff.
  Of course, Dorothy Seder on our staff, working primarily with the 
prisons but more the overall staff director, Scott Gudes. We worked 
closely with Jim English of our Appropriations Committee, who has been 
very helpful, and, of course, under the leadership of our distinguished 
full committee chairman, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd]. We 
are indebted to them, and the heads of all of these particular 
departments, because Senator Domenici and I went to the departments and 
said, ``Look, time is awasting. We talked last year about crime. We 
talked this year. Now is the time to put up.'' And we have put it up.


                          commerce department

  In total, we have recommended $4.240 billion for Commerce. That is 
$210 million above the House bill and $33 million above the President's 
budget request.
  For NOAA, $1.983 billion, which is $58 million over 1994. This is an 
increase of $171 million over the budget request and $146 million over 
the House. We have not raised fees on fishermen and marine sanctuaries 
as proposed in the budget and the House bill. In addition to enhancing 
ocean and coastal programs, we have continued to modernize the National 
Weather Service to get Nexrad, tornado detecting, and Doppler radars 
deployed in the field.
  For NIST, $878.7 million, which is $358 million over 1994. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $56 million below the budget and $39 
million over the House. We have not funded internal laboratory research 
and construction as high as the budget proposes, but we have increased 
funding for manufacturing technology centers. In total, the bill 
provides $85 million for these centers, an increase of $47 million 
above the request.
  For EDA, $448 million, which is $98 million over 1994. We have 
recommended an increase of $36.7 million above the budget and $77 
million above the House. We have restored the President's request of 
$140 million for Defense conversion which the House proposed to cut. 
The House crowd believes that Defense and Energy layoffs and base 
closures are a California problem and that the Federal Government does 
not have a responsibility to help these communities recover. We do not 
agree. We also have increased funds for public works grants and title 
IX programs to help areas hit by other economic impacts--like the crash 
of the fisheries in New England, or private sector plant closures. And 
we have followed the lead of the Clinton administration and have 
proposed no funding for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
  We also have recommended the following amounts for other bureaus in 
Commerce: $262 million for the International Trade Administration; $105 
million for the National Telecommunications Administration; and $11 
million for Dr. Mary Good and the Technology Administration.


                             the judiciary

  This bill provides the big courts account with an increase of $243 
million, or 9 percent over last year. And, we are also $73 million over 
the House. Savings from their request totaling $60 million have been 
taken to account for revised projections in judicial vacancy rates, a 
reduction in projected court workload, and slippage in delivery of new 
space in 1994. Similarly, the defenders request has been reduced by $40 
million and the fees of jurors request has been reduced by $18 million 
due to downward revisions of projected representations and juror days.


              state department and international programs

  For State operations, $2.173 billion, which is $71 million over 1994. 
We funded the budget request, which is $86 million above the House. I 
am quite concerned about the impact the House bill would have on our 
men and women working overseas in the Foreign Service. They really are 
our front line troops in the post-cold war world. We have provided 
increases over the House for immigration reform--most people focus on 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service when they talk about 
controlling immigration, but the State Department has a major role too. 
We have also increased export assistance to U.S. businesses in 
countries where Commerce is not located. The Foreign and Commercial 
Service is in 70 countries, but everywhere else, it is left to the 
State Department to help American business.

  For State buildings, $422 million which is $12 million over 1994. The 
committee funded the budget request, which is $26 million above the 
House. We have taken out new construction projects, and instead we have 
funded real property maintenance projects and buyouts of uneconomic 
leases which will save funds in the long term. The current backlog of 
maintenance and repair at our embassies overseas is over $413 million. 
We have some real historical treasures overseas, like our facilities in 
Buenos Aires and Florence, that are falling apart because of lack of 
real property maintenance.
  For international peacekeeping, $1.170 billion. Our recommendation is 
$33 million below the budget and the House. We have provided a 
supplemental of $670 million and $500 million in new appropriations in 
fiscal year 1995. We have fully funded annual requirements requested in 
the budget of $222 million, and in total the bill provides $947 million 
for peacekeeping arrearages. That is enough. The past administration 
and this administration are funning peacekeeping like it is an 
entitlement. It is not and they better get a handle on it.
  For international organizations, $873 million. The committee 
recommendation is $41 million below the budget request and the House. 
We have fully funded annual requirements for the United Nations and 
other international organizations, but have not provided $41 million in 
arrearages.
  For Voice of America/Radio Free Europe, $475 million. These programs 
are funded at $1 million below the House. We have struck the 
restrictive language in the House bill that keeps Radio Free Europe 
from moving to Prague. We also have provided $18 million for Radio Free 
Asia to get that service going and get surrogate broadcasting into 
China.
  For TV and Radio Marti, $24.8 million. Our recommendation is $2.8 
million below the budget and $16 million over the House. The House bill 
terminates funding for TV Marti and significantly reduces Radio Marti. 
Now, what happened here is that we agreed in conference with the House 
to task an independent advisory panel to review the effectiveness and 
mission of Radio and TV Marti. The panel came back in March and after 
months of hearings and technical studies unanimously endorsed 
continuation of both services. But the House bill this year ignored the 
panel they themselves requested and proposed significantly cutting 
Radio Marti and shutting down TV Marti. The House apparently does not 
get it. The only problem that TV and Radio Marti have in reaching their 
audience is Fidel Castro's determination to pay any price to keep the 
Cuban people from getting uncensored information. The jamming is a 
reminder of the true nature of the Castro regime. For 40 years we never 
pulled the plug on Radio Free Europe when it was jammed by the Soviets. 
And we are undertaking efforts in this bill to get a new Radio Free 
Asia up and running to get unbiased information to the Chinese and 
North Korean people. This subcommittee is not going to turn its back on 
the Cuban people.


                          independent agencies

  For SBA, $760.3 million which is $107 million above 1994. The bill 
provides $107 million in discretionary appropriations more than 1994, 
which is a 16 percent increase. We are $55 million below the budget and 
$69 million below the House. For business loans we have recommended 
$382 million to guarantee $10.3 billion in credit. Included in that 
number is $65 million for microloans and $30 million for section 503 
refinancing as requested by Senator Bumpers. We have not included any 
tree planting funds or university and economic development earmarks as 
proposed in the House bill. We have assume the same fees as proposed by 
the administration. In addition, the committee has recommended a $400 
million supplemental for SBA disaster loans to deal with the increased 
activity in Los Angeles resulting from the earthquake and floods in the 
southeast.
  For Maritime Administration, $225 million. We have provided the 
Maritime Administration's operations and training account with $78 
million to restore funding for State maritime academies and to fully 
fund the U.S. Maritime Academy. We have also provided $27 million for a 
loan guarantee to build ships in American shipyards. This program was 
part of the defense appropriations bill last year. We have kept 
operational funding for the ready reserve force at $120 million rather 
than provide the large increases requested in the budget, and we have 
proposed rescinding $158 million in unobligated balances proposed for 
the acquisition of foreign ships, which would subsidize foreign 
shipbuilders.
  For the Securities and Exchange Commission, we have provided $58 
million in appropriations, which, when combined with offsetting 
collections, provides the Commission with a total of $305 million in 
budgetary resources. The House bill provides no funding for the SEC and 
would force the Commission to shut down on October 1.
  For the Federal Communications Commission, we have recommended $81 
million in appropriations. When combined with offsetting collections, 
this provides the FCC with $198 million in budgetary resources, or $37 
million more than this year, and $31 million above the House and the 
budget. The budget proposed to wipe out all direct appropriations 
support for the Commission and to fund the Agency with new fees that 
require authorizing legislation. The administration wants to turn that 
``information super highway'' into an ``information toll road''. 
Congress keeps giving the FCC new responsibilities, and we all know 
that the Agency is critically important to fostering the development of 
new communications industries. We need to give the FCC the resources to 
do its job.
  At Chairman Byrd's request, we have included two legislative changes 
pertaining to immigration. The first amends the Foreign Relations Act 
to require the State Department to start taking fingerprints of 
immigrant visa applications to ensure that they do not have State or 
Federal felony convictions in the United States. The State Department 
stopped performing any checks on these people in 1990. The amendment 
will require a fingerprinting test in the 10 countries with the highest 
volume of visa applicants. The bill provides $5 million for the State 
Department to reimburse the FBI for performing these background checks. 
The second amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow 
immigrant visa applicants to adjust their status in the United States 
with the immigration service rather than going overseas and adjusting 
status at an overseas post. This amendment is also supported by 
Senators Kennedy and Simpson, who chair the Immigration Subcommittee on 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, I believe that Chairman Robert Byrd deserves a lot of 
credit for helping many of the initiatives in this bill come about. In 
his allocation of discretionary spending, pursuant to section 602(b) of 
the Budget Act, Chairman Byrd assigned priority to this Commerce, 
Justice, and State bill. I believe that this was because of his 
recognition that over 82 percent of Federal law enforcement spending, 
budget function 750, is under this bill. Chairman Byrd is a strong 
supporter of Federal law enforcement programs, and of efforts to combat 
violent crime and the war on drugs. We have been able to provide for 
the crime bill and many law enforcement initiatives in this bill, 
including improvements in the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
due to his efforts on our behalf.
  I also would like to thank Senator Domenici and his staff director, 
John Shank, for their help in putting together this bill. And, of 
course, I want to recognize our subcommittee majority staff: Scott 
Gudes, Dorothy Seder, Lula Edwards, and Jeff Goldstein.
  Finally, Mr. President, when we took up the Commerce, Justice, and 
State bill last year, I noted the absence of the Appropriations 
Committee staff director, Jim English, who had recently undergone heart 
surgery. Mr. President, I am very pleased to note that Jim is back at 
the committee and at Chairman Byrd's side helping us get this bill, and 
all the appropriations bills through the Senate, to conference with the 
House, and to the President for his signature.
  I yield to my distinguished ranking member who has led the fight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me first say that this is truly a 
bipartisan bill. I heard what Republican Senators were saying about 
fighting crime. Senator Hollings heard what Republican Senators were 
saying. I heard what Democrat Senators were saying, and so did my 
chairman. Essentially, I will repeat a few things he said but do them 
in my way.
  For about a year everybody in the country has been saying the biggest 
issue around is crime. I regret to say we are still talking about a 
crime bill. That is a crime bill that talks about new crimes, it talks 
about three strikes and you are out, it talks about illegal use of 
guns. But more than anything that has happened here in years, this is a 
crime bill.
  When we presented this in the Appropriations Committee, after my good 
friend, the chairman, and I had reviewed it with committee members on 
both sides, we heard not just once but from a number of Senators that 
this is precisely what we ought to be doing with any new money that we 
have in the appropriations process. That is, putting money first to 
improve and enhance the Federal law enforcement capacity--and we will 
go through that in a moment. We did that. So we are not going to have 
an FBI that is less strong next year than it was 3 years ago while we 
are telling the American people we are fighting crime.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are not going to tell the American people we will 
have fewer drug enforcement agents who have become experts and are 
doing a real job. We are not going to tell the American people we will 
have fewer than a year ago who have to do more--and while we are at it, 
we are going to ask the U.S. attorneys to try more people. Whether that 
new crime bill passes or not, they are involved in literally hundreds 
and hundreds of new felonies in their courts. They have to prosecute 
them.
  We are not bringing this bill here to tell the American people we are 
going to have fewer Federal prosecutors next year than 2 years ago. In 
fact, we are very proud to say we are providing more money, new money, 
in excess of $30 million over the House bill in terms of U.S. attorneys 
and substantially more than the President asked for in his budget, 
which on all three of those he had cut rather than increased.
  Having said that, let me suggest that a bill like this does not just 
come out by accident. It comes when a chairman, like Senator Hollings, 
and his staff and the staff that helps this Senator, and this Senator, 
get committed to fight crime.
  So 80 percent of all the new money we have in this bill--if anybody 
wants to go through it, they will say you increased this or that--but 
80 percent goes to fighting crime.
  There are a lot of times when some are not sure that the 
appropriations process, when it allocates money to the various 
subcommittees--many times it is questioned, did the subcommittee get a 
right allocation?
  I think in this case we have to salute the chairman, Senator Byrd, 
and the Appropriations Committee because they, too, in the very initial 
stages said, ``What is the most important subcommittee around to give 
some money to that they did not have last year?'' That is, increase it. 
And they said with an overwhelming, unanimous vote, ``Put it in this 
subcommittee so long as they fight crime with it.'' That is what we are 
doing.
  Frankly, I am very proud of this bill. In fact, I hope Senators come 
to the floor this time, since they have been very quick--and I 
compliment them for it--over the past year to talk about more things to 
help fight crime, and vote aye eventually.
  They might take a look and compliment the Senate for working the will 
of our people. We get a lot of complaints about this appropriations 
process. We ought to be down here today saying they are doing it right.
  Having said that, I kind of summarize this approach this way:
  Mr. President, this bill represents three strikes against crime and 
illegal immigration. But in this case, we have actually hit a home run 
because, as to crime and illegal immigration, we have put those right 
in front, hit them with a bat right in the strike zone and hit home 
runs.
  We are funding to a very, very significant, new, high-level America's 
activities against illegal immigration or, let us put it positively, 
America's efforts to patrol our borders and regularize and put some 
order into immigration so that we restrain the illegality of 
immigration to a maximum extent.
  I believe next to crime itself, the second highest concern of our 
people is why are we unable to control our borders as to illegal 
immigration? We stand forthrightly on this bill and proud of having put 
substantial new money into this American effort.
  So, in summary, on just the crime part, we rejected the 
administration's attempt to cut Federal law enforcement agents. 
Instead, we added $171 million above the President for the FBI, the 
DEA, the U.S. marshals and U.S. attorneys.
  I might say, Mr. President, I am very hopeful that when we go to 
conference with the House that the administration will not send letters 
up saying we have overfunded these or that they want to spend it 
somewhere else. We have gone through all this ``spend it somewhere 
else-itis,'' and we have decided that we are not going to spend it 
somewhere else. We are not going to be telling our States, ``You're not 
funding crime fighting enough.'' And then we come up here and spend 
less than we should on our crime fighting--the FBI, the U.S. courts, 
the DEA agents, and the U.S. marshals.
  Second, we provide $2.4 billion for crime programs authorized in the 
Senate version of the crime bill. Mr. President, they are over in 
conference, the year is drawing to an end, and we are all hopeful they 
will come out with a crime bill. But we took it upon ourselves in this 
bill, since the appropriators had given us extra money to spend--we 
thought they were serious about us funding that crime bill, that new 
so-called crime bill.
  The $2.4 billion is for programs or projects authorized therein. When 
they bring that bill back and everybody says ``Alleluia, we have a new 
crime bill,'' we are very hopeful that they will also be able to say 
and, ``Yes, that Senate Appropriations Committee already funded most of 
the crime prevention activities in it,'' and I think we have.
  Third, Immigration and Naturalization Service, $446 million in 
program increases to both control illegal immigration and to modernize 
the agency. Frankly, I know how Senator Hollings feels--and I agree--
that we do not want to come back here in a couple years and still have 
our Immigration Service saying they do not have the right computers, 
they do not have the ability to take fingerprints, we do not know when 
we are letting illegal aliens in that have felony records. We want them 
to be as modern as the problem, and the problem is a big problem: 
Illegal immigration and immigration in its documentation.
  So we put money into modernization, and we do not want anymore 
excuses 2 years from now, or so, that they do not have this agency 
right up to snuff when it comes to using the best of American 
ingenuity, talent, et cetera.
  In addition, the committee is $3.4 billion in discretionary budget 
authority over 1994, and over $3 billion of this, as I indicated--80 
percent--is committed to either criminal prevention and crime 
prevention that is in the new bill, not yet completed, or for existing 
programs that are crime-fighting programs.
  In addition, a few areas of interest: $54 million for 700 additional 
Border Patrol agents. I am certain that all the Western States and the 
border States would have come down here and asked us for this, but we 
knew that we had to spend money for the right things, and there are 700 
new Border Patrol agents.
  In fact, Mr. President, if they modernize as we expect, they are 
going to release another 240 that are now doing work as agents or part 
of the administration. They will be in the field also, so we will have 
over 940 new Border Patrol agents by the end of next year.
  In addition, we established a fund of $100 million to establish a new 
construction account to replace Border Patrol stations and Border 
Patrol facilities along the Southwest border. We identify a number of 
projects, but we do not earmark. We set up the fund and say we hope the 
money will be used expeditiously to improve certain facilities, and it 
is high time. I want to thank the chairman in particular for taking 
that request of the Southwest that I made, the Southwestern States 
seriously and agreed to that $100 million.
  I am not going to go through the FBI increases, the DEA, the U.S. 
attorneys. The chairman has done that, and I have done it in a general 
way. I only want to say to the Senators who are going to vote soon on 
this bill, we are fully aware that we are asking our Federal law 
enforcement people to do more to help the States and cities and 
counties to go after drug crimes, to go after those who are engaged in 
using firearms in the commission of crimes with more strength and more 
resources, and so we gave them more resources to do it.
  Also, within the programs authorized in the Senate crime bill, the 
subcommittee is recommending $1.3 billion for Cops on the Beat. And I 
will say to the Senate, we put language in that says the Administrator 
has the authority to use Cops-on-the-Beat money to reimburse States for 
incarcerating illegal aliens. Let me repeat. We did not give the 
President the $1.7 billion for Cops on the Beat. We gave him $1.3 
million, but we also said:

       Mr. President, since you have told the public you want very 
     much to help these border States like California, and Texas, 
     and Florida, with the heavy cost of incarcerating illegals, 
     we give you authority to use a portion of the Cops-on-the-
     Beat money, up to $325 million, for that purpose if you think 
     it is important enough.

  Speaking for myself--not for the committee and not for the 
subcommittee--I actually do not believe Cops on the Beat is a very good 
program. I do not believe that I would fund it to $1.3 million, much 
less to $1.7 million the President asked for. I believe it is kind of a 
show-boat program that is not going to accomplish a lot.
  First of all, in 3 years, all those cities are going to have these 
few extra policemen, they are not going to have the money to pay for 
them and will have to let them go. So we made a kind of commitment that 
we will give you extra policemen at our expense for 3 years and that is 
a maybe, because it is appropriated and is not an entitlement.
  I think after we get through all the brush and rhetoric on this, 
cities are going to be helped so little by this that they would have 
much preferred to have direct aid, discretionary in nature to help them 
in whatever way would best suit their crime-fighting needs.
  So I say to the President, ``Use it for Cops on the Beat, but if you 
want, use parts of it to reimburse States like California, and Texas, 
and Florida, and some others.''
  And also I must close on this issue by saying the President in his 
initial budget in order to make room for new programs had zeroed out 
one of the best crime fighting programs we had, the so-called Byrne 
Grant Program.
  Now, it did not take very long, after it was zeroed out, before the 
hue and cry was so fierce that they sent up an amendment and said, 
``Well, let's spend $125 million on Byrne grants,'' which was a 
reduction from $350 million.
  We thought that was good; we thanked them very much, but essentially 
we funded it fully and added a few million dollars more. In fact, we 
added $65 million more than last year.
  Why? Because this is a real program for the local law enforcement 
people. Senators can think, in their own States, how it is used, but I 
can just refresh my own recollection. The DARE Program was funded by 
the Byrne grants. If we had zeroed it out, there would be no DARE 
Programs.
  Now, some would say they could have found the money somewhere else, 
but that is where the DARE Program came from.
  In addition, in our State and others, under the Byrne grants there 
are a number of local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that 
have formed task forces, multijurisdictional enforcement task forces 
that are funded by this program, and they are doing a great job for the 
local communities. Without this money, they would not be able to do it.
  Now, there are many other ways to look at crime fighting, but I just 
want to suggest to the Senators who are not with us but who are going 
to vote that if you want a crime fighting bill, vote for this 
appropriations bill. That is what it is.
  Permit me to make just two other points. First, the State Department. 
I believe there is a certain premise about this bill that deserves 
being expressed in a couple of sentences. We spend a considerable 
amount of money on foreign activities--foreign assistance, foreign 
aid--but frequently we shortchange the embassies of America around the 
world. Well, this subcommittee, supported by the full Committee of 
Appropriations, has established that we want our embassies, which are 
America out there in other countries, to be funded fully, and so we 
gave the full request of the Secretary, I believe, Mr. President, for 
embassy funding around the world.
  I think they are doing a better job all the time in this changing 
world, even in the field of economic activity, spreading of the 
American economic advantages in behalf of American companies in these 
foreign countries. So I do not think we ought to have a foreign aid 
program that is fully funded and have embassies that are half funded. 
So we have fixed that in a very good way.
  Now, I am sure that some will come to the floor, having heard our 
distinguished chairman refer to the United Nations funding that is in 
this bill. We have to do that. We owe this money. If we want to cut 
back on peacekeeping commitments of America--and we have had a foreign 
aid authorizing bill. That was a chance to give the President some 
instructions if we wanted. I think we are getting more concerned as a 
body about the peacekeeping activity that is growing and growing in 
terms of America's involvement without us really knowing how much it is 
going to cost.
  Many think that the United Nations does not take care of its money 
properly, it is not financially audited properly, and so they may ask 
us: Are you giving the United Nations money without any strings 
attached?
  And I would say, by reference in this bill, we have said for the U.N. 
funding there is a 20-percent withholding until they have an inspector 
general, and that is because we referred to the authorization bill, and 
there is a 50 percent withholding of peacekeeping until they have an 
inspector general. Those are both by referring to the authorizing 
legislation. I think that is good.
  We explored that in this bill last year and started that momentum. I 
think we are very, very close to getting the United Nations having some 
kind of an audit system so we know whether they are wasting money or 
using it properly. If they do not do it right, we will be back here 
again--if they do it in some way that is just a charade, just kind of 
putting something on paper.
  So I believe, speaking for an overwhelming number of Senators, these 
withholdings are serious and that they mean setting up a real inspector 
general or we will withhold the money. I hope those who handle the 
money once it leaves here will see to it that these commitments to take 
care of the financial commitments through an inspector general are 
properly done and not in some paperwork mode.
  Last, I thank the chairman for his support under small business for a 
special section of the Small Business Administration which pertains to 
women in business. We did provide $5 million for grants through the 
Office of Women's Business Ownership of the Small Business 
Administration. We provided $2 million for this program in 1994. The 
administration had proposed to virtually terminate this program. We 
took it from 2 to 5. We really believe women in business are being 
helped immensely by this SBA program, and we want to keep it well 
focused and well funded because women are taking a more and more vital 
role in the ownership of business and running businesses in the United 
States, and we want to be helpful.
  Mr. President, H.R. 4603 as reported from the Senate Appropriations 
Committee provides funding for a number of important programs and 
agencies. I would like to describe a few of them.


                   protecting federal law enforcement

  While the administration proposed major increases for certain grant 
programs in its 1995 budget request, there were significant reductions 
proposed for many Federal law enforcement programs. Under the 
administration's budget, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have 
lost 861 positions; the Drug Enforcement Administration would have lost 
93 positions; the U.S. attorneys would have lost 123 positions; the 
Criminal Division would have lost 28 positions; and the FBI and the DEA 
would have lost 102 positions as part of the Organized Crime Drug 
Enforcement account.
  We have rejected efforts by the administration to cut Federal law 
enforcement, and have enhanced funding for these agencies. For 
instance, the FBI and the DEA would each receive sufficient funds to 
attain the peak agent strength year of 1992 that was achieved under the 
Bush administration.
  The FBI would receive an increase of $79.4 million to hire 436 new 
agents; the DEA would receive an increase of $40.5 million to hire 311 
additional agents; the U.S. attorneys would have their positions 
restored and receive $25 million for violent crime task forces; and the 
U.S. marshals would receive an increase of $38.3 million for increased 
law enforcement and courtroom security activities.


        administration position on law enforcement enhancements

  Sadly, the administration does not seem to support our efforts, and 
those of the House, to provide sufficient funds for Federal law 
enforcement. The House has provided funds above the budget request for 
most of these important agencies as well, but has not provided as high 
a level overall as the Senate.
  In a letter dated June 14, 1994, the former Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Leon Panetta, sent a letter to the Congress 
commenting on the House appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, and 
State. He stated his concerns that the House had provided insufficient 
funds for the Maritime Administration and the Legal Services 
Corporation, and that ``both of these programs could be funded. * * * 
if the Committee were to eliminate''--I stress the word ``eliminate''--
``increases of $140 million that the Subcommittee has provided for four 
Department of Justice bureaus.''
  What are those bureaus that should not be receiving enhancements, 
according to the administration? The FBI, the DEA, The Border Patrol, 
and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement.

  Indeed, other than the Border Patrol, each of these important law 
enforcement agencies would receive significant cuts under the 
administration's budget. In other words, the administration is opposing 
both the restoration of cuts they proposed for Federal law enforcement, 
and the enhancements proposed by the House and the Senate for these 
public safety activities.
  This is no way to fight the war on crime, and we have rejected the 
administration's approach.


                      restoration of byrne grants

  As part of his budget for fiscal year 1995, the President originally 
proposed to eliminate funding for the Byrne formula grant program for 
the States. Later, after a storm of protest, the administration 
proposed a partial restoration of $125 million.
  We have rejected efforts to terminate this important program. 
Instead, the committee has restored funding for Byrne formula grants to 
$423 million, an increase of $65 million over the 1994 level.
  This formula grant program is used by the States for a variety of law 
enforcement purposes. Over 950 task forces and drug units have been 
established or expanded throughout the country with these funds.
  In New Mexico during 1993, 11 multijurisdictional law enforcement 
task forces were funded through this program. These task forces 
integrate Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and 
prosecutors in attacking drug crime in the State.
  In addition, New Mexico has used these funds to establish 23 Drug 
Abuse Resistance Education programs, or DARE. In this program, State 
and local police officers are trained to instruct grade school students 
about the dangers of drug abuse.
  New Mexico also uses the funds provided through the grant program to 
help fund a court improvement program; to provide treatment for drug 
offenders; and to enhance prosecution efforts.
  We have not allowed the administration to kill this vital program.
  Funding for Byrne grants can also be used for the prosecution of laws 
related to driving while intoxicated, pursuant to a legislative 
provision in our bill. This provision is identical to legislation that 
I introduced last year along with Congressman Steve Schiff of New 
Mexico.


                 immigration and naturalization service

  The Appropriations Committee has provided an increase in funding of 
$446.1 million for the programs of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. This includes $54.5 million for the hiring of 700 additional 
Border Patrol agents; $55 million for Border Patrol automation and 
technology enhancements resulting in the deployment of 240 additional 
Border Patrol agents; $10 million for 220 additional land border 
inspectors; and additional funds to automate and modernize the INS.
  We've also included funding of $100 million for a new construction 
account of the INS. This account will provide $59.8 million for 
infrastructure improvements for the Border Patrol, including new 
stations and highway checkpoints. In my own State of New Mexico, this 
will result in a new Border Patrol station in Santa Teresa, as well as 
new highway checkpoints in Alamogordo, Las Cruces, and Truth or 
Consequences.
  We've also indicated in the committee report that the INS should 
assign top priority in the assignment of new Border Patrol agents to 
those areas that have experienced an increase in illegal alien 
apprehensions. For instance, the Deming, NM, Border Patrol station has 
had a 50-percent increase in apprehensions this year, primarily due to 
the fact that as Operation Hold the Line in the El Paso area has 
successfully reduced illegal border crossings, they have moved to less 
heavily manned areas of the border.
  The construction account also includes funds for two new service 
processing detention centers along the border. These centers would have 
400 beds each.


                  women's business program of the sba

  This bill also includes $5 million for grants through the Office of 
Women's Business Ownership of the Small Business Administration. We 
provided $2 million for this program in 1994, but the administration 
had proposed to virtually terminate the program at a level of $500,000.
  This program provides grants for centers to train and counsel women 
in the skills necessary to launch their own businesses. In particular, 
the program targets socially and economically disadvantaged women.
  In my own State of New Mexico, the WESST Corp. of Albuquerque has 
received funding through this program and has facilitated the startup 
of 250 small businesses. They have established a long fund that has 
made 52 loans, and they have trained and counseled over 2,700 women.
  I believe this is an important investment using a very small amount 
of Federal funds, and I'm proud the committee has included my 
recommendation to enhance this program.


       securities and exchange commission safeharbor regulations

  The committee report includes report language on safeharbor rules at 
the SEC. I would like to discuss that issue in some detail.
  Our securities regulation system is based upon disclosure--that if 
the investors have all of the pertinent, accurate information they will 
make prudent investment decisions and our capital markets operate 
efficiently and fairly. To that end, the SEC encourages companies to 
disclose information voluntarily beyond the minimum required by the 
federal securities laws.
  Unfortunately, the system isn't working as it should. To quote SEC 
General Counsel Simon Loren, ``because of the litigation risk, 
corporations are refraining from making projections that they otherwise 
would like to make.'' For example, an American Stock Exchange survey 
found that 75 percent of corporate CEO's limit the information 
disclosed to investors out of fear that greater disclosure would lead 
to meritless lawsuits. Similar results were obtained by the National 
Investor Relations Institute, the National Venture Capital Association, 
and Professor Eccles of the Harvard Business School.
  Without complete information, the market price does not reflect the 
true value of a stock. And all investors, especially individual 
investors without the resources to develop their own information, are 
significantly handicapped.
  For almost 20 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission has had a 
policy of encouraging publicly traded companies to make forward-looking 
or predictive statements. Because the future is inherently 
unpredictable, however, the SEC has also, for nearly as long, 
recognized that companies will not voluntarily make forward-looking 
statements unless they are given some degree of protection against 
civil liability arising out of such statements.
  In May, 1994, when the SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt appeared before the 
State, Justice, and Commerce Subcommittee, I asked him to investigate 
administratively revising its safeharbor rule to better achieve its 
purpose. Currently, it provides little incentive for companies to make 
the predictive statements available and it guarantees insufficient 
protection for companies that do. Under the current rules when a 
publicly traded company has a reasonable basis for its forward-looking 
statement and believes that it has the prediction in good faith it may, 
nevertheless, be subject to costly litigation and exposed to enormous 
damages or forced to settle.
  Companies are even being sued for not making public statements. 
Recently, Mesa Airlines, operating in my state, was sued because the 
company's silence was somehow construed by the class action lawyers as 
having, adopted the Wall Street Analysts' predictions. The company 
missed the analysts' earnings projection, the stock price dropped, and 
the company was sued.
  The current safeharbor is too narrow because it generally applies 
only to statements made in documents filed with the SEC or in annual 
reports to shareholders. The safeharbor affords no protection to 
forward-looking statements made in communications with financial 
analysts, to name just one important example.
  I am pleased that the SEC has requested interested parties to present 
alternatives for making the current safeharbor rules more effective. 
The committee report requires the SEC to report their progress in 6 
months.
  Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the major 
issues addressed in this appropriations bill, and I yield the floor.


     statement on the commerce, justice, state appropriations bill

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4603, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill and has 
found that the bill is under its 602(b) budget authority allocation by 
$230 million and under its 602(b) outlay allocation by $1 million.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Hollings, 
and the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, State 
subcommittee, Senator Domenici, on all of their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in 
the Record at the appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4603--FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMERCE,
           JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL          
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                   Bill summary                     authority   Outlays 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                   
    New spending in bill..........................     26,618     18,777
    Outlays from prior years appropriations.......  .........      6,322
    Permanent/advance appropriations..............          0          0
    Supplementals.................................          2        -0 
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary spending............     26,620    25,099 
                                                   =====================
Mandatory totals..................................        527        515
    Bill total....................................     27,147     25,614
    Senate 602(b) allocation......................     27,377    25,615 
                                                   ---------------------
      Difference..................................       -230        -1 
                                                   =====================
Discretionary totals above (+) or below (-):                            
    President's request...........................       -611       -482
    House-passed bill.............................        581        289
    Senate-reported bill..........................  .........  .........
    Senate-passed bill............................  .........  .........
      Defense.....................................         45        282
      International affairs.......................      5,546      5,567
      Domestic discretionary......................     21,030    19,250 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have a couple of motions to make, but 
prior thereto, our distinguished colleague has mentioned the United 
Nations and the matter of the inspector general. We started on this 
years and years back, and I had not had an opportunity to confer with 
Senator Domenici but I only momentarily talked--wondering just exactly 
where we were and wondering about this bill coming up because I have a 
similar concern. And I have just conferred with the Under Secretary of 
State, Richard Moose, who is a professional. He long since had staff 
and ran the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has been in the 
private sector. He has been in more roles of responsibility. We are 
very fortunate to have him over there administering in large measure 
many of these programs.
  On the inspector general, he related how Secretary Christopher and 
Ambassador Albright got on Boutros-Ghali, the distinguished Secretary 
General of the United Nations.
  And finally, Mr. President, on Tuesday they got what we all have been 
asking for. They adopted in formal language the U.N. inspector general. 
Secretary Moose assured me that it has all the features in that motion, 
all the independence for the inspector general. He cannot be removed 
unilaterally and that kind of thing. We have worked with a team from 
McKenzie to make sure it was set out just exactly right. So I think we 
have good news on that particular score.
  With respect to the Department of State, it should be mentioned--and 
perhaps it could be in some of the amendments that may be submitted--
that is our front line of defense. People do not understand. It was 
brought out in one of the amendments proposed in the full 
Appropriations Committee markup of additional people to be assigned to 
a particular locale overseas. Now, this has gotten to be a fever and a 
virus and what happens here. I mentioned it down in Venezuela. I had 
recently talked to the Ambassador down there, Jeffrey Davidow.
  He was telling me how he had nine State Department officials to 
administer some 141 others from the various departments. I know. I have 
the FAA authorization. And I had to agree with the Ambassador. There is 
no reason for an FAA assignee to be sent down to Caracas. He could do 
his work, and he had been doing it effectively, there in Miami.
  Similarly, with many of the other departments, I could mention them. 
But that is a pretty good practice, if you want to have the top 
personnel travel. The Department of State still has to house them and 
administer them. They get a little bit of compensation back from the 
State Department attache and the Agriculture attache. But it does not 
go free of cost. We still have to pay in this particular budget.
  There should be a better understanding of this particular problem. I 
understand that the Department of State in these various roles is 
working around the clock and at a tremendous disadvantage with the 
devaluation of the dollar because, even with the local employee, they 
are catching a bit trying to make their budgets fit. We are trying to 
be sensitive to that, Senator Domenici, in this particular regard.
  Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests, one with 
respect to technical amendments that have been cleared on both sides, 
and then one with respect to the committee amendments with some five 
exceptions.


                           Amendment No. 2341

          (Purpose: To make technical corrections to the bill)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. So let me first send to the desk the technical 
amendments on pages 5, 16, 34, 43 and 102 to correct certain printing 
and drafting corrections which have been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2341.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 5, line 2, strike ``provisions'' through the period 
     at the end of line 21 and insert: ``provisions of subpart 1 
     of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for grants to States under 
     the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Programs.
       ``In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, and other assistance authorized by section 106(b) 
     of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public 
     Law 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536), $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to upgrade criminal history 
     records.''
       On page 16, on line 13, after ``$51,695,000'' insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That any fees received in 
     excess of $33,460,000 collected during fiscal year 1995 shall 
     be available until expended''.
       On page 34, on line 15 after ``1995'' strike ``and 
     thereafter''.
       On page 43, on line 15 after ``$65,468,000'' insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That any fees received in 
     excess of $33,460,000 collected during fiscal year 1995 shall 
     be available until expended''.
       On page 102, on line 8 after ``from'' insert the following: 
     ``a child under the age of seventeen, or''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the adoption 
of these technical amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from South Carolina.
  The amendment (No. 2341) was agreed to.


        Committee Amendments, With Exceptions, Agreed to En Bloc

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments to H.R. 4603 be considered and agreed to en bloc, 
with the exception of amendments appearing on page 50, lines 6 through 
7; page 85, line 5 through line 23; page 94, line 2 through line 7; 
page 96, line 14; page 99, line 9 through line 23 on page 103; 
provided, that no points of order are waived thereon, and that the 
measures, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of 
further amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the amendments are 
agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we want to talk for just one second 
about the urgency, and ask for the cooperation of colleagues.
  I have here a letter from the U.S. Small Business Administration. It 
is from Administrator Erskine Bowles.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Small Business Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest Hollings,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the 
         Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the Small 
     Business Administration's (SBA) request for supplemental 
     funds for disaster assistance loans and program 
     administration. The Administration submitted a request to the 
     Congress for supplemental disaster funds to enable SBA to 
     meet the continuing needs of victims of the Northridge, 
     California earthquake. This natural disaster has greatly 
     exceeded all original projections of the number of loans and 
     the level of administrative support required.
       The House has attached that supplemental request to its FY 
     1995 Appropriations Bill, H.R. 4603 and, the Senate is in 
     agreement with the House. Since both the House and the Senate 
     appear to be in agreement to include $400 million for SBA's 
     disaster assistance program, I am requesting any action you 
     can take to help expedite the FY 1995 Appropriations Bill.
       We are now at a critical point in meeting the needs of 
     these disaster victims. We need to be able to assure 
     continued funding of the program or we will have to begin 
     planning to reduce and eventually cease disaster assistance 
     for the remainder of FY 1994. The recent flooding in Georgia, 
     Alabama, and Florida has created an additional demand on the 
     program, and we now project that disaster loan funds will be 
     completely exhausted by mid-August.
       I would be happy to discuss the urgency of this request at 
     your convenience, or provide additional information to assist 
     in your deliberations.
           Sincerely,
                                                Erskine B. Bowles,
                                                    Administrator.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, two things: One, the most important, of 
course, is: ``We are now at a critical point,'' says Administrator 
Bowles, ``in meeting the needs of these disaster victims.''
  He talks in the early part of the letter about how we provide it. But 
he says:

       We are now at a critical point in meeting the needs of 
     these disaster victims. We need to be able to assure 
     continued funding of the program or we will have to begin 
     planning to reduce and eventually cease disaster assistance 
     for the remainder of FY 1994. The recent flooding in Georgia, 
     Alabama, and Florida has created an additional demand on the 
     program, and we now project that disaster loan funds will be 
     completely exhausted by mid-August.

  That is by Erskine Bowles, who, incidentally, is an outstanding 
administrator. I have been through a dozen of them. He is really--I use 
the word ``professional'' again, but there is no better word. He has 
been in the loan business and the banking business. He understands it 
way better than anybody here in the Congress. And it is real.
  I will momentarily yield.
  The distinguished Senators from Georgia, Senators Nunn and Coverdell, 
of course, were anxious. I think we may shortly have an amendment. But 
I think this takes care of the colloquy, because there is a serious 
concern there that we move.
  But you can see that unless we move this bill, which we have to get 
to conference and get the conference report back before early August, 
they will run out of money. And then we will all be home, and everybody 
will be talking about, ``Yes, Washington has gone off on a vacation 
talking about how they are going to help and help, and they did not 
attend to their business before they left town.''
  So at least the five amendments that were recently accepted, I hope 
the sponsors of those amendments will please come to the floor. We are 
ready to receive them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, I was unaware of the letter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We just got it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like a copy for my record.
  Mr. President, let me say that I hope the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia presented amendments to take care of this problem.
  As I understand it, we appropriated for the SBA for emergency loans 
for the earthquake disaster $400 million, which triggered and permits 
about $1.8 billion. All of this, the $400 million is not within the 
caps under the Budget Act because it is emergency money. The President 
asks for it as an emergency. We send it to him as an emergency. 
Frankly, I think it fits the definition anyway you look at the 
definition of emergency under the Budget Act. It fits. For those who 
wonder whether it all goes to emergency or whether it can be used for 
SBA normal purposes, by definition these are emergency SBA loans, 
guarantees, and otherwise.
  So whatever the reasonable amount is--and hopefully our friends from 
Georgia will come down here and discuss it with us--speaking for this 
Senator and, I am sure, for this side, we are going to be supportive of 
this and anxiously await presentation of the amendment.
  I note the Senator from Texas is on the floor. I assume that he has 
an amendment.
  I wonder if I could take 1 minute before the Senator from Texas 
proceeds.
  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I thought I might, since both 
the chairman and myself have been talking about crime money in this 
bill, just recap for one moment the money in this bill that is for 
local law enforcement.
  There is $423 million for the Byrne grants. That all goes to local 
communities, and it is a $65 million increase. The President originally 
thought we did not need this. I think it is urgent and very good in 
terms of our helping our cities, counties, and States; $100 million for 
drug enforcement. Clearly, our States are asking that we provide some 
resources to help them alleviate caseload, and this is going to do 
that; $86 million for Violence Against Women Act grants, and that is 
State and local; $40 million for the Community Schools Program. That is 
one of the prevention programs that was adopted in the Senate crime 
bill that passed. This gets us started using public property, 
particularly our schools, as a community--communities at large using 
that for after-school and weekend activities for our young people. And 
there is $175 million for State and regional prisons, including boot 
camps; and, yes, $100 million in grants to States to implement the 
Brady law.
  So I think, even though we have beefed up our Federal crime 
prevention activities, we have shown a significant concern for local 
areas where the fights are really in the trenches and right there on 
the streets and byways by this additional amount of resources for them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, since publishing the Committee Report 
103-309, accompanying H.R. 4603, we have found several errors. This 
statement is intended to correct these sections of the report as 
follows:
  First, on page 52, regarding the Federal Communications Commission 
and Low Earth Orbit Technology, the adoption of the report and order in 
this docket should be October 15, 1994, rather than October 1, 1994, as 
currently appears in the report;
  Second, on page 52, regarding Federal Communications Commission 
prohibitions, the section of the Code of Federal Regulations cited 
should be 73.3555(d) as appears in the bill rather than 73.3555(c) as 
currently appears in the report;
  Third, on page 59, in the table regarding NIST extramural research, 
the President's budget request for manufacturing extension centers 
should be $38,065,000, not $37,105,000 as currently appears in the 
report, and the total for the budget request for the entire account 
should be $518,960,000 not $518,000,000 as currently appears in the 
report.
  Fourth, on page 78, regarding NOAA construction, the report should 
note that the Committee has recommended including House bill language 
regarding meteorological sciences at Florida State University and 
weather service property at Clovis, CA; it has not been proposed for 
deletion as is currently noted in the report;
  Fifth, on page 122, regarding the Department of State immigration 
initiative/controlling borders, the report should read ``while the 
Department of State's role has been overlooked'' rather than ``which 
the Department of State's role has been overlooked'' as currently 
appears in the report.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that there are 
amendments pending.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The first committee amendment is set aside.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
to the committee amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


     Amendment No. 2342 to excepted committee amendment on page 85

    (Purpose: To prohibit the Legal Services Corporation from using 
              taxpayer funds to undermine welfare reform)

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

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2342.

  Mr. GRAMM. 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:

       In the Committee amendment beginning on page 85, line 5; 
     after the word ``$400,000,000;'', insert the following:
       Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     made available by the Legal Services Corporation may be made 
     directly or indirectly available to any grantee to file or 
     maintain in any Federal or State court any action that would 
     have the effect of nullifying any provision of Federal or 
     State law which seeks to reform welfare;''.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this is a very, very simple amendment. The 
amendment says:

       None of the funds appropriated in this act made available 
     to the Legal Services Corporation may be made directly or 
     indirectly available to any grantee to file or maintain in 
     any Federal or State court any action that would have the 
     effect of nullifying any provision of State or Federal law 
     which seeks to reform welfare.

  Mr. President, basically, let me outline a case I am trying to deal 
with and talk about what I perceive to be the philosophical issue 
involved here, talk about the nature of the suit that this amendment is 
directed at, and then I will yield the floor and, hopefully, this can 
be a very short debate.
  There has always been a debate about what Legal Services is trying to 
do. As I look at the statute and listen to many of its proponents, the 
argument is made that the Legal Services Corporation is supposed to 
provide funding for poor people to carry out their legal functions 
related to their everyday life, principally in areas related to 
contracts, dealings with landlords, and their interpersonal 
relationships that ultimately end up in court, such as divorce.
  We have always had a very difficult time differentiating between 
those functions and the Legal Services Corporation being engaged in 
promoting a political agenda at taxpayers' expense. I want to make it 
very clear, Mr. President, that if somebody wants to file a lawsuit 
opposing welfare reform, this is a free country and they ought to have 
a right to do it. What my amendment says is that you cannot do it with 
taxpayer funding under Legal Services.
  Here are the facts: On December 1, 1993, five federally funded legal 
services organizations sued the U.S. Government and the New Jersey 
Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court of 
New Jersey, trying to overturn New Jersey's welfare reform program. 
Basically, what I am trying to do is, beginning in October when this 
new funding goes into effect, I want to deny funding for that purpose 
and for any similar lawsuit.
  Basically, this New Jersey law, which is called the Family 
Development Act, does something that the President has proposed for 
welfare reform in America that many Members of both the House and the 
Senate favor. And that is New Jersey's Family Development Act, which 
was passed in 1992, contains a provision that denies increased AFDC 
welfare benefits for a child that was conceived while the mother was on 
welfare. It does not deny payment for existing children or children 
conceived prior to this welfare bill passing in New Jersey. But what 
the New Jersey law says is that, on a prospective basis, if a child is 
conceived while the mother is on welfare--and certainly any person has 
a right in America to conceive a child if they choose to do it; it is a 
free country--what the New Jersey law said was that we are not going to 
give you more welfare for doing it. They are not proposing taking away 
welfare benefits, but they are saying we are not going to continue to 
subsidize the birth of children under the welfare law.
  This is very important, Mr. President, because Arkansas, California, 
Georgia, and Wisconsin have all gotten waivers from the Federal 
Government so that they can engage in exactly this kind of activity.
  So what I am trying to do is basically say this: If somebody wants to 
go out and file a lawsuit against New Jersey, or if somebody wants to 
file a lawsuit against the Federal Government saying you cannot reform 
welfare, you cannot in welfare make people go to work, you cannot in 
welfare refuse to give additional subsidies in rewarding people for 
having additional children; they have every right to do that. It is a 
free country, and they have every right to do it. What I am saying in 
this amendment is that I am trying to prevent them from taking the 
taxpayers' money to fund their effort to basically circumvent the will 
of the American people, which has been manifested in a welfare reform 
law in New Jersey and which, if we do get to welfare in the Congress--
and I hope we will--it will become the national law of the land.
  It can make no sense, Mr. President, for the American people to want 
to reform welfare and for us to be taking tax money from those same 
people and have that tax money be used to try to overturn the very laws 
that they want to see adopted.
  I could go into the arguments made in these lawsuits. They argued 
that the law is arbitrary and capricious. They argued that the law is 
tantamount to compulsory family planning. They argued that to set work 
requirements and to refuse to give additional benefits for additional 
children makes welfare recipients unwilling human subjects in a 
research experiment.
  Well, Mr. President, I personally believe all these arguments are 
ridiculous. But the point is, if they want to file this lawsuit, let 
them do it, but let them do it with their money. I personally believe 
that unless we stop these kinds of lawsuits, we are going to totally 
undermine the public's support for the Legal Services Corporation. I 
have to admit that we have pretty well, based on what I have seen the 
Legal Services Corporation do, had the effect of undermining my support 
for Legal Services. But I believe this is exactly the kind of thing 
that the American public finds very distasteful.
  What I am trying to do is to focus Legal Services on the function 
which the American people perceived it was carrying out, which is 
helping poor people by providing them the ability to have the legal 
services they need in carrying out their everyday life. But funding 
lawsuits to try to overturn welfare reform in the State of New Jersey 
is not what the public had in mind with Legal Services. It is something 
that I am adamantly opposed to. When we now have States like Arkansas, 
California, Georgia, and Wisconsin that are trying to do the same 
thing, I think it is important that we not allow the taxpayers' money 
to be squandered in trying to fight the will of the taxpayers.
  I remind my colleagues, in closing, that we are going to pass a very 
similar law--it seems to me, if I listen to the President, if I listen 
to my Republican colleagues and listen to my Democratic colleagues--and 
we are going to have a mandatory work requirement. I think the 
probabilities are very high at the Federal level that we are going to 
set some limits on the ability of people to acquire more welfare 
benefits by having more children. And when we are trying to do this, in 
promoting the public interest, it cannot be wisdom to fund groups who 
promote a political agenda that is against the will of the vast 
majority of the people, at the expense of the people who do the work, 
pay the taxes, and pull the wagon in America.
  So I submit this amendment. I am very hopeful it will be adopted. I 
hope it will become the law of the land.
  I am sure there are many supporters of the Legal Services Corporation 
who will oppose it, but I personally believe that amendments like this 
will guarantee that the Legal Services Corporation gets more funding in 
the future than it would have gotten if amendments like this end up 
being rejected.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me ask the distinguished Senator 
from Texas with respect to his amendment by way of what I have in my 
own mind. But let me see what the Senator had in his mind when he said 
``or indirectly available.'' What is the occurrence of moneys of the 
Legal Services Corporation becoming indirectly available of these 
moneys we appropriate?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me give you an example. Let us say that 
you had this facility--well, I better not.
  What I am saying is this: If the Legal Services Corporation grants 
one of these entities money that entity receiving the money cannot take 
any money it has and go out and file this suit, because the problem you 
run into is that these entities are funded in two ways, both by the 
taxpayer and by gifts.
  So what you end up with is sort of like you have this facility, and 
they say, ``Well, we do not sell alcohol here,'' and then you have this 
room in the back that is rented out to someone else and they are 
selling whiskey in there. They say, ``Well, wait a minute that is their 
room in the back but up here in the front we are not doing it.''
  All I am saying is that in that analogy I do not want the whiskey in 
the house. If the taxpayer is going to provide assistance one of the 
things they have to decide if they want this taxpayer funding is that 
they are not going to engage in this type of activity, and this is very 
narrowly defined, of filing lawsuits in State and Federal courts to 
oppose welfare reform.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished colleague.
  Mr. President, if there is any opposition to this amendment, I hope 
momentarily they will hasten to the floor, because I know the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico looks with favor on the 
amendment.
  As reluctant as I am to look with favor on the amendment coming from 
the Senator from Texas--and the distinguished Senator from Texas came 
to South Carolina 6 times and said they ought to get rid of me year 
before last, and I sort of hesitated agreeing with him on anything--I 
have to agree with him on this.
  I just listened. You have the Hawaii plan. Let us say they have small 
business mandates in Hawaii. Should they go to legal services and sue 
the State of Hawaii because they do not like their health plan? You 
have Oregon with a plan. The States are now trying to get exemptions 
for the payment of Medicaid to cut back on the expenses of Medicaid, 
and incidentally they are working and have gotten waivers from the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
  So in that light, you are back to the States being the incubator of 
the Federal policy in testing various policies to see their 
workability, their effectiveness and the economy thereof.
  The Federal system really calls for it. As to the legal services, I 
was here, and we had a difficult time under President Nixon because at 
that particular time when we first started they were paying the legal 
services to everybody who would stand on the steps outside and tell us 
what a bunch of murderers and killers we were in here in the Senate, 
and we certainly were not going to have the stupidity of financing 
folks to come up and tell us how stupid we were or how we were 
murderers.
  So getting right to the point, the distinguished Senator says that 
any Federal or State court action would nullify any Federal or State 
law. If you want to nullify the Federal law or State law, the entity is 
here, the national Congress or the State legislature, and let us do it 
at that particular level. But let us not finance lawyers to get into 
that.
  We have enough demand on legal services and we restricted it at that 
time. I remember Senator Javits was the leader in the initiative. And 
we had to finally put restrictions, because I served on this 
subcommittee for years, and we had restricted to landlord and tenant 
cases, employment cases, domestic cases and a few of them, and now we 
are into consumer cases, income maintenance, housing, family law, 
health and employment, individual rights, juveniles, education. That is 
all for the individuals.
  But if we do not like a law, there is enough money being spent by the 
taxpayers now to attack the law in the regular normal course of events 
through the legislatures, through the Congress, and various other 
lawyers that maybe feel like they have been prejudiced by it.
  So I think it is a valid and a good amendment, and I think the 
distinguished Senator from Texas is correct. I am ready to accept the 
amendment, and maybe this is the way to test Members coming to the 
floor because if you accept it, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, 
we will have accepted it in the next few minutes and maybe later on 
they will hasten to the Chamber and they cannot come and complain.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I summarize my position in this way: I 
cannot conceive that the board of directors, the chairman of the board, 
and the current President of the Legal Services Corporation knew that 
the money was being spent this way. Together, they set the policy, and 
I believe they should welcome this amendment.
  Frankly, it is very narrowly drafted, as the distinguished Senator 
from Texas said. We are not engaged here tonight in a big philosophical 
debate about how to use legal aid money. What we do know is there are 
plenty of deserving legal aid cases that go unfunded. And we have in 
the State of New Jersey, a case of taxpayer's money being used to 
challenge the very law proposed by the legislature and the Governor. 
And frankly, I just think it is not a very prudent thing for groups 
funded by the Legal Services Corporation to do. It is not very wise.
  I would hope that the national board that governs LSC would already 
be on notice from the hearings we held and the presentation the Senator 
from Texas made in committee. I would hope that my sensitivity about 
this is right, and that the LSC board have already set in motion some 
procedure to inhibit the use of LSC money for this case anyway, even if 
we did not consider this amendment tonight. But I think it sends an 
appropriate signal, and I have no objection, and nobody has advised me 
to object for anyone on this side. If there is a Republican Senator who 
wants me to object, I have not heard from them. I have no objection to 
accepting the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would like a rollcall vote on this, but I 
do not see any need to do it now. What I would like to do is to offer 
to see if I could get the vote ordered and then let it occur after the 
next vote, and then in the interim if someone who did not know about 
the amendment wanted to come over and say something about it, it would 
give them an opportunity to do it, and if my trusty staff member 
believes it merits a response, I can come back. But I do not want, 
since the bill is now moving, and it is not my objective to try to have 
a vote at this moment.
  So what I would like to do is ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
this amendment occur immediately after the next vote that is ordered 
unless Senators would like to move things along by having a vote now. I 
am just trying to accommodate Senators.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join in the request. I am just 
notified that one of our distinguished colleagues is momentarily at the 
White House and is on the way, I think, returning. But let us set it 
aside and see if there is something else.
  Does the Senator from Alabama want to talk on this amendment?
  Mr. SHELBY. Not on this amendment. I have an amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. All right.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, may I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the Senator's 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question on the Gramm amendment No. 2342 to the committee 
amendment on page 85, line 5, will occur under the provisions of the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was going to ask about second-degree amendments, but 
I am mistaken. This is a second-degree amendment, so it is not 
amendable.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, to clarify an understanding on the 
parliamentary procedure. It could be that someone would want to move to 
table. Could you say ``on or in relation'' to your amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. I have no objection.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask that the request be modified accordingly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Chair would note for the benefit of anyone who may be 
contemplating offering business here that the pending question is the 
committee amendment on page 85, line 5.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand our distinguished colleague 
from Minnesota wishes to be heard on the Gramm amendment. We appreciate 
his promptness in coming to the floor so it can be debated.
  Let me yield the floor to the distinguished Senator. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  First of all, Mr. President, I want to give just a little bit of 
context. And I would like to say to my colleagues that these remarks 
will be basically, with the exception of these charts, off the top of 
my head, because I really just now realized this amendment would be on 
the floor.
  But just a little bit of background on welfare, since I think this 
amendment has a lot to do with cultural stereotyping and, I believe, 
bashing of welfare recipients, and I will get to that in a moment.
  There is so much mythology, Mr. President. The reason I start out 
with these charts is to give this discussion about this amendment a 
little bit of context. Unfortunately, when we constantly hear about all 
of the money that is spent on welfare, and all of the women that could 
be working, and all the cheaters that are on the rolls, and all the 
rest of it, welfare mothers do not exactly have the resources to buy 
ads on ABC, CBS, and NBC and fight some of these stereotypes.
  Mr. President, actually when we talk about welfare, we talk about 
three categories. We talk the supplementary, the SSI program. And we 
are now talking about two categories which combine aid for those people 
who are older and low income with those people with disabilities. Then 
we talk about the Aid to Families with Dependent Children. That is the 
program that has generated all of the controversy, the AFDC program.
  Since 1985, AFDC spending for benefits and administration has been 
less than 1 percent of all Federal outlays.
  In 1970, Mr. President, it was 1.40 percent and now it is less than 1 
percent of all Federal outlays.
  Source: 1993 Green Book, House Ways and Means Committee.
  So the argument is,

       We really need to get serious in cutting back on all these 
     welfare expenditures. That is really what has caused the 
     deficit. That is what has run up the annual deficits. That is 
     the reason we have problems in the economy.

  These are the facts.
  The second chart. Average Monthly Benefits Per Family in 1992 
Dollars. Mr. President, from 1970 to 1992, the value of AFDC benefits 
fell 45 percent.
  Let me repeat that, since this amendment seems to be the beginning of 
the debate about welfare reform and since we are going to be talking 
about whether or not welfare recipients are able to have some 
representation vis-a-vis Legal Services, and since sometimes I do not 
think they have very good representation in the Senate.
  Let me make sure that colleagues understand this. I am quite willing 
to debate this point with anybody on the floor.
  From 1970 to 1992, the value of AFDC benefits fell 45 percent. 
Average monthly benefits per family in 1992 dollars, $388. Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children--that is almost always families with 
one parent, almost always a woman and her children--average monthly 
benefits, $388.
  The argument is, ``Oh, we have to do something about these welfare 
expenditures. They are way to high. We have to cut back on the 
benefits.''
  This is below the official definition of poverty. There is not one 
State in the United States of America that has welfare benefits even up 
to what we define the poverty level income.
  So, on the one hand, we have a definition of poverty: What amount of 
income does it take a family to purchase a minimum amount of goods and 
services? And then, with welfare benefits, we do not even provide the 
benefit of what we say you need to purchase the minimum amount of goods 
and services.
  I say to the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from 
Alabama, you figure out what you need to live on for a month for a 
family--$388 average monthly benefit per family.
  Total number of AFDC recipients from 1970 to 1993, adults and 
children. The number of AFDC recipients as percent of population: 1970, 
4.1 percent; 1993, 4.9 percent.
  You would think, from all this discussion that we have heard, there 
would be an explosion of welfare recipients as a percentage of 
population, as a percentage of the Federal expenditures, or that we 
have seen huge increases in benefits of AFDC families. None of this is 
true. Let me repeat it again. None of this is true. Source: Green Book 
Overview of Entitlement Programs, House Ways and Means Committee.
  Percent of poor children who are on AFDC: In 1970, it was 59 percent; 
1975, up to 72 percent. In 1992, 63 percent of the poor children in the 
United States of America are on AFDC. The AFDC program is not even that 
comprehensive that it provides for all the poor children in this 
country. One would think, from some of the discussion that we have had, 
that we are spending huge amounts of money on welfare recipients and 
all we need to do is drive the cheaters off the rolls and the slackers 
back to work and we would have our economy doing fine and no one would 
have to pay the taxes they pay.
  But, as a matter of fact, these women and these children constitute 
the tiniest percentage of our Federal expenditure. But, Mr. President, 
are they a convenient scapegoat. Do you want to know why? Because they 
do not have the economic or political clout. No better group of people 
to make the scapegoats, which is what I think this amendment is about.
  Finally, just in case some of my colleagues would say, ``Well, Paul, 
you talked about the monthly benefits, but what if you figure in food 
stamps?''
  AFDC and food stamps, as percent of the poverty line for a family of 
three, 1970 to 1993. Actually in 1970, it was 73 percent and then in 
1985, it was 83 percent. In 1993, 67 percent. If you take the AFDC 
average monthly benefit in our country and add food stamps, it does not 
even add up to 67 percent of what we, by definition, have said a family 
needs to purchase a minimum amount of goods and services.
  Now I go to this amendment which, as I understand it, is an amendment 
to prevent Legal Services from representing people with regard to 
welfare reform issues.
  Mr. President, why would it be that welfare recipients--who, by the 
way are mostly women and children--why would it be that we would want 
to argue, whatever our political party affiliation, that they should be 
denied representation? I mean, the reason we decided that there was a 
place for Legal Services in our country is we made a decision--and I 
think there is bipartisan support for this--that poor people, since 
they do not have the economic resources, and since all too often they 
come out on the short end of some of the decisions that we make, since 
they are not exactly well represented always in legislative bodies--
should have access to due process; access to our courts. And we know if 
people have a lot of money they can buy legal talent. They can get the 
best lawyers to represent them. So Legal Services was a wonderful idea. 
It has had bipartisan support.
  Welfare recipients, those mothers and those families, they are poor 
people, low-income people. To say that they are not entitled to legal 
representation strikes me as being unconscionable.
  Yes, it is true that Legal Services lawyers will, from time to time, 
challenge some of the decisions that are made in legislative bodies, be 
those decisions at the State level or the Federal level. But that is 
why we voted for Legal Services in the first place. I cannot believe 
that this amendment is on the floor and I certainly hope my colleagues 
will vote against it.
  I did not hear all of the discussion from the Senator from Texas and 
I would be pleased, certainly, to engage in any kind of debate he 
wants. But I take it his argument was that we represent people 
individually but there is no place to challenge a State law or any kind 
of welfare reform law. I would say to my friends that it is those laws 
that have dramatic consequences on the lives of women and children all 
across the country. Do we really want to say, through this amendment, 
that these women and these children are not going to have Legal 
Services representation? I hope we pass good welfare reform. But what 
if we pass welfare reform legislation which is called reform which is 
punitive? What if it has harmful consequences on children? Are we going 
to deny mothers and children the right to Legal Services 
representation? Because they certainly are not going to have the 
ability to go out and purchase high-priced lawyers to represent them.
  Mr. President, I feel strongly about this amendment because much of 
my past experience, before I was in the U.S. Senate, was as a college 
teacher but also I did a lot of community organizing and did a lot of 
work with low-income people, both rural and urban. I can just tell you 
that I am horrified--and that is the correct word--I am horrified about 
some of the stereotypes of these women and children.
  Some people think that you have families of 8 or 9 children. By the 
way, I think large families are wonderful for those people who make 
those decisions. I would not speak against a large family for any 
reason in the world. It just so happens that the typical welfare family 
I think is two children--two children. You would think that these women 
do not want to work: 75 percent of the welfare mothers in this country 
within 2 years go to work. Do you know what then happens, I say to my 
colleagues? Many of them go back to welfare. Do you know why? Because 
the combination of not being able to afford child care, and jobs that 
do not pay high enough wages, and then the health care costs that they 
now incur that they did not incur with Medicare, make them worse off.
  I say to my colleagues, sometimes legislative bodies--and we have had 
a history of this--have passed welfare laws that have been punitive, 
that have essentially been a violation of the 14th amendment: Equal 
protection under the law. When that happens--and I certainly hope it 
will not happen--but if it does happen, we do not want to deny a group 
of citizens the right to have lawyers representing them. And for these 
women and these children, Legal Services lawyers are the only lawyers 
that are going to be able to represent them because they sure are not 
going to be in a position to hire the kind of lawyers that people with 
the economic means can hire.
  This amendment is mistaken. This amendment in and of itself is 
punitive. This amendment undercuts the very reason we have such 
bipartisan support for Legal Services in our Nation. I hope my 
colleagues will not support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
Senator from Minnesota. What happened is not about welfare recipients. 
It is about the State of New Jersey. The State of New Jersey has passed 
a welfare reform plan. You may agree or disagree. I may agree or 
disagree. But it certainly was formally presented, debated, and 
everything else. I am sure they have people in New Jersey who feel just 
as strongly as the Senator does about the general welfare problem, the 
stereotyping, and what have you.
  I have been in this field as long as any and worked in it and 
instituted Women, Infants, and Children's feeding. So I feel with the 
strength you feel, relative to the stereotyping of the welfare 
recipient and the poor who need help.
  But I do not know of anything better to really cut off help to them 
than the Senator's approach. We have struggled with Legal Services in 
administrations here, now, for the past, 12, 13 years. They have put in 
less money and less money. This Senator, as chairman of this 
subcommittee, has put in more money than recommended by any 
administration I know for the past 13 years.
  The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Warren Rudman, 
worked in it very strongly. And surprising to many, in a critical year 
in the early 1980's when we really were in trouble, the program was 
saved by a wonderful conservative Supreme Court Justice, Justice 
Powell. Lewis Powell came over from Richmond, Virginia. It so happened 
that Legal Services was started by the American Bar Association when he 
was the chairman and head of it--head of the whole effort.
  You are talking about stereotyping. You know we were bleeding hearts 
and just looking for things and everything else, but here we had this 
most respected jurist and most credible individual to come forward. He 
changed the atmosphere in the subcommittee markup. I will never forget 
it. I had just said, ``We are going to have a hard time saving it.''
  So I have been in the struggles and I know the problem of saving 
Legal Services. Yes, there is a feeling that poor folks should have 
representation. At the present time we have the Legal Services 
breakdown, how they receive it, in the field of consumerism, income 
maintenance, housing, family law, employment, individual rights, 
juvenile cases, education cases, and otherwise. And that is a pretty 
good breakdown for the individuals.
  But when it comes to a formal assault on an act of a State or the 
Federal Government--let us assume, for example, we pass this particular 
appropriations bill and the President signs it into law. Let us say 
that Legal Services in the Senator's backyard or my backyard does not 
like the amount of money that they got. So what they do is use their 
legal talent and moneys of the taxpayers to sue the United States of 
America over the State, Justice, Commerce Department appropriation.
  If that is the road we are going to start down, I can tell the 
Senator, if we start down that, not those pertaining individually, we 
are going to have welfare reform and we are going to discuss the 
individual welfare recipient--but I am talking about the State of New 
Jersey. They have the right, title and interest to pass their own laws, 
their own health reform laws, in this instance the welfare reform laws.
  Whether I agree with it or not, I do not think that we are going to 
have a legal services program if we are going to authorize the Legal 
Services lawyer entities to start suing the different States on behalf 
of individuals with respect to the particular benefits.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. In fact, I am glad to yield totally because I see 
now the distinguished Senator is back from the White House. You folks 
debate. I do not know how strongly you feel, but I feel just as 
strongly about the Legal Services Corporation. And I can tell you now, 
we are not going to save the moneys or the budget or this particular 
program. There have been all kind of assaults on Legal Services every 
year, and we have it above what has ever been provided.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from South Carolina is somebody I enjoy 
working with as much as anybody in the Senate for all sorts of reasons. 
But I believe him when he says he cares about legal services for poor 
people, I do not understand his argument in the following respect:
  What this amendment says, as I understand it, is that there will not 
be Legal Services representation on ``welfare reform issues.''
  See, the Senator might agree or disagree with the challenge in New 
Jersey. I might agree or disagree. But that is beside the point. To 
adopt such an amendment and to say that when it comes to whatever 
welfare reform policies are passed, welfare mothers and their children 
cannot be represented by Legal Services lawyers in challenging that 
policy, I think, takes the heart and soul out of what Legal Services is 
about.
  It is not up to us to decide. We do not even know what laws are going 
to be passed. Are we going to say a priori, before any law is passed, 
that we will deny Legal Services lawyers from being able to represent 
these families in challenging this policy? That is the position you are 
taking.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You bet your boots I am. The Senator got it straight, 
and we are going to vote because what I am saying is, if you want to 
attack these policies and everything else with these kinds of funds, 
then they will cut them back, I can tell you here and now, on the 
landlord tenant cases, employment cases, individual domestic cases--you 
can go right on down the list of cases that we represent individually.
  But if you want to use the battery of Legal Services lawyers to 
really go out to clients and the clients not coming in and saying, ``I 
am in trouble,'' but the lawyers are going out and saying, ``We don't 
like the policy of the State of New Jersey and we can use these Federal 
funds to attack the State of New Jersey,'' I do not think we are going 
to maintain Legal Services long under that. The Senator is exactly 
right.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, Mr. President, let me just simply 
respond. I start out with context because, quite frankly, I think much 
of what is underway right now is based upon--I am not now talking about 
my colleagues on the floor--but much of the discussion about welfare, I 
think, is scapegoating. And, again, it just so happens to be this is 
probably politically the weakest and most vulnerable group of citizens 
in this country; not weak as individuals, but I mean politically.
  I went from that context in talking about the importance of Legal 
Services, but now I want to focus on what I think is at issue here. The 
way this amendment reads:

       None of the funds appropriated in this act made available 
     by the Legal Services Corporation may be directly or 
     indirectly available to any grantee to file or maintain in 
     any Federal or State court any action that would have the 
     effect of nullifying any provision of Federal or State law 
     which seeks to reform welfare.

  We are saying before we even know what laws States might pass, some 
of which might be punitive, degrading and, I say to the Senator, 
downright unconstitutional, before we know what kinds of Federal laws 
we are going to pass, that a priori, we are saying Legal Services 
lawyers cannot represent mothers and children in challenging that 
policy.
  I say to the Senator, he has just taken the heart and soul out of 
Legal Services. He has. He is on the floor deciding before any of these 
issues come up that a whole group of citizens are going to be 
disenfranchised, and if we want to talk about Legal Services, of 
course, these are not women and children who are hiring private 
lawyers. We know why we have Legal Services.
  This amendment, I think, is a huge step backward--a huge step 
backward. I ask the Senator from South Carolina how can he, before he 
even knows what laws are passed, say he is going to prevent Legal 
Services lawyers from representing families and challenging those laws?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are discussing whether or not, as the 
amendment reads, we are taking the heart out of welfare. We are talking 
about the welfare reform policies and programs, plans in the Federal 
Government or the State governments. That is what we are talking about.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right, and they are going to have 
welfare reform plans. It is a limited source. The Senator does not 
think we fully fund everybody with a lawyer with the $400 million. That 
would not take care of the Washington crowd that he and I know just 
around here on communications, as I am working on communications.
  So the $400 million does not give everybody a lawyer and cuts the 
heart--whatever you are talking about. I am trying to get as much money 
as I can for the poor in welfare, in hunger, in housing and in health 
care and in every regard. Do not tell me about taking the heart out of 
welfare because we know it way better in our poor State than the 
Senator knows it up there in his backyard. I have been into it, I have 
walked the walk with the hungry. I have written a book on it. I will 
send the Senator an autographed copy, incidentally.
  We are talking about the heart of the people. Mr. President, I can 
tell you here and now what we are trying to say to the State 
governments, the Federal Government, ``Go ahead, pass your welfare 
reform plans, but we are not going to fund Legal Services lawyers 
directly or indirectly to get into the cases against them.'' They have 
plenty of work to do. There is not a shortage of work.
  I can tell you they really need some lawyers maybe to attack some of 
these plans, but not under this particular program, or, I say to the 
Senator from Minnesota, he is going to ruin the program, I can tell you 
right now. We have had a hard time saving it and getting the votes for 
it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Massachusetts 
is here as well, but let me just say to the Senator from South 
Carolina--I am going to repeat my argument one more time because I 
think it goes to the heart of this issue. I am really frightened by 
this amendment and what we are doing here. I say to the Senator from 
South Carolina, this is not a personal debate we are having. I do not 
doubt his feelings for people and especially for those who are hard 
pressed. That is not the issue. No one can doubt his support for Legal 
Services.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, did he not just say this would take the 
heart out of----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, let me go on.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. He is saying anybody who votes for this would be taking 
the heart out of welfare.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then do not talk about individual.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am talking about the heart and soul of welfare 
policy; I am not talking about the Senator's heart. Let me go on, OK?
  Mr. President, let me put it in context again. You have a group of 
citizens--what did I do before? Average monthly benefits something like 
$388, nowhere even near poverty level income. You have all the 
scapegoating going on right now. These are women and children--let us 
be clear who we are talking about when we are talking about 14 million 
or thereabouts women and children.
  What I am saying is, as I read this amendment--and this is where we 
have the disagreement--I say to my good friend from South Carolina, 
what we are saying is that we do not even know what kind of welfare 
laws are going to be passed yet. They will all be called ``reform.'' I 
will put that in quotes. We do not know what laws are going to be 
passed at the State level. We do not know what laws we are going to 
pass, but I will tell you, given the climate and given some of what has 
happened to women and children over the years, which is why Legal 
Services representation has always been there for them, I think it 
would be a terrible mistake to say before we even know what these laws 
are that we are going to adopt an amendment that is going to prohibit 
Legal Services lawyers from representing these women and children in 
passing those laws.
  That is where I say we just take the heart and soul out of what Legal 
Services is. I just cannot believe that that is really what we want to 
do. That is my argument.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair indicates to the Senator that the 
Senator from Massachusetts has asked the Chair to enter a courtesy 
objection to the quorum call being called off for a short period of 
time.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, all I intend to do is debate. I would not 
offer any motion; I would not undertake any official or final action. 
But I would be willing to withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I hear objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I will have to object to honor 
the request of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue calling the roll.
  The bill clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object. I think we should go ahead and move forward the 
debate, I say to my colleague who probably wants to do this within a 
reasonable period of time. I take it the Senator from Massachusetts 
wants to move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair indicates that the Senator has no 
right to object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. I think I can make my response pretty short. I heard the 
speech of the Senator from Minnesota when I was back over in my office. 
I think the Senator from Minnesota is making the same mistake that 
Legal Services is making. I think the Senator from Minnesota is 
confusing legal rights and political rights.
  When the Senator from Minnesota says that poor people have the right 
to be represented, I agree, but not at taxpayer expense. I am not 
disagreeing that they have the right to go into court to see that they 
get the fullest protection of the law. What I am saying in this 
amendment is that it is not the intention of the Legal Services 
Corporation to use the taxpayer money to try to overturn the law and to 
try to circumvent the political process where the State--in this case 
the State of New Jersey--after considerable deliberation and debate has 
decided to reform welfare and decided to move toward requirements like 
a mandatory work requirement and has taken the step to try to limit the 
ability of people to acquire more benefits by having more children.
  I believe it is clearly within the purview of Legal Services to 
represent people in seeing that they get their rights protected under 
the law. What I am saying here, however, is that the action in New 
Jersey goes further than that; that is, it is trying to overturn the 
law.
  What we are guaranteeing under Legal Services is not political 
services but legal services. It is one thing to say under this law, ``I 
am due a benefit that I am not getting.'' It is another thing to say, 
``I disagree with this law.'' And if you look at the lawsuit that these 
five Legal Services-funded entities have filed, they are saying that 
this waiver that was granted was arbitrary and capricious. They are 
saying things like it makes welfare recipients unwilling human subjects 
in a research experiment.
  I mean these are arguments that would be made on the floor of the 
Senate. These are arguments that I am sure were made on the floor of 
the New Jersey Senate. But they were wisely rejected on the floor of 
the New Jersey Senate. And I do not believe that we ought to be giving 
taxpayer money to try to help people change the law through the courts.
  Again, if people want to file a lawsuit, they have every right to do 
it. We are not talking here about rights. We are talking about taxpayer 
money and what the taxpayer chooses to pay for. I am saying I do not 
believe the taxpayers of America, the taxpayers that in huge numbers 
support welfare reform and mandatory work requirements, want their tax 
money used to try to overturn State and Federal law that is asking more 
people to get out of the wagon and to help the rest of us pull it.
  So if people want to file those lawsuits, they have every right to do 
it, and I encourage them to do it, fully exercising their 
constitutional or legal rights. What I am saying is we are voting here 
on what the American taxpayer should fund. I am saying that I do not 
believe the American taxpayer wants to fund lawsuits that have the 
objective of overturning legislative action aimed at reforming welfare.
  So I am adding to this bill a prohibition that says no funds for 
Legal Services can go to an entity which is engaged in that activity. 
If they want to do it, great. But taxpayer money should not go for that 
purpose.
  My response to the Senator from Minnesota is a very simple response. 
This is not political services. This is legal services. There is a 
difference. But we decide what the difference is.
  So here we are not talking about a legal distinction. We are talking 
about a political distinction. And the political distinction that I 
have made in this amendment--and I hope that the majority will concur 
in that distinction--is when we are trying to reform welfare in our 
National Government, when we are granting waivers to State governments 
to reform welfare, when the American people by huge numbers support 
welfare reform, when perhaps we have found something that the President 
and Republicans can agree on, why do we want to use taxpayer money to 
stop it? That I do not understand. That is what my amendment is aimed 
at stopping.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly to the 
Senator from Texas.
  First of all, I do not really know where in the world the distinction 
between political representation and legal representation comes from. 
Legal representation is reaching every citizen and includes the rights 
to challenge laws which citizens deem to be unconstitutional. That is 
legal representation. We all know that. I do not know where that 
distinction comes from.
  Mr. President, so there is no confusion on my part at all, I would 
like to quote from a letter from Marian Wright Edelman, who is the 
director of the Children's Defense Fund, that I think speaks to this 
issue in a very eloquent and direct way. I hope all my colleagues will 
have an opportunity to look at this letter.
  I quote:

       Two-thirds of all beneficiaries of Aid to Families With 
     Dependent Children, AFDC * * * are children. Representation 
     of AFDC children and their families by Legal Services 
     programs is essential to ensure that our Nation's poorest and 
     most vulnerable children are treated fairly in accordance 
     with the basic legal process and substantive rules and 
     receive the benefits to which they are legally entitled. In 
     the absence of such representation, AFDC children and 
     families will have no assurance that actions by State, 
     county, or local welfare agencies are consistent with the 
     rules and protections that Congress has established to 
     provide an effective safety net for them. Equally important, 
     agencies which have fewer inhibitions about ignoring the law 
     and agency managers will have less ability to make staff 
     comply with law.

  I might add, by the way, Mr. President, that from the very beginning 
Legal Services lawyers have been willing and have been able to 
challenge welfare policy. That has always been a part of Legal 
Services. When the Legal Services Corporation was set up, President 
Nixon said:

       The program is concerned with social issues and is thus 
     subject to unusually strong political pressures. If we are to 
     preserve the strength of the program, we must make it immune 
     to political pressures and make it a permanent part of our 
     system of justice.

  Legal Services lawyers have always been in the position to challenge 
laws if those laws were punitive and hurt children or were 
unconstitutional. And the whole ideal was to be able to represent low-
income families.
  I go on to quote Marian Wright Edelman.

       I know there is great interest in welfare reform. The 
     Senate will have the opportunity in the near future to 
     consider changes in the AFDC Program in that context. 
     However, the Gramm amendment does not address the substantive 
     issues involved in welfare reform. Instead, it eliminates the 
     only effective source of legal representation that poor 
     children have on these issues in the States. This amendment, 
     if passed, will deny equal access to justice to our Nation's 
     poorest children.

  I want to repeat that.

       This amendment, if passed, will deny equal access to 
     justice to our Nation's poorest children.

  Again, I say to my colleagues this an amendment which says that the 
Legal Services lawyers cannot challenge any welfare reform laws that 
might be passed by States or the Federal Government, before we even 
know what those laws are, before we know whether the laws are 
constitutional or unconstitutional, before we know whether or not they 
are going to severely harm children, the poorest and the weakest 
citizens in this country. We are saying that Legal Services lawyers 
cannot represent these women, these children and these families in 
court.
  If we do that, they have no ability to challenge these laws. Every 
citizen in our country has the ability to go through the legal system 
to challenge laws. That is not political representation. That is legal 
representation.
  Mr. President, it just so happens that these mothers and these 
children do not have the money to hire counsel. They do not have the 
money to hire high-priced lawyers. That is why we have Legal Services.
  This amendment essentially takes the heart and soul out of the Legal 
Services Corporation and Legal Services as originally set up. It simply 
undercuts the very mission of the Legal Services Corporation. Make no 
bones about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition a few moments ago to 
ask my distinguished colleague from Texas a few questions. As I heard 
about the pendency of his amendment on the floor, I decided to come 
over to see precisely what the scope of the consideration was because, 
as a matter of principle, it is my view that once we authorize the 
Legal Services Corporation with a given sum of money, the discretion 
for that expenditure ought to reside with the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  I think back to the experience I have had as a district attorney, and 
before that as an assistant district attorney, when no funds were 
provided for the representation of indigent defendants in criminal 
cases until the case of Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.
  Before that time, the law had required, under the case of Betts 
versus Brady, as I recollect, that in capital cases the State had to 
provide counsel. But aside from murder cases a person could stand for 
trial without even having a lawyer at his side.
  Then in the celebrated case Gideon versus Wainwright, Mr. Justice 
Black made the famous pronouncement that when you are haled into court 
you are entitled to have a lawyer, and that was on the criminal side.
  When I was a member of the National Advisory Council of the Peace 
Corps, there was a dispute in Palau about whether a Peace Corps lawyer 
could represent Palauans who were formulating a constitution which had 
provisions contrary to the interest of the United States Air Force, as 
viewed by the commanding general. I was asked to go arbitrate that 
dispute. I had been in the Air Force.
  I went and talked to the Peace Corps lawyer and the commanding 
general, and stated the basic proposition that even where you have 
someone accused of murder, the State pays for the lawyer for that 
individual even though that lawyer is arguing against the State's 
interest. Take the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. John Doe, 
defendant, and the commonwealth is trying to convict the defendant of 
murder. But we pay for the lawyer to represent the interest of that 
client. And it seemed to me that those Peace Corps lawyers had standing 
to represent the interests of Palauans even though the general thought 
it was contrary to the interests of the U. S. Air Force.
  When I hear an argument, and I just caught the tail end of what the 
distinguished Senator from Texas was saying, about how you cannot go to 
court to dispute the public policy of what the general assembly says, I 
agree with him about that. That is a fundamental proposition.
  It is the legislature of New Jersey which decides what their welfare 
laws will provide, and it is the Congress of the United States which 
decides what our policy is as to what our national welfare laws should 
be. But we cannot make a law which conflicts with the U.S. 
Constitution. And it is a little hard for me to understand how at this 
stage we are in a position to tell Community Legal Services that they 
cannot go to court to challenge a law which has not been enacted. It 
may be that there will be a solid constitutional argument as to that 
law. Frequently, in the Congress we enact legislation which has a 
considerable constitutional issue underlying it and leave it to the 
courts to decide.
  When my colleague from Texas was arguing in response to the Senator 
from Minnesota, that Community Legal Services should not go to court to 
argue about public policy, I agree with what Senator Gramm has said as 
a matter of principle. But as I take a look at this complaint under the 
prayer for relief, there are issues raised that the New Jersey welfare 
law conflicts with Federal statutes, specifically a series of 
provisions of title 42 of the United States Code, which take precedence 
over New Jersey law under the supremacy clause of the Constitution 
under which Federal law governs if in fact there is a conflict.
  I do not know if there is a conflict, but it seems to me that is 
precisely why you have the courts; to decide whether there is a 
conflict.
  There is a later issue raised in this complaint about whether the New 
Jersey welfare law violates Federal law under the Administrative 
Procedures Act, 5 United States Code, and later whether the New Jersey 
law violates the New Jersey Constitution.
  So you have issues which are presented here which are legal issues.
  We are allocating substantial sums of money, some $400 million, to 
Community Legal Services, and I think it is very difficult for the 
Congress to undertake to tell the board of directors of Community Legal 
Services what their priorities ought to be because we do not know all 
of their cases and we do not know all of their priorities.
  That board is appointed in accordance with law, and that is not 
something that we can micromanage or macromanage. We just do not know 
all the factors that are involved and what they are considering.
  As I look at the amendment, I understand and sympathize with what the 
distinguished Senator from Texas seeks to do here to have the reform of 
the welfare laws. But I do not know in advance how we can tie the hands 
of the Legal Services Corporation before any law is passed where there 
may be a matter of statutory interpretation which requires judicial 
action or there may be a matter of constitutional law which requires 
judicial action, and the public policy matters have yet to be thrashed 
out by the Congress, and there are very, very complicated issues to be 
determined. There is no way, in my judgment, that we can anticipate 
whether or not there will be any valid contest to go to the court to 
challenge.
  I think that the issue of legal representation for the poor is well 
founded in our society and that is a principle which we have stood by. 
It took us a long time to get there, even to have counsel in a murder 
case. I was a prosecutor on the other side, but I acknowledged the 
right of a defendant in a murder case to have counsel.
  I think it was about 1942 before the Supreme Court made that 
determination. It was not until 1936 that the Supreme Court of the 
United States, in Brown versus Mississippi, had anything to say about 
what happens in State criminal trials, and now we have realized and 
come to the very basic proposition. It is hard to see how it took us 
until 1963 to require counsel in all criminal cases. Once someone is 
haled into court--and $400 million is a substantial sum of money--but 
there are a tremendous number of issues and complicated issues that the 
poor people of America need to have litigated.
  My own sense is that at this stage of the proceeding, we ought to 
leave it to the Legal Services Corporation to allocate its resources 
and not really try to anticipate what the law is going to be. It may be 
that when we pass a Welfare Reform Act, we are so confident at that 
stage there is no constitutional issue, maybe we ought to consider a 
prohibition at that time, as the Congress has the authority to limit 
the jurisdiction of the courts to take up statutory issues.
  I learned to my chagrin recently, that inferentially the courts may 
be denied jurisdiction in a statute. And when we pass the law, maybe at 
that time we will want to a take some stand as to the question of 
jurisdiction. But in advance of the passage of the law, it seems to me 
that this amendment is premature at best, and it is hard to see in any 
event how we could anticipate whether there would be any question of 
statutory interpretation of constitutional law to be litigated.
  In any event, I think we ought to await the events until we see what 
happens before we legislate on this important issue of welfare reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. I think it is a very 
important amendment which, in many respects, does implicate the 
constitutional rights of our citizens--in many respects the most 
vulnerable citizens in this country--primarily the children of our 
Nation.
  The concern that Legal Services programs should be insulated from 
amendments of this kind was expressed, as I know the Senator from 
Minnesota has pointed out, by President Nixon. At the time he 
introduced the Legal Services Corporation Act, he said:

       The program is concerned with social issues and thus 
     subject to unusually strong political pressure. To preserve 
     the strength of the program, we must make it immune to 
     political pressures and make it a permanent part of our 
     system of justice.

  And our good friend and colleague, Senator Warren Rudman, made the 
statement and comment not long ago in the fall of 1993. In his 
statement on the legal services program, he pointed out:

       I recognize there have been periods where Federal Legal 
     Services programs has been controversial. Much of the 
     criticism has been unjustified. When migrant workers and 
     other poor individuals assert their legal rights, they can 
     offend powerful interests in our society. That does not mean 
     there is something wrong with the program; it means that it 
     is doing its job.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of former 
Senator Rudman's statement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement by Senator Warren Rudman on the Nominees to the Board of the 
                       Legal Services Corporation

       Mr. Chairman, Senator Kassebaum, Members of the Committee. 
     Last month, I was asked by the White House to introduce 
     President Clinton's nominees to the Board of Directors of the 
     Legal Services Corporation. Knowing several of the nominees 
     personally, and after reviewing the excellent qualifications 
     of the remainder, I was pleased to agree and I am honored to 
     be appearing before this Committee today.
       The Legal Services Corporation exists for a very noble and, 
     in our society, a necessary purpose--to ensure that the 
     neediest families and individuals in this country have access 
     to a basic level of legal services. The phrase ``Equal 
     Justice Under the Law,'' which is engraved on the Supreme 
     Court building two blocks from here, is one of the sources of 
     strength upon which our nation is built. Yet, that phrase has 
     no meaning to a person who cannot obtain the legal assistance 
     necessary to get inside the court room.
       We want and we expect all Americans to solve their disputes 
     through peaceful and legal means. But whether we are dealing 
     with a landlord-tenant dispute, a family conflict, or the 
     myriad of problems that individuals too often must face in 
     their daily lives, peaceful and legal resolution is 
     impossible without legal help.
       This is what the legal services programs funded by the 
     Corporation do throughout the country. Notwithstanding the 
     controversy that sometimes surrounds a particular case, the 
     vast majority of legal assistance funded through the federal 
     legal services program involves family matters such as 
     divorce and child custody, housing, consumer disputes, and 
     other bread-and-butter kinds of cases. These cases garner 
     little attention, but they are of critical importance to the 
     individuals involved.
       I recognize there have been periods when the federal legal 
     services program has been controversial. Much of the 
     criticism has been unjustified. When migrant workers and 
     other poor individuals assert their legal rights, they can 
     offend powerful interests in society. That does not mean 
     there is something wrong with the program; it means that it 
     is doing its job.
       On the other hand, there was some concern a number of years 
     ago that the program was moving away from what Congress had 
     originally intended: that it was de-emphasizing basic, day-
     to-day legal services in favor of lobbying and what has in 
     some circles been called social reform litigation. Congress 
     addressed those concerns more than a decade ago with a series 
     of legislative provisions which placed controls on lobbying, 
     established a process before class action suits could be 
     brought against units of government, increased the private 
     bar's involvement in the program, required that potential 
     fee-generating cases be referred to private attorneys, and so 
     forth. These reforms have worked. In fact, I cannot recall a 
     single, legitimate criticism regarding alleged political 
     activism or social engineering that has emerged during the 
     last decade.
       Turning now to the nominees appearing today, I will say 
     that I was truly impressed with the backgrounds and 
     experience of the individuals selected by President Clinton. 
     Each of the nominees has had experience with legal services, 
     many of them devoting considerable time and energy to making 
     the Corporation or their local program a more effective and 
     efficient deliverer of services to the poor.
       I would like to say a couple of words about the nominees I 
     personnally know the best. John Broderick is one of the 
     leading attorneys in New Hampshire and the former President 
     of our State Bar Association which, I should note, operates 
     one of the most successful pro bono programs in the country. 
     A leader in the New Hampshire Democratic Party, his law 
     partner was Steve Merrill until he was elected Governor last 
     November. I have known John for many years, and know he will 
     be a superb LSC Board member.
       I met Tom Smegal when President Reagan appointed him to the 
     Legal Services Board. In the mid-1980's he probably worked 
     harder, for no pay, than anyone else in the country to 
     maintain a strong and viable federal legal services program. 
     The contribution he made was critical in keeping the program 
     alive and in as good shape as it is today.
       Bill McCalpin has also devoted considerable talent and 
     energy on helping the poor obtain legal services since before 
     the federal program even existed. He served as the 
     Corporation's Chairman under President Carter and until 
     recently was President of the National Legal Aid and 
     Defenders Association. Both Tom and Bill are active 
     Republicans, and are living proof that this is a program with 
     broad, bipartisan support. I would note that from 1983 on, 
     each Senate vote on legal services was a bipartisan affair, 
     with a majority of each party voting the same way. That is a 
     record I would hope is continued.
       Bucky Askew spend 20 years in public service working for 
     the Legal Services Corporation and its predecessor. In 1983, 
     he joined NLADA until leaving Washington three years ago to 
     work for the Georgia Supreme Court as Director of Bar 
     Admissions and Executive Director of the Chief Justice's 
     Commission on Professionalism. Bucky knows as much about the 
     legal services program as anyone in this country and is 
     highly qualified for this position.
       A review of the record of the other nominees clearly 
     establishes that they are all eminently qualified for the 
     Board, and I believe they should be expeditiously confirmed 
     by the Senate. They have talent, experience, and perspective. 
     They will not only ensure that the legal services program 
     will be run in accordance with federal laws and LSC 
     regulations, but they have the knowledge that enables them to 
     assist programs to run more efficiently and effectively. They 
     can work with programs as well as oversee them, and in a 
     period which will be marked by continued tight budgets and 
     insufficient funding, that is critically important.
       Finally, in closing, I would like to say something about 
     George Wittgraf, the outgoing Chairman of the Board. As some 
     of you know, George was one of the earliest supporters of 
     President Bush, and ran his Iowa campaigns in both 1980 and 
     1988. In 1989, he could have had practically any job in 
     Washington that he wanted, but what he asked for was the 
     opportunity to serve on the Legal Services Board. As its 
     Chairman, I believe he had done an exceptional job over the 
     last four years under sometimes difficult circumstances. What 
     he did is public service at its best, and I would like to 
     commend him for all his work as he prepares to leave office.
       Mr. Chairman, thank you.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let us look over the period of recent 
years when the issue of constitutional rights and liberties that were 
related to welfare were raised at the grassroots levels--in some of 
these instances, by legal services lawyers; I believe the majority 
were, and some by others, by public interest lawyers--we can look at 
the Shapiro versus Thompson case, where States had set very arbitrary 
periods of time before an individual could travel from one State to 
another State and still be eligible for benefits.
  What the Supreme Court effectively ruled there is that the right to 
travel is respected in the Constitution; that there is a 
responsibility, if someone moves to a new State, they will have to be 
able to establish residency. The State does have flexibility in 
establishing a period of time to demonstrate the bona fide residency of 
that individual, but that State cannot provide an unreasonable period 
of time which effectively is punitive to vulnerable children. And that 
case established a broad principle of constitutional rights that were 
related, in that instance, even though it was for families and children 
that were receiving assistance, tying that to the right to travel.
  In the Goldberg versus Kelly case, the Supreme Court established that 
there could not be a termination of benefits for children without 
giving them at least a hearing. That sounds pretty reasonable. The 
Supreme Court said that denying children that hearing is a denial of 
due process and therefore that particular statute was unconstitutional. 
Again, this claim was raised by legal services lawyers, and it 
established a principle of constitutional protection again for 
vulnerable individuals, children in this case.
  In the case of Califano versus Westcott, this is a case that involved 
the AFDC Program that had been developed in one State to permit 
families to be able to receive some benefits if one of the parents in 
that family had been working and lost a job. It so happened that if the 
mother was the sole breadwinner and lost her job, the children were 
denied any of the benefits; while if the father lost the job, they were 
eligible--a distinction between the father and the mother in terms of 
the statutory law. And that particular provision was struck down under 
the equal protection clause.
  And the list goes on, Mr. President.
  This really is not about welfare reform; we will have an opportunity 
to debate that--we are talking about constitutional rights and 
liberties.
  We do have an interest in assuring that welfare programs are run in 
accordance with the law because the Federal Government provides, in 
most instances, about half of the money and, therefore, if it is being 
provided by the American taxpayers, we ought to be able to ensure that 
it is not being provided in a way which is going to violate the basic 
and fundamental constitutional rights of individuals, which in these 
cases are, for the most part, children that do not have high-priced 
lawyers.
  Now I respect those that have fought for the Legal Services Program. 
The Senator from South Carolina, we saw an important increase in the 
Legal Services Program last year after the program had been cut back. 
And I respect the others who are in support of this proposition.
  But I think we also ought to know that when there are rules and 
regulations that affect the major powerful interests in any State, any 
corporation, that affects their interests at all, let alone their 
constitutional rights, they are represented in the various hearings 
that are taken by these boards by, in most instances, the best lawyers 
that those companies or corporations can hire. And they go in there and 
they represent them, as they should.
  And those expenses are tax deductible. Make no mistake about it. The 
Federal taxpayers are paying for those, as well. We are paying for 
those, as well.
  And we have made a judgment, in terms of the legal system, that we 
are going to respect that fact; that that is very legitimate. And I 
certainly support those companies and corporations that are going into 
our complex system, whether it is at the Federal level or whether it is 
at the State level or whether it is going to be at the local level, 
that there is going to be representation and that those matters are 
going to be charged, and they are going to be tax deductible and we are 
going to find out that the taxpayers are going to pay those amounts. 
And they can spend enormous, enormous amounts of money. We all know 
about that.
  What we are talking about is approximately $400 million across this 
country for the Legal Services Program.
  The studies in my own State show that only 15 percent of poor persons 
with legitimate cases are represented. It is a constant challenge for 
many of us who believe in this program to try and call on the private 
sector to pick up part of the responsibilities. We do find that many 
good law firms respond to that; too many others do not.
  I think that we are also very mindful that at other times in our 
history lawyers in this country have responded to national and 
important interests. I think of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 
and other activities where lawyers have been very responsive in terms 
of particular needs.
  Mr. President, I am not going to take much more time. I see many of 
my colleagues here on the floor.
  We have had an opportunity, my colleague, Senator Kerry and I, we 
have formed a committee to try to select outstanding individuals to 
serve on our judiciary. And we had an outstanding group that was 
recommended to us.
  We both took considerable periods of time to talk to these 
individuals. I made a point of asking them about the quality of those 
who work for legal services programs and public interest firms.
  It was really inspiring, because each of the nominees that we 
considered, who had been recommended to us, were very familiar with 
both the work of the legal service programs and those involved, as well 
as the public interest lawyers. All of these outstanding members of the 
bar, and in some instances State judges, had the highest compliments as 
to the integrity and the ability and the commitment of these, for the 
most part young but in many instances older individuals, who are trying 
to make sure that the Constitution is going to be available not just to 
those who have resources but that equal justice under the law is going 
to apply to the needy as well.
  These individuals we are talking about are making $20,000, $30,000, 
$40,000--in a few instances maybe somewhat above it. They are men and 
women who spend an enormous amount of time in the pursuit of rights and 
liberties. It seems to me wrong, with all respect to our colleagues, to 
deny the opportunity for legal services programs to raise issues 
related to constitutional rights, and to pursue and ensure the 
statutory obligations--which are there in terms established at the 
national level by the Congress and signed into law--are going to be 
accurately interpreted.
  That is what I think they should be doing, protecting and ensuring 
individual rights and liberties, constitutional rights and liberties, 
and ensuring that the statutory provisions at the Federal level are 
going to be observed. To deny the legal services programs the 
opportunity to provide that kind of protection I think is unwise 
policy, and I hope the amendment will not be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think I can respond to all these things 
briefly.
  First of all, as to the argument that we ought to let the Legal 
Services Corporation decide how it wants to spend the taxpayers' money, 
I would say to my colleague that every appropriation bill is full of 
amendments that say, ``no funds appropriated by this bill shall be used 
for such and such a purpose.'' When we are spending the taxpayers' 
money, as opposed to people spending their own money, we have a 
different set of standards.
  I want to make it very clear, because one of the previous speakers 
talked about limiting access to the courts, I am in no way interested 
in limiting access to the courts. I urge people to go into courts to 
protect their rights, to challenge the constitutionality of anything. 
What I am saying is the Congress clearly has the right on behalf of the 
American people to say there are some activities that we do not choose 
to fund. And challenging welfare reform through taxpayer funding as 
opposed to private funding is one of those activities. So, as far as 
the Legal Services deciding how it wants to spend its money, we 
constantly impose limitations on Government agencies and this seems to 
me to be an eminently reasonable limitation.
  I do not agree with the idea which was presented earlier that there 
is some parallel here between public defenders for murder and the issue 
we are debating here. It is my understanding that we certainly provide 
funding for public defenders for people who are accused of terrible 
crimes. The example used was murder. But we do not provide funds for 
murderers to go out and challenge our laws against murder. It is a 
question of a person protecting their rights under the law and 
basically trying to change that law.
  In terms of constitutional rights, in this issue we are not talking 
about constitutional rights. We are talking about the taxpayers' money. 
We have an agency which has a long history of taking the taxpayers' 
money and engaging in its chosen social and political causes. What we 
are saying is we are not going to take the taxpayers' money on this 
issue, welfare reform, and use that money to circumvent the will of the 
taxpayer.
  In terms of people not having money to challenge welfare reform, I 
have here an article from the Washington Post which was published on 
May 27, 1994. This is when the President had talked about including in 
his welfare reform plan a proposal to allow the States to deny 
additional benefits to women who have children while they are on 
welfare.
  This is a proposal that President Clinton has made and I would like 
to say, in advance of seeing that bill, that I am in favor of it and I 
want to support the President. I hope his views are for real on welfare 
reform.
  But here is the second paragraph in this Washington Post story.

       Immediately an unusually broad coalition of 85 civil rights 
     and religious organizations, including abortion rights and 
     anti-abortion groups, said it will challenge the child 
     exclusion policy in Federal court.

  I am in no way saying that they do not have a right to do that. I am 
saying they do have a right to do it. I want them to lose in Congress 
and in court, but they have every right to do it.
  What I am saying in my amendment is they do not have the right to 
promote their social and political agenda at the taxpayers' expense. 
They do not have a right to do that.
  And what I am saying in my amendment on behalf of the American 
taxpayer, on behalf of the people that do the work and pay the taxes 
and pull the wagon in this country: We do not want our money used to 
fight welfare reform legislation in State or Federal court; pure and 
simple. I assert that the American people do not want their money used 
to oppose welfare reform.
  We are having a debate about whether or not the taxpayers' money, 
which after all was extorted--I mean we put people in prison for not 
giving their money to the Government--so I am saying because we do 
that, because these are not willing givers, they are not generally 
happy givers, what I am saying is this is an abuse, in my opinion, one 
Senator's opinion, of the taxpayers to take their money and spend it 
for this purpose.
  So we are going to have a vote to determine whether or not the 
majority agrees with my opinion as to what the American public wants. 
But clearly we have every right to do this. People have a right to 
promote their own agenda, to promote their own political views, to 
undertake all kinds of activities. But they do not have the right to do 
it at taxpayers' expense, and that is really what this whole debate is 
about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if the Senator will give me just a moment to 
respond to some of the arguments of the Senator from Texas? I ask the 
Senator from Ohio if that would be all right?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Take as long as you want.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I will tell you there have been some arguments made on 
the floor, and all of us are going to have to vote soon--or maybe not 
too soon--but let me try to focus again on what this amendment says and 
what the issue is.
  When the Senator from Texas says that the people in our country, the 
American taxpayers, do not want to see Legal Services lawyers working 
with women and their children in challenging any kind of ``welfare 
reform''--it depends upon--that is the point--it depends upon what we 
are talking about.
  The people in this country are full of good will. I will tell you one 
thing, Mr. President, the people in the United States of America do not 
want to see a situation where a State or a county, by way of 
implementation of some rule, or maybe the Federal Government--I 
certainly hope not--either passes a law or in the actual administration 
of that law does something which is punitive, does something which 
hurts children, does something which violates people's basic 
constitutional rights.
  Poor people have constitutional rights. Low-income women and children 
have those rights. Do not tell me that people in the United States of 
America want to see a group of citizens, women and children, without 
legal representation.
  Mr. President, we can debate the New Jersey law. That is not what is 
at issue. This amendment is not about the child exclusion law. This 
amendment says:

       Provided, that none of the funds appropriated in this act 
     made available by the Legal Services Corporation may be made 
     directly or indirectly available to any grantee to file or 
     maintain in any Federal or State court any action that would 
     have the effect of nullifying any provision of Federal or 
     State law which seeks to reform welfare.

  Anything that is passed anywhere in the country, whether it is 
constitutional or not, whether it hurts women and children or not, 
cannot be challenged by the very legal services that we set up to 
represent poor people, including, I might add, yes, women and children.
  So, Mr. President, let me get back one more time to the key part of 
the letter that Marian Wright Edelman has sent to each and every one of 
us. I will not go through the whole letter again. I do ask unanimous 
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      Children's Defense Fund,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1994.
       Dear Senator: Later today, the Senate will consider the 
     Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations bill. I am writing to 
     urge you to oppose the Gramm amendment, which would bar legal 
     services progams from representing children and their parents 
     in matters related to receipt of welfare benefits.
       Two-thirds of all beneficiaries of Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children (AFDC), the major federal-state welfare 
     program, are children. Representation of AFDC children and 
     their families by legal services programs is essential to 
     ensure that our nation's poorest and most vulnerable children 
     are treated fairly, in accordance with basic legal process 
     and substantive rules, and receive the benefits to which they 
     are legally entitled, In the absence of such representation, 
     AFDC children and families will have no assurance that 
     actions by state, county, or local welfare agencies are 
     consistent with the rules and protections that Congress has 
     established to provide an effective safety net for them. 
     Equally important, agencies will have fewer inhibitions about 
     ignoring the law, and agency managers will have less ability 
     to make staff comply with the law.
       I know that there is great interest in welfare reform. the 
     Senate will have the opportunity in the near future to 
     consider changes in the AFDC program in that context. 
     However, the Gramm amendment does not address the substantive 
     issues involved in welfare reform. Instead, it eliminates the 
     only effective source of legal representation that poor 
     children have on these issues in the states. This amendment, 
     if passed, will deny equal access to justice to our nation's 
     poorest children.
       Our justice system is built upon the premise of effective 
     legal representation for all Americans, including poor 
     children and their families. It would be unconscionable for 
     Congress to cripple poor children's ability to secure 
     representation on issues that are so basic to their survival. 
     Please vote against the Gramm amendment. If we can provide 
     you with additional information on this important issue, 
     please contact either Deborah Weinstein (662-3565) or Eileen 
     Sweeney (662-3586) at CDF.
           Sincerely yours,
                                            Marian Wright Edelman.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just quote two relevant sections:

       In the absence of such representation, AFDC children and 
     families will have no assurance that actions by State, county 
     or local welfare agencies are consistent with the rules and 
     protections that Congress has established to provide an 
     effective safety net for them. This amendment, if passed, 
     will deny equal access to justice to our Nation's poorest 
     children.

  ``This amendment, if passed, will deny equal access to justice to our 
Nation's poorest children.''
  ``This amendment, if passed, will deny equal access to justice to our 
Nation's poorest children.'' That is what is at issue, that is what 
this vote is on.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, it is a rather sad day in the Senate, 
as I see it, because this amendment is going to be adopted; it is going 
to be adopted because it says something about welfare reform, it says 
something about whether lawyers can defend the poor and whether the 
poor have a right to have their say in court when somebody comes along, 
in any one of 50 States or the Federal Government, and says, ``This is 
welfare reform.''
  You can cut off all the welfare recipients and say it is welfare 
reform, and that would probably be unconstitutional. But the fact is 
you could not get a lawyer to go into court to defend the poor because 
the language of the amendment, which is as broad as anything could 
possibly be, says very simply:

       * * * That none of the funds appropriated in this act made 
     available by the Legal Services Corporation may be made 
     directly or indirectly available to any grantee to file or 
     maintain in any Federal or State court--

  What?

     . . .any action that would have the effect of nullifying any 
     provision of Federal or State law which seeks to reform 
     welfare.

  I do not know how you define reforming welfare. Maybe if you cut it 
off entirely, that is reforming welfare. Or maybe if you say only a 
certain number of people, certain women, certain children, certain men 
can have welfare, maybe that is reforming welfare. But there is not a 
single word in this proposed amendment that gives any idea, any 
indication of what you are talking about when you say reforming 
welfare.
  The President of the United States wants to reform welfare; the 
Senator from Texas wants to reform welfare. I guess that everybody in 
the country wants to reform welfare. As a matter of fact, I think we 
could get our violin out and make a tune about it: ``Let's Reform 
Welfare.''
  But what does it mean to reform welfare? Some people think the way to 
reform welfare would be to eliminate welfare. Some people think to 
reform welfare we can say everybody can have a piece of the cake. That 
is a term that has no definition and, yet, if any poor person wants to 
go into court to argue, ``Please, court, this is unconstitutional, this 
is discriminatory, this is unfair, this violates any one of my personal 
rights,'' that individual cannot get a lawyer unless that individual is 
wealthy enough to go out and hire a lawyer.
  The whole concept of Legal Services was to make it possible for those 
who do not have the wherewithal to hire a lawyer themselves to be able 
to get one. I cannot believe that the U.S. Senate is debating whether 
or not the poor in this country are entitled to basic legal services.
  The bill before us is an appropriations bill. It is not about welfare 
reform. I think that is a proper subject for the Senate to address, the 
whole subject of welfare reform. But that is not what this bill is 
about. This is not a bill about Legal Services authorization. That is a 
fair issue to debate.
  But why are we debating whether poor people are entitled to equal 
access to our courts? Because some in the Senate spend their time 
figuring out how to make it a little bit more difficult for those who 
do not have a voice in our society today to be able to participate 
fully in our society.
  I will tell you why we are here. We are here because of the politics 
of welfare. Some of us cannot pass up any opportunity to beat up on 
those terrible welfare recipients. All those welfare recipients must be 
a bunch of goofs, they do not want to work, they just want to have 
babies, they want to stay home, they are terrible people. That is what 
some in this Senate would believe.
  This Senator does not believe that, and those who have some logic to 
their thinking know that is not the case. There are people in this 
country who cannot make it on their own, who want to work, who cannot 
make it on their own either because they do not have the education, 
they do not have the training, they have too many children, they cannot 
get to work, and there are those who would like to take away from them 
such benefits as we provide under the law. Some of those people are at 
the Federal level; some of those people are at the State level.
  But this amendment says that if anything comes down the pike that is 
called welfare reform--no definition of what that is--and the poor want 
to be able to get their say in the courtroom, they cannot have equal 
justice under the law. The Senator from Texas can have equal justice 
under the law. He can afford it. The Senator from Ohio can have equal 
justice under the law. I can afford it. But the poor cannot.
  If there is some inequitable, unfair provision of State or Federal 
law, and you call it welfare reform, then no matter how bad it is and 
the poor need a lawyer to represent them, they cannot get that lawyer.
  Instead of our addressing the many tough issues before us, some of us 
always go for the easy targets. Oh, such easy targets, poor women and 
children, those who have no economic or political clout and, 
unfortunately, not too many of them vote either.
  I do not claim that the welfare system is not in need of reform. I 
will buy that. It punishes the poor who want to work and the poor who 
want to marry. So there should be some reform. It fosters an almost 
never-ending cycle of poverty, and clearly there is bipartisan support 
for some type of welfare reform.
  But as much as the welfare system needs reforming, no one should want 
to achieve welfare reform at the expense of basic constitutional 
rights, the right to have your day in court.
  Basic principles of fairness and justice require that any welfare 
reform proposals be implemented in accordance with the law. No person, 
no agency, no government body is above the law, and to suggest that the 
President or Congress or State governments or welfare agencies should 
be given free rein to trample on the most basic rights of people, all 
in the name of so-called welfare reform, is unconscionable, just 
unconscionable.
  There is not any indication whatsoever of a definition of what we are 
talking about. All the amendment says is that it is called welfare 
reform, and if there is some State law or Federal law to that effect, 
you cannot go to the Legal Services Corporation, you cannot get public 
lawyers to help you, and not one penny will be spent in order to 
protect you. That is unfair; that is discriminatory.
  But this body will adopt it because they will think it is something 
having to do with welfare reform, and they will be afraid to stand up 
to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.
  Some may think that limiting Legal Services participation in welfare 
reform will not greatly affect Legal Services caseload. Such thinking 
ignores the fact that 17 percent of Legal Services cases involve 
welfare, 33 percent of the cases involve family law issues, and a 
significant proportion of those cases involve child support 
enforcement.
  Welfare reform, depending on how that broad-based term is 
interpreted, could mean anything from cutting off benefits to 
instituting child care. Limiting participation in welfare reform issues 
could, therefore, impact on many types of cases which Legal Services 
attorneys properly handle.
  I know some will always believe the Legal Services Corporation has a 
political agenda. But working to achieve equal protection and due 
process under the law for all people is not a political agenda. In my 
opinion, it is one of the most noble of professions and is in the 
finest American legal tradition. Why some of my colleagues are so 
afraid that some overworked and underpaid attorney will undermine their 
precious political agendas is truly puzzling to me.
  I say to my colleagues, read this amendment and tell me, if you 
decide to vote for it, what does it mean to say that you would cut off 
funding for any Legal Services organization that would have the effect 
of nullifying any provision of Federal or State law which seeks to 
reform welfare.
  What does that mean? What does it mean? The Senator from Texas may 
have his definition, or the Senator from South Carolina may have his 
definition. The Senator from Hawaii may have his definition. The 
Senator from New Mexico may have his definition. We may have 100 
different definitions, and all the courts in this country can have a 
different definition. But with this broad-based prohibition, we are 
saying, ``No, poor people, you do not have a right to go into the 
court. You may have a right. But you do not have a remedy. You do not 
have a chance to get a lawyer. We are going to cut you off.''
  We call this welfare reform. You may not think it is welfare reform. 
But we think cutting off 50 percent of your benefits is welfare reform. 
We may think that cutting off all mothers who have one, two, or three 
children is welfare reform. We may think that saying that a man who is 
the father of a child and not supporting that child is welfare reform. 
I do not know what the definition is. Maybe the Senator from Texas 
does.
  But I say to my colleagues, read the language. You are intelligence 
people. You would not be here in the U.S. Senate unless the people of 
your State thought that you were intelligent. Read the amendment. When 
you read the amendment, you conclude and say to yourself, what does 
this really mean? What does welfare reform really mean? I am 
prohibiting the poor from having a lawyer to represent them in any 
matter in which there is a claim that the action of the State or the 
Federal Government is welfare reform.
  This amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will not go all night back and forth. I 
understand we will have a unanimous consent request, and we will vote 
at 9 o'clock on this amendment. Then the Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
[Shelby], will offer an amendment. But I just want to respond very 
briefly to some of the points. First of all, it is an interesting 
argument to say that if you are for more welfare, it is not political. 
But if you want people on welfare to be responsible for their actions 
and to work and if you do not want to reward people on welfare for 
having more children, that somehow that is political.
  I am not going to make the charge because one of the things I try 
never to do is to try to look into the heart or the head of my 
colleagues and try to impugn motives. But it does seem to me, while I 
would never do it, that one could argue that perhaps there are people 
who support more welfare because they think it is going to get them 
votes. But the suggestion that this is only politics, if you believe 
there are too many people riding in the wagon and not enough pulling 
it, I think is very hard to sustain, and I reject it.
  Second, I am always amazed at how much passion there is for the 
people that are benefiting from government and how little passion there 
is for the people that are paying for the Government.
  It is almost as if once you put your hand on the Bible and swear to 
uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, that suddenly your heart 
is softened to everybody that wants something from the taxpayer but it 
is hardened to the taxpayer.
  Congress has the right to eliminate welfare. Let us get one thing 
straight. The Constitution did not say you have to give people welfare. 
Some people need help, and Congress decided to provide it, and if 
Congress decided tomorrow, and if the States decided tomorrow, to stop 
it, they could do it. They have a right to do that. We are not 
violating people's constitutional rights by asking them to work if they 
are receiving public benefits.
  Finally, let me talk about Legal Services. We have not authorized 
Legal Services since 1980. For 14 years we have not reauthorized this 
agency. Why? Because it cannot be reauthorized because there are so 
many grievances against it that Congress will not reauthorize it. If we 
had a bill, if we had a sunset law that said that if you do not 
reauthorize things, you cannot fund them, Legal Services would be dead.
  One of the things that I am trying to fix here is to eliminate one of 
the clear abuses that people see that induces them to believe that 
maybe this is not an agency out to help poor people settle their 
disputes with their landlords or their disputes with their mates, but 
it is instead taxpayer funding for a political agenda. People have a 
right to a political agenda. But they have a right to pay for it.
  The final point, if we reject this amendment, the odds are--and 
everybody here knows it--that with health care reform, the odds are 
that we are not going to pass the welfare reform bill this year. I 
would love to pass one this year. I am strongly in support of welfare 
reform. I would love to pass it this year. But the odds are we will 
not. It may very well be that this is the only vote on welfare reform 
this year.
  This is a vote on whether or not the taxpayer should be funding an 
effort to stop welfare reform. So it may very well be that when we 
adjourn and we go back home that the only action we will have taken on 
welfare reform will have been a vote on whether or not taxpayer funds 
should be expended to try to stop welfare reform.
  So I think this is a very relevant issue. We could go back and forth 
all night long. Obviously, I would be happy to do that if people want 
to do it. But the points are very, very simple. I am not trying to 
limit people's rights. Everybody has a right to constitutional 
protection. Everybody has a right to promote their own political cause. 
What I am saying is the taxpayer, in my opinion, does not want taxpayer 
funds used to try to block State work requirements for welfare 
recipients, State welfare reform bills.
  If people want to go out and lobby against them, if they want to vote 
against the people who vote for welfare reform, if they are outraged, 
as many of our colleagues are, that people would have a requirement in 
welfare that says you have to work to get welfare benefits, or you do 
not get more money for having more children once you are on welfare, if 
people are outraged about that, they have every right to speak against 
it, campaign against it, vote against people who vote for it.
  All I am saying is, in all of this righteous indignation, do it on 
your own dollar. Do it with your own money. Do not take the taxpayers' 
money when the taxpayers in overwhelming numbers support this reform 
program. Do not take the taxpayers' money to promote an agenda that is 
not the taxpayers'. That is my point. We clearly have a right to 
restrict funding. We do it every day. We have done it on many 
occasions.
  One of my colleagues brought me a list of restrictions we have 
imposed in the past on Legal Services. Some of these restrictions are 
the law of the land today. I am simply trying to add another one, I 
think an eminently reasonable one.
  I think the American people support this. I hope my colleagues will 
support it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know the Senator from Iowa wants to speak, but 
really there are a couple of points to which I have to respond.
  As to the argument that Senators here are saying that welfare mothers 
and their children ought to have legal representation because we are 
doing it for political reasons, I guess I would just ask all of my 
colleagues to think about whether that argument is credible.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No, I will not yield at the moment.
  Mr. GRAMM. It was the Senator from Ohio who made that statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has not yielded the 
floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not yield. I am simply responding. I was not in 
the Chamber during the whole debate. I am just responding to what I 
heard the Senator from Texas say.
  As to the argument, Mr. President, that there are Senators who come 
to the floor who feel strongly that it is a terrible, terrible mistake 
to pass an amendment that says that women and children cannot have 
Legal Services representation in challenging any kind of State or local 
or Federal law that might be passed even before we know what those laws 
are, which are called reform--so, for example, if a law is passed that 
black children cannot receive welfare and it is called reform. There 
cannot be Legal Services representation. How about children with 
disabilities? No family with children with disabilities can challenge 
the law because it is welfare reform. Maybe we will have midnight 
raids, go into homes and find out whether there are men there and pull 
them out. It is probably an invasion of some kind of right to privacy. 
It cannot be challenged. That is really the argument we are making.
  Second of all, as to the argument about taxpayers' money, again, a 
little education. I know there are Senators in the Chamber, who are for 
a lot of big weapons systems; they are for lots of big technology 
programs; they want to see tax expenditures. Do not take away tax 
expenditures for wealthy, high-income families. All sorts of subsidies, 
they are for that. That is taxpayers' money, too. I will not get into 
specific projects because it gets too personal, Mr. President, but I 
think everybody understands my point.
  AFDC spending as to the total of Federal outlays, .98 percent, 
taxpayers--.98 percent. Average monthly benefits per family, 1992, 
$388.
  (Ms. MIKULSKI assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And finally, Madam President, as to this argument that 
if we should pass this amendment we will deny equal justice to our 
Nation's poorest children.
  As to the argument that if this amendment is rejected, there will not 
be any welfare reform, I have to say, Madam President, in all due 
respect, it is simply illogical.
  I am for welfare reform. I see nothing inconsistent about my standing 
in this Chamber and arguing that poor children and mothers should have 
equal access to justice, represented by Legal Services lawyers, and my 
being interested in welfare reform, which by the way means that women--
because it is almost always, I am sad to say, the women who often have 
the responsibility for the children--so that women may be able to move 
to work, in jobs that they can support their children on. If that is 
welfare reform, I am all for it. Affordable child care, I am all for 
it. Making sure that mothers do not lose their health care benefits 
because, presumably, we are going to pass a health care reform bill so 
we can have real welfare reform, I am all for it.
  Madam President, this argument that if this amendment is rejected we 
will not pass welfare reform makes me wonder what some have in mind 
when they are talking about welfare reform.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I would just like to at this point in 
this debate narrow it down and discuss just exactly what we are talking 
about here.
  When I first came to the Senate, we had a little case up in Montana. 
We raise sugar beets in the Yellowstone Valley in Montana, and we hire 
a lot of migrant labor every year to thin those beets. And a farmer in 
the lower Yellowstone Valley usually hired two families. And those 
families, after they get their work done, because it is contract labor, 
they go back to Texas.
  The Senator from Texas remotely remembers this case as we were trying 
to go through it and put it all back together, and here is what we are 
talking about and the inequity that we face every year with people who 
produce something, who pay taxes, who contribute to a community, who 
pull the wagon. This is one instance. It is not an isolated instance, 
by the way. There have been other cases.
  But anyway, one of these families that usually works for this 
particular farmer in Montana goes back to Texas. He tells a third party 
that if he would go to Montana next spring, I think this farmer might 
hire you. And so he went.
  Well, the farmer said I can only use two of you, but I will do this: 
I will let you stay here--they provide housing for these folks who work 
there--but I cannot use you, and you might check around the rest of the 
farms and you may find work. He never did. So when the season was all 
over, all three of them then go back to Texas.
  Well, this one who did not get hired told Texas Legal Services. Texas 
Legal Services said, well, they should have hired him. And they sued 
the farmer in Montana, without even notifying him, in a Texas court and 
received a judgment, and the court advises the farmer in Montana to 
come up with the money.
  Well, my farmer did not even realize it even happened. So he goes to 
Texas, and he appeals it. He borrows money against his farm. He puts it 
in debt--it was free and clear--and at risk. In fact, he put it so far 
in debt getting this thrown out of court that he could not get an 
operating loan to put in next year's crop.
  He finally got it thrown out, but the worker never risked anything. 
And this young person who works for Texas Legal Services, he got a lot 
of experience, but he cost a man his farm. This is not an isolated 
case. I have others in Montana.
  That is what we are talking about here--whenever you go outside and 
do things with taxpayers' money against taxpayers because they can dry 
up a small farmer or a small businessman. They cannot stand those legal 
fees.
  If you think health care costs a lot of money, go to court. I am not 
real sure, but the cost per hour of our doctors might match up with 
some of these folks who represent us. That is what we are talking about 
here, and that is why I support in principle this particular amendment. 
In some way or other, we use our own money to beat ourselves. I do not 
think that is a thing that was guaranteed in the Constitution.
  I wanted to narrow it down to some cases that really happened and why 
it is important that we take a look at this particular amendment and 
this particular instance, and bring people, real faces, real lives, 
especially those people who contribute to the system and contribute to 
pulling this wagon.
  So I rise in strong support of this amendment. Although it would not 
apply to this particular case, it is a case in point, in principle. I 
thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for bringing it up. I 
support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have tried to listen to most of the 
debate. I have read the amendment, so I am aware of what the amendment 
seeks to do. It almost seems like we are debating whether or not there 
ought to be a Legal Services Corporation rather than debating this 
amendment.
  Obviously, the story the Senator from Montana told would not be 
affected by this amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with that 
case whatsoever. I see the Senator from Montana still on the floor. If 
I might just ask the Senator from Montana if he would provide me with a 
cite for that Texas case. I would like to take a look at that. If, in 
fact, the man in Montana did not receive notification, someone ought to 
look at the notification provision in the Texas law on what due 
notification is, if you are being sued in court.
  However, I am here to discuss the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Texas. This is not the first time that the Senator from Texas has 
attacked the Legal Services Corporation or, in essence, attacked the 
right of low-income people to secure representation through the Legal 
Services Corporation of America. I have been here several years, and it 
seems like every year we have this up in one way or another. The 
Senator from Texas generally has some amendment that would cut the 
funding for Legal Services.
  I think the Senator from Texas has been quite forthright in his 
amendments. But I think that he would admit that he thinks there is no 
real reason for Legal Services. If an amendment came on the floor to 
cut all funding for Legal Services and draw it to zero, I would guess 
that the Senator from Texas would support it.
  So we have to look at where the Senator from Texas is coming from on 
this issue. Usually, the Senator from Texas just tries to cut funding 
for Legal Services in an open, frontal manner, which has not worked in 
the past. Now the Senator from Texas has raised the issue of welfare 
reform to cleverly cover another attack on Legal Services. So be it. 
But I think when we look at the amendment, it really puts us on a very 
slippery slope toward doing away with fundamental constitutional 
rights, not just of low-income people but of a lot of people in this 
country.
  The Senator said, for example, in his remarks earlier that there is 
no constitutional right to welfare. The Senator is correct. There is no 
constitutional right to welfare in this country. We could, by law, 
eliminate all of welfare. Perhaps the Senator from Texas would like to 
do that; I do not know. Perhaps we could become a country where people 
who are down and out on their luck, or out of a job, could just starve; 
or perhaps we can be like a Third World country where if you do not 
have a job, or you are down and out, or maybe have a disability, you 
can go out on the nearest street corner and beg. We can have every 
street lined with beggars, with their limbs severed and bellies 
extended, and they can be out there panhandling in Dallas, Houston, 
Austin, Des Moines, and every place else. Maybe that is what we want to 
become as a Nation. I do not really think so.
  Again, he said we could eliminate welfare. Well, we can have a debate 
on that if we want to. That will come up when we have welfare reform 
proposals. Some of us sincerely want to reform the welfare system in 
America. As I have said many times, the welfare system in America is 
unfair to the people who are on it and to the taxpayers of this 
country. No one wants to reform welfare more than this Senator. In 
fact, I, along with a Senator from the other side, Senator Bond from 
Missouri, have introduced the first bipartisan welfare proposal. In 
fact, if I am not mistaken, I think we now have more Republicans than 
Democrats on it. That proposal is based upon what we did in the State 
of Iowa. It does provide for more responsibility on the part of people 
who receive welfare, but it has provisions for people to get off 
welfare and become self-sufficient.
  So I commend the Senator from Texas if he is really interested in 
welfare reform--not doing away with it but reforming the system and 
making it into a system that truly enables people to become self-
sufficient. I commend him and ask him to look at the Iowa welfare 
reform proposal. I know the Senator from Texas is spending a lot of 
time in Iowa these days, and perhaps he might want to look at what they 
have done.
  I point out to the Senator from Texas that the welfare reform 
proposal in Iowa passed the Iowa legislature with only one dissenting 
vote. It was supported by conservative Republicans and liberal 
Democrats and moderates in between, and it was signed into law by a 
conservative Governor of Iowa, a Republican, Governor Branstad. Perhaps 
the Senator from Texas, if he is truly interested in welfare reform, 
might want to look at what we did in Iowa and look at the welfare 
reform proposal Senator Bond and I have introduced.
  I agree that there is no constitutional right to welfare; but if we 
do in fact provide welfare, then we must do it in accordance with the 
Constitution of the United States. That is where the Senator from Texas 
loses his argument. Again, we can debate whether we should have welfare 
or not. We will do that later. But if in fact we provide welfare, it 
must be done in accordance with the Constitution. Surely, the Senator 
from Texas would not say we can trample on the Constitution, throw all 
the constitutional protections and rights out the window in providing 
welfare.
  For example, could we provide welfare to whites and not to blacks, as 
the Senator from Minnesota said? Of course, we could not do that. Could 
we say, ``You can only get welfare if you are over 21 and if you have a 
high school education, but other people cannot?'' No, we could not do 
that. So, again, if we provide welfare, we must do it in accordance 
with the Constitution, in accordance with the equal protection clause 
and the due process clause. I do not believe the Senator from Texas 
could argue that we can trample on the due process clause or the equal 
protection clause of the Constitution in providing welfare.
  I see the distinguished majority leader is on the floor and would 
like to have some time. I wonder if I could yield to the majority 
leader without losing my right to the floor, and I so ask unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator's right is protected.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
  I discussed this matter with the distinguished chairman; the ranking 
member, the Senator from Texas; the Senator from Iowa; the Senator from 
Minnesota; and others. I will now propound a unanimous consent request 
to govern the proceedings on this bill during this evening.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 7:20 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Gramm and 
Wellstone, or their designees; that at 7:20 p.m. Senator Shelby be 
recognized to offer his amendment regarding child support enforcement; 
that there be a time limitation of 20 minutes on Senator Shelby's 
amendment and that Senator Shelby control that time; and that upon the 
use or yielding back of that time, Senator Shelby's amendment be laid 
aside; that at 9 p.m. the Senate vote on Senator Shelby's amendment; 
that upon the disposition of Senator Shelby's amendment, Senator 
Wellstone, or his designee, be recognized to move to table Senator 
Gramm's amendment, and, if the amendment is not tabled, the amendment 
continue to be debatable; and that no amendments be in order to Senator 
Shelby's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Senator HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I do reserve the right to object. I have 
been waiting some time to speak. I have a lot I want to speak on this 
amendment. I do want to read from the actual case in New Jersey that is 
the subject of the ongoing amendment. I would like to read from this 
and a few other documents to make the case against this amendment.
  I am not certain that I can finish that in a half-hour and that would 
be all the time that would be allotted to this side.
  I see the Senator from California wishes to speak. I would assume the 
Senator from Texas probably wants to respond to what the Senator from 
Iowa has said, and I may want to rebut that later on after he speaks.
  Certainly 1 hour is not going to permit that to happen. I hope that 
we might have more time than that.
  I understand the majority leader's interest in moving on, but I 
believe this issue is one of the more important issues that we will 
confront here on the floor. It has to do with constitutional rights. We 
are receiving letters and communications from the administration even 
as we are on the floor regarding this amendment.
  So I really do not think that a half-hour is going to be enough time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am talking so maybe the majority leader might extend 
the time a little.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Let me make a few points.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has reserved the right to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object at this point.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I just have a question.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wait. The Senate must come back to order.
  The Senator from Iowa was recognized. He yielded to the majority 
leader for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent request, 
reserving his right to the floor. That consent request was agreed to.
  The majority leader just propounded a unanimous consent request. The 
Senator from California objected.
  So the Senator from Iowa now has the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I would like to ask if the Senator 
will permit me to determine why it is that Senators are objecting so 
that I might accommodate their concerns in doing this as I do.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the right to the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished Senator from Iowa yield for 1 
minute so I may respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield such 
time as he may want to the majority leader as long as this Senator from 
Iowa reserves his right that upon the ending of the time the majority 
leader has I reserve my right to the floor. Of course, if the majority 
leader wants to yield to the Senator from Texas for a colloquy, that is 
fine with me. I want to reserve my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished leader yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the majority leader has the 
floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I am pleased to yield to the Senator 
from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I say to my colleagues as I look to the 
unanimous consent request, we would go on this amendment until 7:20. 
Then Senator Shelby would be recognized and that debate would be 
limited to 20 minutes. So at 7:40 we would be back on this amendment or 
on other amendments and we would still have an hour and 20 minutes 
before we vote.
  Either other amendments could be offered or we could go back to this 
amendment. So the Senator would not be limited, as I understand the 
unanimous consent request, from debating this amendment after the hour 
of 7:20 had been reached.
  I would like to ask him to please reconsider the majority leader's 
proposal. We will still have an hour and 20 minutes left if someone 
wanted to use it for this purpose after Senator Shelby has presented 
his amendment. I think I am right.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I would like to point out that we have 
been on this amendment now for more than 2\1/2\ hours. It is an 
important amendment, as is every amendment, and every Senator's 
comments are important. But we are talking about 30 minutes ago when I 
got what I thought was an agreement to have an hour and half of debate. 
While we were trying to get everybody to agree to it and get it typed 
up, 30 minutes elapsed, and so the consent provided for 1 hour.
  Now, if the Senators would like some additional time, tell me what 
they would like, and then we will try to accommodate them.
  The Senator from California would like how much time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Fifteen minutes.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I am trying to find out what people 
want because I cannot accommodate anybody if I do not know what they 
want.
  Maybe I can do this, Madam President. Why do I not suggest the 
absence of a quorum and everybody come down and tell me what they want 
and then we will get the agreement.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 7:40 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Gramm and 
Wellstone, or their designees, but out of that time Senator Boxer be 
recognized for 15 minutes of Senator Harkin's time and Senator Hollings 
be recognized for 5 minutes of Senator Gramm's time; that at 7:40 p.m. 
Senator Shelby be recognized to offer his amendment regarding child 
support enforcement; that there be a time limitation of 10 minutes on 
Senator Shelby's amendment, and that Senator Shelby control that time; 
and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, Senator Shelby's 
amendment be laid aside; that at 9 p.m. the Senate vote on Senator 
Shelby's amendment; that upon the disposition of Senator Shelby's 
amendment, Senator Wellstone, or his designee, be recognized to move to 
table Senator Gramm's amendment and, if the amendment is not tabled, 
the amendment continue to be debatable; and that no amendment be in 
order to Senator Shelby's amendment.
  Madam President, I think I misspoke. I believe I said the time should 
be divided between Senators Gramm and Harkin, and I should say the time 
should be divided between Senators Gramm and Wellstone. That is the 
control of the time on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is what the majority leader said.
  Is there objection to the majority leader's request?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just 
want to ask, at 8 o'clock, between 8 and 9, then the floor is open for 
anything? Anybody can talk about anything? Or are we coming back on the 
Gramm amendment at 8 o'clock?
  Mr. MITCHELL. It is my hope that we can get another amendment up in 
that time, debate another amendment, and vote on that as the third vote 
in succession after 9 o'clock. That is our hope and intention.
  Mr. HARKIN. So the majority leader is saying really that in 1 hour 
and 10 minutes we are done with this amendment?
  Mr. MITCHELL. We are done with the current debate. But I point out to 
the Senator that a vote occurs at approximately 9:20. If the Senator's 
side prevails, we are done with it. If the Senator's side does not 
prevail, he retains the right to debate further.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the majority leader's 
request is agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous-consent request, 
the Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, will the Senator yield for just a 
moment?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Senators then should be aware that there will be no 
votes between now and 9 p.m., but at 9 p.m., there will be at least two 
votes and possibly a third if the managers are able to get another 
amendment up and debate it during that time.
  I thank my colleagues again for their cooperation, and I thank the 
Senator from Iowa for his cooperation.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator 
from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa may proceed for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I believe where I left off--and I will 
correct the Record to show this--I was saying that we cannot indeed 
have a welfare system if in fact we do it unconstitutionally.
  The Senator from Texas said that people might want to challenge 
welfare reform or the constitutionality of it, but the taxpayers should 
not have to pay for it.
  Well, if there is indeed a right to challenge laws passed by Congress 
or State legislatures on constitutional grounds, but the courthouse 
door is effectively blocked since the challenger cannot hire an 
attorney and cannot pay the fees, then, indeed, that legal right 
becomes a very hollow right.
  Madam President, I would refer back in history to voting rights. 
Certainly we had the right to vote under the Constitution of the United 
States. But, as we know, many States set up barricades to voting--poll 
taxes that people could not pay, reading tests that people could not 
pass. And so, in 1965, the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to 
ensure that the right to vote in America was not just a hollow right.
  The same is true of civil rights; and the Americans With Disabilities 
Act, guaranteeing the rights of people with a disability. All of these 
things we have done to ensure the constitutional rights that people 
have are not just indeed hollow rights.
  But the Senator from Texas went on to say that taxpayers should not 
pay for it. He says taxpayers do not want their money to be used to 
challenge work rules. Well, I believe--that might be right, unless 
taxpayers really knew what was at stake.
  I believe that taxpayers just as strongly do not want peoples' 
constitutional rights trampled on--theirs or anybody else's. Because if 
we trample on the constitutional rights of one individual today, 
tomorrow it may be you, and next week it may be me.
  So I think taxpayers understand full well that people ought to be 
constitutionally protected in their constitutional rights. And if a 
person does not have the means to hire an attorney to protect those 
constitutional rights, I believe taxpayers would say the Government 
ought to provide that to people so they can protect their 
constitutional rights and then it does not become a hollow right.
  I believe the establishment of a Legal Services Corporation has been 
well supported by the people of this country. We have had amendments to 
constrict it and change it, which is fine. But the underlying premise 
of Legal Services to protect people's constitutional rights, is 
something I think the taxpayers would not want to change.
  I would ask the Senator from South Carolina, the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee--if we say we should not use taxpayers' 
money to allow a low-income person to challenge the constitutionality 
of a law that we pass, why do we not say that corporations and law 
firms cannot use tax deductions to challenge tax laws that we pass?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Do you want me to answer that?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator, if he wants to answer that, sure.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You asked if taxpayers could challenge the 
constitutionality of the laws we pass. I am glad you asked it that way, 
because we might get back to what is at issue.
  No law that we passed is constitutionally being challenged. What law 
is being challenged is the law in the State of New Jersey.
  Mr. HARKIN. Precisely; the Senator is right.
  What is being challenged is a State law.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
  Mr. HARKIN. So I would direct the attention of the Senator from South 
Carolina to the language of the amendment. What is at issue is indeed a 
State law. But the amendment says Federal or State law. It does not 
just say State law. So the amendment reaches to laws passed by the 
Congress, does it not?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me get right to the point. You folks over there on 
Labor and Human Resources, the labor and human services department of 
Government is very capable and full of lawyers. All of you who serve on 
this committee are running around here questioning the thing. You do 
not need the limited Legal Services Corporation to get involved in 
suing the States of America.
  Now that is what this is about. They are suing the State of New 
Jersey. I can well see where it is coming from. Many Senators are 
interested in this, and I respect them.
  But I am trying to save Legal Services. This is not about welfare 
reform. This is about saving the Legal Services Corporation in this 
particular appropriations.
  When you get off away from these cases for the poor--I can tell you 
right now, I really love one sentence. The distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts said, ``Only 15 percent of the demand is cared for in 
Massachusetts''; 15 percent of the demand is cared for. That means 85 
percent are not getting what you are talking about--their 
constitutional rights protected.
  And the distinguished Senator from Minnesota says, ``Don't tell me 
there are people that want to see women and children denied their right 
to be represented.''
  There are. Us. We are not giving them enough money for the 85 percent 
in the State of Massachusetts. We are the ones denying them. That is 
your theory.
  I am trying to save this department. You all are way off on a toot 
relative to welfare, stereotypes, who is for the Legal Services 
Corporation, who is against it, fundamentally, and all those other 
things.
  So the answer to your question is: If you will leave us alone, we 
will be able to provide for the Legal Services Corporation and go ahead 
and debate welfare reform at another time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I appreciate what the chairman has said.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think what we really have to do is take a look at the 
case in point.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
  Mr. HARKIN. C.K., et al., Plaintiffs versus Donna Shalala, Secretary, 
United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Docket 
93-5354. Here is what it is about. It is about the impact of child 
exclusion on plaintiffs.
  The State of New Jersey has passed a law saying that a woman who has 
received AFDC for any month within the 10 months preceding the birth of 
any child shall be excluded from receiving benefits for that child if 
in fact she had been on welfare before. She would be denied benefits.
  There is a lot of talk about women who have extra children should not 
be given those benefits. We can discuss that in welfare reform.
  What happened, then, in New Jersey? Let us look at this case, the 
parents receive AFDC, and they had more children. ``Most of the women 
plaintiffs did not intend or plan to have additional children when they 
became pregnant.''
  Let us read some of the cases:

       B.C. was brutally raped in front of her sons. Q.A. became 
     pregnant when the father of her first child, who had 
     previously left her, overpowered and forced himself on her 
     when she went to his apartment to retrieve some personal 
     items.

  Then we list a whole bunch of other women--they are using their 
initials--who became pregnant even though they were using birth control 
regularly. It goes on and on about all of these people:

       B.B. became pregnant despite correctly using a 99 percent 
     effective contraceptive prescription.
       B.C., who became pregnant by rape, felt very depressed and 
     could not decide what to do about her pregnancy. She decided 
     against an abortion because she believes it is wrong.

  We talk a lot, but we do not talk about the real facts in the case in 
front of us. As I said before, if we are going to provide welfare, can 
we just say to a woman: We do not care. You may have been using 
contraceptives, you may have been raped--we do not care. If you have 
another child, you do not get any welfare for that.
  That is, in my opinion, unconstitutional. But who is going to fight 
for that woman's unless it is Legal Services.
  The Senator from South Carolina says he is fighting to save Legal 
Services--for what? To do what? To just do nothing? To my way of 
thinking, Legal Services is there to fight for people who believe that 
their constitutional rights have been trampled on. Why do you want to 
save Legal Services if they cannot fight for low-income people?
  I might add here, Madam President--maybe I am the only Senator here 
who was a Legal Services attorney. I take great pride in that. In fact, 
one of the proudest periods of my life, except for serving in the 
military, was when I was a Legal Services attorney.
  I will tell you, Madam President, as a Legal Services attorney you 
see some pretty tough cases. I saw these cases. When I hear all this 
talk about Legal Services--I have seen the tightening down of Legal 
Services that has happened since I was a Legal Services attorney. A lot 
of it I did not agree with, but that was the mood of the Congress at 
the time. I think to pass this amendment would be the most egregious 
trampling on the constitutional rights of people in this country--not 
just poor people--that we have seen at least since I have been in the 
Senate.
  So again, if we want to save Legal Services, we ought to ask what are 
we saving them for? If they cannot even take these kinds of hard cases, 
where a State law has blatantly trampled on the constitutional rights 
of people? If Legal Services cannot even represent them, do away with 
Legal Services. Then it becomes a sham. So we might as well do away 
with it.
  The Senator from South Carolina says he wants to help save it but I 
ask, what for, if they cannot even take these kinds of cases and help 
people who have been raped and made pregnant through no fault of their 
own? Again, we have to look at the actual case in front of us and not 
talk about something that is not real. This is a real case. It is real 
people. You can read it in the docket that has been filed in the U.S. 
District Court of New Jersey.
  Madam President, again, this amendment is one that puts us on a 
slope. What next?
  I ask the Senator from Texas, what next? Do we then say to veterans: 
We are going to carve veterans out. If you are a veteran and you are 
low income, sorry, Legal Services cannot represent you?
  We could do that, could we not? Of course we could. We could say, if 
we have a change in veterans benefits laws and veterans who put their 
lives on the line for their country, who are down on their luck, who 
are out of work, who may be on welfare, who are low income, and who 
want to challenge the constitutionality of what we did or what the 
State did-- sorry, you cannot do it. Why do we not do that? Why do we 
not just take this amendment and extend it to veterans, and say that no 
veteran can challenge any State or Federal law that seeks to terminate 
or in any way change veterans benefits?
  How many votes do you think that would get around here?
  So, again, I think when we start doing this kind of exercise, we put 
ourselves in a terrible position of moving on to other groups and 
excluding other groups from their constitutional rights.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from Attorney General Janet Reno in opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator Gramm. Also, a letter from the Iowa State 
Bar Association, a resolution in support of the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1994.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to advise you that the 
     Department of Justice opposes the amendment offered by 
     Senator Gramm (R-TX) to the FY 1995 Commerce, Justice, State 
     and Judiciary Appropriations bill that would restrict the use 
     of funds of the Legal Service Corporation from being used in 
     lawsuits concerning the Federal Government's or a State's 
     distribution of an individual's welfare benefits.
       This Administration strongly supports reforming the welfare 
     system. However, we are also concerned with protecting the 
     legal rights of our citizens. Legal Service Corporation 
     programs defend the rights of low-income people by providing 
     them representation for issues of vital importance to them 
     and their families. Any restrictions on legal services 
     programs in providing this representation would severely 
     limit poor people from obtaining legal counsel to resolve 
     welfare and family law issues.
       I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this amendment. 
     Thank you for considering the Department's views on this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.
                                  ____


                       Iowa State Bar Association


                               resolution

       Whereas, equal access to our system of justice is essential 
     to all Americans, including those unable to afford legal 
     assistance, and
       Whereas, since 1965 federally funded legal services 
     programs have played a major role in providing legal 
     assistance to low income Americans, and
       Whereas, the availability of legal services has helped 
     promote a faith in our system of government and respect for 
     the rule of law, and
       Whereas, federally funded legal services programs are 
     vastly under-funded to carry out its essential functions and 
     in today's dollars is funded at only 48% of the level funded 
     in 1981, and
       Whereas, the number of legal services offices serving the 
     poor nationally has declined by 36% since 1980 and the number 
     of lawyers has fallen from 6,559 in 1980 to 4,651 in 1993, 
     while in Iowa there are five fewer offices and at least 
     twenty five fewer layers. Now therefore be it
       Resolved, that the Board of Governors of The Iowa State Bar 
     Association joins with the American Bar Association and bar 
     associations from all over the country, in calling for 
     Congressional support of the $500 million federal legal 
     services appropriation included in President Clinton's 
     budget.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, under the unanimous-consent agreement, 
at this point am I entitled 15 minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise not as a member of the Labor 
Committee but as a Member of the U.S. Senate and an American citizen, 
to strongly oppose the Gramm amendment.
  Before I make my comments, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
dated July 21, 1994 from Janet Reno, Attorney General, in opposition to 
the Gramm amendment be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washingtion, DC, July 21, 1994.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to advise you that the 
     Department of Justice opposes the amendment offered by 
     Senator Gramm (R-TX) to the FY 1995 Commerce, Justice, State 
     and Judiciary Appropriations bill that would restrict the use 
     of funds of the Legal Service Corporation from being used in 
     lawsuits concerning the Federal Government's or a State's 
     distribution of an individual's welfare benefits.
       This Administration strongly supports reforming the welfare 
     system. However, we are also concerned with protecting the 
     legal rights of our citizens. Legal Service Corporation 
     programs defend the rights of low-income people by providing 
     them representation for issues of vital importance to them 
     and their families. Any restrictions on local services 
     programs in providing this representation would severely 
     limit poor people from obtaining legal counsel to resolve 
     welfare and family law issues.
       I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this amendment. 
     Thank you for considering the Department's views on this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.
                                  ____

  Mrs. BOXER. I think Attorney General Reno puts her finger right on 
the issue when she says, ``This administration strongly supports 
reforming the welfare system.'' Indeed, I might say to you, Madam 
President, it is the Clinton administration that recommended reforming 
the welfare system. She goes on to say:

       However, we are also concerned with protect the legal 
     rights of our citizens. Legal Service Corporation programs 
     defend the rights of low-income people by providing them 
     representation for issues of vital importance to them and 
     their families. Any restrictions on legal services programs 
     in providing this representation would severely limit poor 
     people from obtaining legal counsel to resolve welfare and 
     family law issues.

  She closes with these words:

       I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this amendment. 
     Thank you for considering the Department's view on this 
     matter.

  I commend Senator Harkin for his comments. He has been in the 
trenches. I am not an attorney but I did volunteer for a Legal Services 
Corporation in my home county many years ago. Senator Harkin is right. 
There are a lot of tough situations out there: People dealing with 
difficult and abusive relationships; people dealing sometimes with 
agencies that do not treat them fairly because they are poor. These 
people need an advocate and that is the reason the Legal Services 
Corporation was set up and that is why I think this amendment does a 
great trauma to the Legal Services Corporation Act. I would like to 
read in part from title 10, Legal Services Corporation Act in the 
Statement of Findings and Declaration of Purpose.

       The Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) There is a need to provide equal access to the system 
     of justice in our Nation for individuals who seek redress of 
     grievances.
       (2) There is a need to provide high-quality legal 
     assistance to those who would be otherwise unable to afford 
     adequate legal counsel and to continue the present vital 
     Legal Services program.
       (3) To preserve its strength, the Legal Services program 
     must be kept free from the influence of or use by it of 
     political pressures;
       (4) Attorneys providing legal assistance must have full 
     freedom to protect the best interests of their clients in 
     keeping with the code of professional responsibility, the 
     canons of ethics and the high standards of the legal 
     profession.

  Madam President, when you tamper with the spirit and the letter of 
this act, it seems to me you are, in essence, reversing the purposes of 
the act. The act does not say help poor people except where they need 
it most, and when it comes to their survival.
  I think if we vote for the Gramm amendment, we turn our backs on the 
mandate of the Legal Services Corporation, a corporation that was 
established to ``provide equal access to the system of justice for 
individuals who seek redress of grievances.''
  I agree with the Senator from Iowa when he says he believes the true 
motive behind this amendment is to do away with the Legal Services 
Corporation. Why do I say that? I say that because one-third of Legal 
Services cases deal with family issues, and many of these involve child 
support, one of the cornerstones of the welfare reform debate. I think 
it is very important to note that welfare reform initiatives target a 
wide range of programs from health care to nutrition, to disability 
benefits, to child care. This amendment would not allow Legal Services 
to assist these Americans on the issues that matter to them the most.
  I ask my colleagues to think about a real situation. Let us say one 
of the States adopts a welfare reform program that is very sound, very 
good, very fair and very just, except it has one part of it that may 
not be so fair, and that part might deal with, for example, child care.
  It may say in a particular State that people who are in this program 
have to send their children to a particular child care provider.
  Mrs. BOXER. So you have a welfare reform system in a State that is 
pretty good, but it has one part that requires children to be sent to a 
certain type of child care center, let us say a child care center that 
has no rules or regulations about the child care provider.
  Let us say they do no check on whether the people who work in this 
child care center have criminal records, perhaps records where they 
have abused children, perhaps records that we feel would be detrimental 
to those children, creating a situation where they may be harmed, 
physically or mentally.
  Let us say that a mother sues because she wants to stop this type of 
abusive situation from continuing, and wants to get the child out of 
this child care center. Under the Gramm amendment, that mother or that 
father would not have the right to counsel. That is just one example.
  There are other examples. Suppose another State has a terrific 
welfare system, except one part of it says that people have to work 15 
hours straight. Subsequently, the individual who is in this program 
wants to make the case that this is unconstitutional, that it is 
against the law.
  That individual would not have the ability to seek redress through 
the Legal Services Corporation. We are not talking about people, Madam 
President, who can fly into Washington in their pinstripe suits and 
knock on the doors of Senators or Members of Congress, and have 
expensive lawyers and lobbyists to speak for them. We are speaking 
about people who are struggling to put food on the table, people who 
are concerned about their survival. They do not have the ability to pay 
for an attorney.
  So, yes, we can imagine welfare reform as we would like to imagine. I 
am anxious to get to welfare reform. I believe people should work, and 
I believe we need to be tougher on some of our rules, but I do not want 
to take away the rights of a recipient to say, ``You know what, this 
State is violating my rights, or is harming my child,'' and that is 
what this would do.
  It really hits to the core issues here because Legal Services 
Corporation is about helping people where they need help. It is not 
about helping them on some abstract issue. It is about the real issues 
they face, issues of life and death, survival, child care for their 
children, working conditions, food on the table.
  I cannot imagine why any Senator--I really cannot--would want to take 
away the right for any American to be heard in the court. The America 
that I know says we have a level playing field, that we have a level 
playing field for all our people.
  That is why we have a public education system that I am happily a 
product. Without it, I would not have been able to go to college. My 
mother never even graduated from high school. But I was able to get a 
free public education because of the wisdom of people in the Senate and 
the House and in the Presidency who understood the fact that what makes 
America great is that we have a level playing field for all our people. 
And that, Madam President, should not be cut off at the courthouse 
door.
  In closing, I will just say if we bar Legal Services from handling 
these kind of welfare reform cases today, what will there be tomorrow? 
Maybe we will come back and say they cannot handle wife-beating cases. 
Maybe we will come back and say they cannot handle child-abuse cases or 
cases of environmental hazards which result from some fatal fumes that 
come into some of our neighborhoods.
  I hope that we will not adopt this amendment. I hope that we will 
recognize that what we are doing today, if we adopt the Gramm 
amendment, is essentially harming all Americans because we are all as 
strong as the sum of our parts.
  I thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity to participate in 
this debate.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my friend, Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the 
Senator from California for her powerful and eloquent remarks.
  I wonder whether I could ask the Senator from South Carolina, I have 
a situation where the Senator from New Jersey wants 5 minutes to speak, 
but the Senator from Maine also wants 5 minutes to speak. Could I ask 
unanimous-consent to get to 10 additional minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. You can have 5 minutes of Senator Gramm's time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I give the 
Senator from New Jersey 5 minutes and the Senator from Maine 5 minutes, 
if I only have 10 minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 6 minutes and 5 
seconds left.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My understanding is, Madam President, the Senator from 
New Mexico will yield me an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just yield Senator Gramm's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). Then the Senator from 
Minnesota has a total of 11 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. A total of 11 minutes. Then I give the Senator from 
New Jersey 10 minutes and the Senator from Maine 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota and the 
distinguished Senator from Maine.
  Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of my 
colleague from Texas. I understand that the Senator from Texas, both in 
the subcommittee and on the floor, has mentioned welfare reform efforts 
in my State of New Jersey to support his proposition that Legal Aid 
lawyers should be prohibited from challenging State welfare reform 
efforts. I would like to talk a little bit about New Jersey law, 
because I think my colleague from Texas will realize that this 
amendment will actually make it more difficult, not easier, for 
Congress and the States to experiment with real welfare reform.
  Three years ago, the New Jersey Legislature passed five bills that 
put our State far ahead of others in testing some new ideas to get 
people off welfare and into the work force. Most people have heard of 
only one of those bills, the one which says if you conceive a child 
while you are on welfare, you will not receive the additional benefits 
that a larger family would normally receive. It has been called the $64 
question because that is the difference between what a family with two 
kids receives in New Jersey and what a family with three kids gets. I 
looked at that provision in the light of the rest of the welfare reform 
initiative. It would take away $768 a year from a family that already 
does not have enough money to live on. But it also might encourage 
people to realize that bearing additional children while on welfare 
hurts the life chances of all their children. And it was balanced with 
incentives, such as allowing people on welfare to marry someone who 
earns up to about $16,000 without losing benefits, or to earn more 
through part-time work without losing benefits.
  I looked at the whole package, and I decided to support it, including 
the family cap, as a matter of policy. A lot of people disagree with 
me. Some people I respect believe that it is always wrong to hurt a 
child because of the actions or irresponsibility of his or her parents. 
Others would support a family cap even with no other incentives. Those 
are the questions we were elected to resolve. Although this was a State 
law, it required a Federal waiver and the State asked for my help. I 
helped because I decided it was a policy worth testing.
  But there was another question raised about the New Jersey family 
cap: Is the law constitutional? No State had ever done anything like 
this before. There was no line of clear legal precedent. The State was 
saying that if a family of three--a single mother with two children--is 
entitled by law to benefits of $440 a month, it would deny part of that 
benefit to some families because their second child was born after the 
mother began receiving AFDC. Does that constitute discrimination 
against some families? Does it unconstitutionally push people to choose 
to have an abortion? Does it violate the equal protection clause of the 
U.S. Constitution or provisions of the State constitution? Did the 
Federal waiver violate Federal administrative law. Is there due process 
in the denial of benefits?
  Those are legitimate questions of constitutional and statutory 
interpretation. But I did not have to consider them. I would remind my 
colleague from Texas that these are not the questions that we were 
elected to resolve. These are questions for courts and judges to 
resolve. The Senator from Texas said in the subcommittee that those 
arguments are ``going to be laughed out of the courthouse.'' He may be 
right. Certainly the case in California was not laughed out of court. 
But if he is right about the New Jersey case, I do not understand why 
my colleague would want to bar the door to that courthouse. If there is 
laughing to be done, let the judge do it, not us.

  Suppose the amendment of the Senator from Texas was law in 1991. I 
have to decide whether to support the family cap in New Jersey. I have 
to weigh all the policy considerations just as I did at the time. I 
want to leave the questions of legal interpretation to a court. But if 
the Senator's amendment prevails, then I have the knowledge that the 
people with standing to challenge the law may never get access to a 
court. I have to make the decision myself. And I am naturally going to 
be very cautious. I do not want to be responsible for an 
unconstitutional law that cannot be tested. Neither do our counterparts 
in State legislatures. The end result will be less experimentation, 
less innovation, and more of the same on welfare.
  Welfare is not a right. It carries with it a responsibility to care 
for one's family, to plan sensibly for the future, and to make every 
effort to become economically self-sufficient through work or marriage. 
That principle will be at the heart of every serious welfare reform 
initiative. But that means every welfare reform initiative is likely to 
raise new questions about rights and responsibilities. Many of those 
questions will have to be resolved in court. But instead of condemning 
those who bring those challenges in court, we ought to thank them. They 
free us to innovate and experiment, without being restrained by the 
fear that our policy might be unconstitutional.
  If the Senator from Texas is serious about welfare reform, is serious 
about constitutional rights, and is serious about respecting the 
distinction among the branches of our Government, frankly, I think he 
should withdraw the amendment because it offends on all of those 
grounds. It will, in my view, be a wrong direction for us to take. 
There will be less reform. Whether you are for or against the family 
cap, standing alone, which I would not be, whether you are for the 
family cap as a part of a five-package State welfare reform proposal 
that had an upside potential of $16,000 more and a downside potential 
of losing $768, you will be less likely to take these kinds of 
innovative chances, if people who have standing but who are poor cannot 
have Legal Services represent them to bring their case that might 
differ in their view of the Constitution.
  So, Madam President, I strongly oppose this amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Texas. I think a lot of points have been 
made about the New Jersey law. The New Jersey law might never have been 
passed had this amendment been in existence in 1991, and there would be 
less experimentation in welfare reform, not more. We need more 
experimentation, not less, in order to get people off welfare and into 
jobs.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I think we all agree that the welfare 
system is broken and needs to be fixed. And the States in fact are 
experimenting and want to continue that experimentation to reform the 
system in a way that will break the cycle of dependency. But we should 
want our States to pass laws that are consistent with Federal policy 
and consistent with the Federal Constitution.
  We are now saying that, if we accept the Gramm amendment, the poor 
may have their rights violated, but they no longer have the keys to the 
courtroom. It reminds me of a similar argument made in this Chamber in 
the past. When you do not like a Supreme Court decision, you simply try 
to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Time after time we have 
rejected that approach.
  It is similar in this particular case because now we are saying we do 
not like court decisions in New Jersey or California, and so we will 
just prevent the poor from getting to court to raise these kinds of 
issues.
  Madam President, I think this amendment contravenes the declaration 
engraved on the pediment over at the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice 
Under Law.''
  This amendment is not consistent with that declaration, and we ought 
to defeat it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield such time off Senator Gramm as he needs.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will take that time.
  Madam President, right to the point. This thing has gotten into a 
welfare argument, which is not the case at all. You would think 
listening to all of these folks around that there were no lawyers in 
this city. We have lawyers coming out of our ears in the Department of 
Health and Human Services. And I can tell you and guarantee you that--
and these distinguished Senators have oversight in the committee--if 
those lawyers are not protecting the rights of AFDC recipients, all the 
rest of them, these particular programs, SSI, Supplemental Security 
Income, and the welfare women and children and everything else like 
that--we know all these lawyers.
  The Legal Services Corporation never was organized for this 
particular purpose. We have to try to do what they are talking about, 
getting individual poor people into the courthouse to get equal justice 
under the law. I can tell you this is a questionable program. I have 
had the dickens of a time holding up the budget.
  So we come right to the point of the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas. He is saying let us not use the money from Legal Services to sue 
the States who are out there trying to put in these particular 
programs. I cannot understand the logic that, if you pass this 
amendment, it is going to be, as the Senator from New Jersey says, less 
innovation. I tried to listen as closely as I could. But I can tell you 
now that, to go home and start saying that they are suing the States 
and they are not looking out for the poor people, they just have 
special interest groups and the special interest groups want to use the 
Federal till to help in these cases, is assuming we did not have 
lawyers to sue States.
  Madam President, I agree with what she said. But that is not to the 
point. Janet Reno says here that:

       We are concerned with protecting the legal rights of our 
     citizens. Legal Services Corporation programs defend the 
     rights of low-income people by providing them representation 
     for issues of vital importance to them and their families. 
     Any restrictions on Legal Services programs in providing this 
     representation would severely limit poor people from 
     obtaining legal counsel to resolve welfare and family law 
     issues.

  Amen. We can agree on that. Why? Here is the booklet that was read 
from by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I read from it. 
He was quoting Senator Rudman. He did not read this part. And this is 
the problem:

       While poor people's needs for legal services have grown 
     dramatically over the past decade, the resources available to 
     address those needs have continued to decline. Federal 
     funding for legal services is about 52 percent less now than 
     it was in 1981 when adjusted for the increased cost of 
     services and a growing client population. Far fewer 
     neighborhood law offices exist today than in 1980, and those 
     remaining see many more clients coming through their doors. 
     Whereas, the general population enjoys the ratio of 305 
     people per attorney, for poor people that ratio soars to over 
     10,000 to 1. Even with the increased pro bono efforts of the 
     private bar, recent studies in several States all point to 
     the same dismal truth. Only a small percentage of the legal 
     needs of the poor--

  Senator Wellstone.--

     --can be met with the current level of funding.

  Then another little paragraph. I will skip over to another page:

       Federally funded Legal Services programs throughout this 
     country are the best hope America has of utilizing its 
     promise of equal access to justice for all citizens. But 
     today those programs, and their partners in the private bar, 
     are able to meet only a fraction of the legal needs of the 
     poor people.

  That is what I am trying to hold the money for, the poor people and 
for welfare. Do not say these people around here never worked. Do not 
come around here and lecture me on how it is going to ruin them, and 
every woman with the constitutional rights, and all of that. That is 
exactly what we are trying to do. When the Senator from Minnesota 
asks--do not tell me that there are people who want to see women and 
children denied their rights to be represented. The answer is they are 
people; you and I. We are not giving them enough money, is the point. 
If you go off and allow them to join in these super-duper cases where 
there are plenty of lawyers to sue the States on their welfare reform 
programs when everybody in the Congress is saying we need welfare 
reform and the States try to put it in, whether you agree or disagree, 
that is up to the States.
  But let us not use this good money for poor people to start suing the 
several States of America. That is really what is going to ruin Legal 
Services Corporation. I can guarantee it. If you have any sensibility 
at all, this has nothing to do with welfare reform. It has to do about 
suing the States with limited resources that we have here in the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  Anybody that says otherwise does not know what they are talking about 
because I have worked this thing. I have defended the thing. I continue 
to defend it. I fight for increases. I know them intimately, and 
everything else of that kind. But do not get them into suing, or they 
have health reform or welfare reform or anything else that comes 
through in the formal legislative process, where they have a Governor 
and a legislature. And the State of New Jersey has acted. Whether I 
agree or disagree with it, it does not give a hoot about that.
  I want to save that money for the poor, for that 85 percent that the 
Senator from Massachusetts says are not being served. We ought to be 
serving more. You all act like we have unlimited funds and there is the 
money.
  We have the Attorney General. Tell her of the constitutional rights 
you talk about and bring charts about, and tell her to go to work. That 
is what we have here. By George, we got us a crime bill and a Legal 
Services bill and an attorneys general bill. They can get lawyers out 
of their ears now, U.S. attorneys and everything else, in the 
Department of Justice. That is what we have provided for. Tell her to 
go to work, but do not come in here and mess up the Legal Services 
Corporation, because that is what you are doing.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. I know he feels very strongly 
about what he is saying. Would the Senator agree with me that those of 
us who have raised serious questions about the Gramm amendment, from 
the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator 
from California and others, certainly we are not--I mean, I think we 
are all well known as advocates, as is the Senator from South Carolina, 
of as much funding as possible for the Legal Services Corporation; 
would you, Senator, agree?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I do not know, because you have taken away the money to 
sue States. I am trying to get the money to the hungry poor of this 
land.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Would the Senator not agree that what the amendment 
says is that none of the----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If you want to nullify a law, we are not going to give 
that money to Legal Services to get it nullified.
  Constitutional rights and privileges are fine business, but if there 
is a law--and particularly here we are talking about welfare reform--if 
you want to nullify that, do not use Legal Services. You have the 
Labor, Health and Human Resources Committee. In fact, Donna Shalala is 
a party to this case. She can join in and agree right now. Do not worry 
about that. You have lawyers and the taxpayers and act like you do not 
have the rights.
  They have lawyers coming out of their ears over there trying to 
protect the hungry poor, as we are both talking about, but not for 
Legal Services Corporation. You know it and I know it. If you are going 
to use money to sue all the States on all the laws, it says you should 
not go around nullifying laws.
  But under the laws--and that is the rights; now you are talking. 
Under the Federal law, under the State law, there are rights and, by 
cracky, use Legal Services Corporation. But when you want to attack and 
nullify the law itself, use the Attorney General, the Department of 
Health and Human Services. They have SSI and they have the AFDC, Aid 
for Dependent Children. That is who they are looking out for. Are you 
telling me those lawyers are not going to look out for those children?
  Mr. HARKIN. I think that most of them will. There are not enough of 
them there to take all these individual cases.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You mean to say Health and Human Services does not have 
enough money to handle all the cases there? Now you are talking my 
point. We do not have enough money to handle our cases over here for 
the hungry poor.
  Mr. HARKIN. I cannot believe the Senator would want us to use the 
Federal Government to trample on States rights.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sirree.
  Mr. HARKIN. We do not want to trample----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, you use the word ``trample.'' They can certainly 
question State policies.
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not think the Federal Government ought to be used to 
trample on States rights.
  I ask the Senator this question: If a person that is eligible for 
legal services goes into a welfare office and the worker there, the 
staff person, says: no, you are not eligible for welfare, you are 
black, an African-American, and I do not like you, get out of here, you 
are not going to get welfare, and she goes to Legal Services; do you 
believe that Legal Services ought to be able to represent her in court 
because she was denied that by a worker? That is an individual case.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would rather listen again to your case because----
  Mr. HARKIN. A woman goes in to get----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will give you the answer. You said you did not 
believe the Federal Government ought to use moneys to trample on States 
rights. When you use Legal Services Corporation's money, you are using 
the Federal Government and the Federal money to trample on States 
rights, to turn away the law. So you have to listen to what you are 
asking about. Give me that individual case.
  Do not look puzzled. You said you do not believe that the Federal 
Government ought to be using money to trample on States rights, namely, 
to turn aside laws. When you use Legal Services Corporation Federal 
moneys to set aside the New Jersey law, to nullify it--and that is what 
this amendment is about--then you are trampling on the State of New 
Jersey with Federal money, which you say you do not believe in.
  Mr. HARKIN. No, I was responding to another point the Senator made on 
using Health and Human Services.
  The point I want to make is that the Senator very strongly said he 
supports the right of Legal Services attorneys to go into court on 
behalf of individual rights. So let us take an individual, a woman, who 
goes into the welfare office, applies for welfare, and she is otherwise 
eligible; but the staff person there, the interviewer, says: No, I am 
not going to qualify you for welfare; I do not like you. You have 
talked back to me. I do not like your attitude. Besides that, you are 
an African-American, and I think there are too many African-Americans 
on welfare, get out of here. Let us say she goes----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. May I respond?
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to know, do you think Legal Services ought to be 
able to represent her in local court? This is an individual case.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. There is no question about the individual rights. In 
fact, under the Reagan administration, they appointed some that did not 
believe in the Legal Services Corporation. It was not just the color; 
they did not believe in the program. I mentioned early on that I 
brought Lewis Powell over here from the Supreme Court and said, 
``Justice, you were President of the American Bar Association, come 
over here and save me. They are about to do away with it.'' We saved 
it.
  Yes, they go in and get the individual rights--housing cases, 
consumer cases, family law, employment cases, juvenile cases, education 
cases. Here is a documentary of all the cases they handle. We believe 
in that, and we want more money for those, rather than going around 
bringing States, sovereign States, into the court of law. Well, they 
wasted $2 million of the money I could have gotten to the hungry poor. 
They did not agree with the policy.
  Mr. HARKIN. So the Senator believes that in the case I proffered, 
indeed legal services could represent that individual.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Should.
  Mr. HARKIN. And should. But what if the State passes a law that says 
no African-Americans can get welfare in this State, and that excludes a 
whole class of people? A legal Services lawyer cannot then take that 
case to court? You can do an individual, but not for more than an 
individual? I do not understand that dichotomy.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You gave a fanciful case and an erroneous conclusion. 
If you had a State that said no African-American would receive 
something, we have the Civil Rights Division in here. Yes sirree, they 
would love to come in on a case like that against the State of South 
Carolina, or Iowa, or wherever else. You do not need Legal Services 
Corporation. We have this under President Nixon.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator that you are right. But what if the 
State of New Jersey says no woman on welfare that has another child can 
get additional welfare benefits--which is the case in point--regardless 
of how she got pregnant, whether she was raped or not, and you are 
saying that in that case, Legal Services cannot take that case?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If we had enough money, yes. Let Health and Human 
Services and AFDC put up the money, and go ahead and bring the case. 
Let SSI handle that. If they want to attack a State policy--you make it 
sound pretty about the individual. That individual is not being denied. 
It is a policy question; I can tell you that right now. You are 
attacking the State's policy. You are not doing it for that individual. 
You might agree or disagree with it, but the Legal Services Corporation 
never envisioned other than individual cases here for the hungry poor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will report that the charter of the Legal Services 
Corporation----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has reclaimed his time. 
Our rules require that the time be given him. If the Senator from 
Minnesota and the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Iowa 
would like to conclude their colloquy, the Senator from Texas would 
like the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I would be happy to yield. The Senator 
from South Carolina was speaking. If he has anything further to say, I 
would be willing to yield him part of my time.
  The Senator from Iowa and others had all their time and part of my 
time while I was off doing some other task. I want an opportunity to 
respond.
  If the Senator from South Carolina wants to complete his point and 
has anything he wants to say, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator, and all time has 
expired over here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield my 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 11 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, we have had a large number of speakers 
here, and I am afraid we drifted a little bit off the subject. I hope 
people who are following this debate heard it earlier when most of the 
speakers were in favor of the amendment.
  Let me review what the amendment is about. The amendment simply says 
that funds provided to the Legal Services Corporation cannot be used to 
fund institutions where money from that institution is being used to 
challenge welfare reform at either the State or the Federal level in 
State or Federal court.
  There are many people who want to say, look, people have a right to 
go into court to oppose welfare reform. They have a right to come 
picket the Capitol to oppose welfare reform. They have a right to 
contribute their money to candidates who oppose welfare reform. They 
have enumerable rights that enable them to oppose welfare reform. We 
are not talking about those rights.
  We are talking about the taxpayers' money. We are talking about the 
use of the taxpayers' money today in Legal Services where five 
federally funded Legal Services organizations are suing the U.S. 
Government and suing the government of New Jersey to try to overturn a 
welfare reform proposal in New Jersey that is aimed basically at doing 
what the President says we want to do in the whole country, work 
requirements for welfare recipients and refusing to provide more 
benefits to people on welfare who have more children.
  Madam President, people have the right to go into court any time they 
want to. But they do not have the right to use the taxpayers' money for 
that purpose if the taxpayer says we do not want our money used for 
that purpose.
  Now, Legal Services was supposed to help poor people basically 
engaged in lawsuits that were related to family disputes, disputes 
involving their jobs, disputes involving their housing. It was never 
intended to engage in political crusades. It was never intended to fund 
not legal services but political services.
  I have talked earlier about arguments that were made by these five 
Legal Services organizations in New Jersey against the welfare reform 
bill adopted by the legislature in New Jersey and signed by the 
Governor. Let me just read you one of these arguments that is made, the 
argument against welfare reform and why it ought to be overturned.
  Their argument is that they find and declare that child exclusion, 
which is you provide benefits for children that a welfare recipient 
already has but you say to them from this day forward any child 
conceived and born after this date you do not get more welfare. That is 
child exclusion. Their argument is that this is a research experiment 
funded by HHS on human subjects that represents a danger to the 
physical, emotional, and mental well-being of the plaintiffs and the 
members of their class and that HHS has failed to comply with the Human 
Subjects Protection Act.
  Madam President, if someone wants to go into court and make those 
arguments, it is a free country. They have a right to do it. But they 
do not have a right to take the taxpayers' money and use it for that 
purpose.
  So what my amendment says is this: The Legal Services Corporation 
cannot expend money where the money is used directly or indirectly to 
try to overturn State or Federal welfare reform.
  The American people are for welfare reform. We have bipartisan 
support for welfare reform. We may not vote this year on welfare 
reform. The only vote we cast this year on welfare reform may be on 
this amendment. And the issue here is, are we going to permit taxpayer 
money to be used to oppose the will of the taxpayer? This amendment 
says no. Those who oppose the amendment say yes.
  Finally, when Doug Eakeley, who is the chairman of the board of Legal 
Services, was asked before our subcommittee about these lawsuits in New 
Jersey that were aimed at overturning the will of the people of New 
Jersey as manifested through their legislature and through the actions 
of their Governor, trying to win in the court what they could not win 
in the legislature, Doug Eakeley responded as follows:

       That is one element of the welfare reform provision that is 
     not supported by the Legal Services program, and they believe 
     that this is not appropriate.

  Basically what the chairman of the board is saying is that Legal 
Services organizations have the right to determine the appropriateness 
of welfare reform laws and to use taxpayer dollars to fight those laws 
in court.
  Now, here is the point: We clearly have the right in expending the 
taxpayers' money to say we do not want the money spent for this 
purpose. There are literally hundreds of amendments in our 
appropriations bills that say no money appropriated under this bill 
shall be used for this purpose.
  What I am saying in this amendment is that we are not going to use 
the taxpayers' money to go into court to try to prevent the States and 
the Federal Government from engaging in welfare reform which the public 
supports. We are not denying people the right to go into court. 
Nobody's constitutional rights are being taken away here. We are simply 
saying that if you want to oppose welfare reform, do it on your own 
dollar. Do not take the taxpayers' money and use that money for that 
purpose.
  A lot of arguments have been made here today. Some of them I have had 
an opportunity to respond to earlier. Some of them I have not heard. 
But the purpose of this amendment is very, very simple. It is trying to 
take the limited amount of money the taxpayer has, that the taxpayer is 
putting up to help poor people with their legal needs, and it is saying 
help the poor people; do not take this money to engage in a political 
cause at the taxpayers' expense.
  Many people have questioned whether or not people have a right or say 
that somehow this amendment is questioning the right of people to go 
into court to try to stop the State of New Jersey from requiring a 
mandatory work requirement or changing other facets of welfare. I am 
not making that argument. All I am saying is this Congress has the 
power and the right and I believe the obligation to deny the use of 
taxpayers' money for a purpose that we do not agree with, a purpose 
that we believe circumvents the will of the people. That is basically 
what this argument is about.
  Finally, we have had a lot of argument about all of the people and 
their needs and their feelings who are receiving benefits. I think that 
is appropriate, but I think we have to look at the other side of the 
equation as well. We have to look at the people who are paying for 
these benefits. I simply go back to a point that I made earlier in this 
debate.
  It always amazes me how much passion there is for the rights of the 
people who are beneficiaries but how little passion there is in these 
debates for the people who are making the payments. And if we apply any 
real test, where we find some real, honest, flesh and blood, working 
person in America and we said to him or her, do you want your tax money 
that is being taken away from you against your will--because you put 
people in jail for not paying taxes--do you want your tax money to be 
used in the courts to try to block welfare reform that is aimed at 
trying to force the people in the wagon to get out of the wagon and 
help you pull it, my feeling is that the vast majority of American 
workers would say, no, I do not want my money used for that purpose.
  So I am asserting in this amendment that the people who do the work, 
pay the taxes, pull the wagon in America do not want their tax money 
used in the courts opposing welfare reform.
  We are going to test in this amendment whether the Congress agrees 
with that assertion or not, whether the Congress wants to take 
taxpayers' money and continue to allow that money to be used to try to 
overturn welfare reform in the courts, remembering that in no way are 
we saying to people you cannot go into court to try to overturn welfare 
reform. We are simply saying you cannot do it with the taxpayers' 
money.
  Last point. The Washington Post, on May 27, had an article about the 
President proposing exactly this amendment for the Federal Government 
and how 85 organizations were going to file a lawsuit to overturn it. 
There are plenty of people who want to engage in political activity 
with their own money. Let them do it.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I wholeheartedly support the 
amendment offered by Senator Gramm. It only makes common sense that you 
shouldn't use Government money to sue the Government. But common sense 
is an uncommon thing in Washington.
  I have introduced a welfare reform bill, cosponsored by Senator 
Gramm, that would place a cap on the growth of welfare spending, reduce 
illegitimacy, and establish serious, sensible workfare. This is exactly 
the kind of welfare reform that would likely be a target of the liberal 
Legal Services Corporation.
  This is what my bill would do: I propose we place a cap on the growth 
of welfare entitlement spending. We must restrict the long-term 
aggregate rate of growth of welfare spending to 3.5 percent per year. 
This would prevent welfare spending from growing faster than inflation.
  Some individual programs would be permitted to grow by more than 3.5 
percent. Others would grow by less. But the total growth for 76 welfare 
programs, excluding Medicaid, must be held collectively at or below 3.5 
percent per year. It is estimated that this will save $80 billion over 
5 years.
  President Clinton's welfare proposal will increase spending anywhere 
from $9.5 to $58 billion. Serious reform means spending less money, not 
more money. I call on President Clinton to endorse my plan for placing 
a cap on welfare spending. If he truly wants to end welfare as we know 
it, then the President should endorse this bill.
  These 76 programs would be converted into a single discretionary 
block grant to the States, thereby allowing the States the authority to 
increase or decrease funding in particular programs, based on the 
program's success.
  Madam President, if we are going to begin a real reform of the 
system, we must address the root cause that has been fueling the 
welfare bureaucracy for 30 years: illegitimacy. We must limit benefits 
to unwed teenage mothers in order to take away the current cash 
incentive to have more and more out-of-wedlock children.
  This is why this bill would eliminate direct payments, except medical 
aid, to unmarried women under 21 who have children out of wedlock. All 
welfare money which would have gone directly to the unwed mother is 
converted into a block grant to the State.
  This allows States the opportunity to develop new and innovative 
programs to combat illegitimacy while taking away the cash incentive 
for young women to have more out-of-wedlock children. Currently, 30 
percent of all American children are born to single mothers. That's 
wrong. We need to promote and reward the institution of marriage. That 
is why our bill provides a tax credit to low-income married couples 
with children.
  It is only common sense to expect that people who are being given a 
helping hand by the working people of America should be expected to at 
least do a day's work themselves.
  The bill establishes serious but sensible work requirements, while 
requiring far more welfare recipients to work than any other proposals. 
We target work requirements on those welfare recipients who have the 
least justification for being out of the labor force.
  All single, able-bodied adults without children who receive food 
stamps would be required to perform community service work. We would 
also require half of all single mothers receiving AFDC benefits to work 
for their benefits with the priority going to women with children over 
age 5. This allows the children to reach school age before the mothers 
are required to work and thereby avoids high day care costs.
  Madam President, the working taxpayers who struggle every day with no 
guarantees should not be expected to guarantee a way of life for those 
who choose not to work.
  As I have said many times before, we need workfare not welfare.
  Senator Gramm's amendment is a strong step in the direction of real 
welfare reform, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  The issue presented by this amendment is whether all Americans, 
regardless of their financial condition, can have access to justice.
  Madam President, the United States of America is the greatest country 
in the world largely because our Constitution ensures that each and 
every American is entitled to certain inalienable rights: The right to 
equal protection under the laws; the right to due process; and, the 
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. These basic 
rights are at the foundation of our democracy. They are what 
distinguish the United States from the tyrannies of other nations.
  The whole premise of our constitutional system is that if the State 
tramples on an individual's rights--any individual's rights--that 
individual can go to court, and those rights will be vindicated. The 
little guy--the ordinary American--can prevail, even when confronted 
with the awesome power of the State. At least that is the theory.
  But Madam President, the most cherished of our constitutional rights 
mean absolutely nothing if, in the real world, they cannot be enforced. 
And, in the real world, unfortunately, it is often not so easy. In the 
real world, all too often, you need a lawyer to get justice. Maybe you 
do not need a star attorney like F. Lee Bailey or Robert Shapiro, but 
you need some basic level of legal representation. Otherwise, 
maneuvering your way through the intracies of litigation is virtually 
impossible.
  But, Madam President, most legal services are expensive. Very 
expensive. And, for many ordinary Americans, they just cannot afford 
it.
  For these Americans, if a bureaucrat refuses to give them the Social 
Security check to which they are entitled, they cannot just go out and 
hire a private lawyer to seek redress.
  For these Americans, if their ex-spouse refuses to provide child 
support, they cannot just call up their attorney and get a court order.
  For these Americans, if State politicians enact a law that 
unconstitutionally denies them benefits without due process, they 
cannot just put an attorney on retainer to challenge the law.
  Now let me make clear that I'm not making a judgment about the 
constitutionality of any particular law, or any type of law. These are 
questions for the courts to decide. But to get such a determination, an 
aggrieved person needs a lawyer to help challenge the law.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to people with low incomes, the lack of 
money often means a lack of an attorney. The lack of an attorney means 
a lack of redress. And a lack of redress means a lack of justice. That 
is why the Legal Services Corporation is so important. By providing 
legal representation to those otherwise unable to afford an attorney, 
the legal Services Corporation helps make constitutional rights a 
reality for all Americans.
  Madam President, we should not be picking and choosing among the 
rights that lower income Americans can enforce. And, therefore, we 
should not be picking and choosing the types of situations in which 
Legal Services Corporation lawyers are allowed to defend people's legal 
rights.
  This amendment, unfortunately, violates that principle. That is a 
mistake. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
  Madam President, we simply cannot afford to go down the road of 
saying that some people can get legal redress in some situations, and 
others cannot. The Constitution belongs to all Americans. No matter how 
rich. No matter how poor. No matter their race. No matter their 
religion. And all Americans should be able to enforce their rights, no 
matter how politically unpopular those rights might be. That is what 
makes this Nation the great country that it is. And it is what makes 
this amendment the terrible proposal that it is. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I rise to explain the reasons I 
will oppose the amendment by my distinguished colleague from Texas, 
Senator Gramm.
  This amendment would prohibit Legal Services Corporation grantees 
from representing low icnome clients who challenge welfare reform laws 
at the State or Federal level. Legal services programs would not be 
able to use Federal LSC funds or their own privately raised funds for 
this purpose.
  Let me be clear: No one in this Congress is more committed to 
reforming our welfare system than I am. I feel a special urgency for 
passing national welfare reform because I believe that health care 
reform and welfare reform should move forward together. I also support 
the efforts of States to implement innovative ideas and act as 
laboratories for welfare reform.
  But I cannot support this amendment as wise policy. State 
legislatures and the Congress do not always realize the impact of their 
policies on individuals, and occasionally constitutional rights are 
violated. Denying legal services programs the opportunity to vindicate 
the constitutional rights of the poorest Americans tramples on the very 
people welfare laws were designed to help.
  Helping clients on income maintenance issues is at the heart of the 
mission of legal services programs in my home State of Minnesota. The 
Legal Services Corporation was formed to provide equal access to our 
justice system for Americans who could not otherwise afford legal 
representation. This amendment has the potential of denying access to 
justice for people who need it most--for people who may literally need 
it to survive and feed their children.
  A historic role for our courts has been to ensure that the laws 
States pass don't violate Federal law, and that the laws Congress 
passes don't violate the Constitution. But this amendment might 
effectively prohibit any welfare reform law from being reviewed by a 
court, because it would deny welfare recipients--the people with the 
legal standing to test the law--access to the courts.
  I want welfare reform to go forward. But I also want us to do it 
right, without unintentionally violating constitutional rights. 
Allowing welfare recipients access to our justice system will help us 
achieve that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to address the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Texas. My colleague from Montana spoke in favor of 
this amendment. In so doing, he releated a story about a Montana racher 
who saw the worst side of our legal system. His experience with the 
Legal Services Corporation in Texas was absolutely horrible, and my 
sympathy goes out to him.
  I also believe this type of abuse is an aberration, at least as far 
as the Montana experience with the legal services program goes. The men 
and women who work for Montana legal services are committed to helping 
those who desperatley need help but just cannot afford it. These are 
battered woman, the elderly, and disabled citizens.
  For example, in Helena, legal services recently represented a woman 
who was being sued for custody of her children by her estranged 
husband. The husband had initiated this lawsuit from his prison cell 
where he was serving time for raping and beating her. In another case, 
legal services took the Social Security Administration to court to 
force them to do the required tests on a client with fetal alcohol 
syndrome so that client could receive the benefits she was entitled to.
  These are just two examples of what the Legal Services Corporation is 
all about--helping Montanans who can not otherwise afford it to fight 
for their most basic rights. It is for this reason that I am a strong 
supporter of the Legal Services Corporation and why I am oppoosing this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Alabama is recognized for 
20 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2343

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
of the United States should address the deficiencies in the enforcement 
   of criminal provisions relating to the willful avoidance of child 
               support payments, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself, Mr. 
     Kohl, Mr. D'Amato, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
     Coats, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 2343.

  Mr. SHELBY. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) $14,000,000,000 is owed to over 9,000,000 children as a 
     result of interstate child support evasion;
       (2) chapter 11A of title 18, United States Code, effective 
     since October 25, 1992, makes willful avoidance of child 
     support payments across State lines a Federal crime;
       (3) chapter 11A of title 18, United States Code, is a 
     useful Federal tool to assist in the collection and 
     enforcement of interstate child support cases;
       (4) the President has committed to improve interstate child 
     support enforcement as a part of his welfare reform 
     initiative;
       (5) despite such commitment, only five cases have been 
     tried or filed under chapter 11A of title 18, United States 
     Code;
       (6) custodial parents with legitimate cases for prosecution 
     seeking to bring charges under chapter 11A of title 18, 
     United States Code, are being turned away by local Federal 
     law enforcement officials or referred back to State child 
     support agencies; and
       (7) despite Justice Department guidelines, many local 
     Federal law enforcement agencies continue to display a 
     fundamental lack of knowledge concerning the existence and 
     means of enforcement of chapter 11A of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
     of the United States should immediately address the 
     deficiencies in the enforcement of chapter 11A of title 18, 
     United States Code, to make local Federal law enforcement 
     agencies more responsive to the needs of custodial parents 
     owed interstate child support and to significantly increase 
     the number of cases filed and prosecuted under chapter 11A of 
     title 18, United States Code.

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise tonight to offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senators Kohl, D'Amato, Feinstein, Gramm, Bryan, 
Coats, and Brown.
  Madam President, on October 25, 1992, President Bush signed the Child 
Support Recovery Act into law. The passage of this law was hailed as a 
major victory for advocates of improved child support collection and 
for the millions of children who are owed interstate child support 
payments. This law, now chapter 11A of title 18 of the United States 
Code, makes the willful flight across State lines to avoid child 
support payments a Federal crime.
  Unfortunately, the hope given to the custodial parents and their 
children that are owed some $14 billion in interstate child support 
payments has been steadily dashed since the law's effective date.
  President Clinton made child support enforcement, particularly 
interstate enforcement, a major theme of his campaign 2 years ago. As a 
result, I, along with Congressman Henry Hyde, the coauthor of this 
legislation, wrote the President shortly after his inauguration to 
request that the Justice Department make any enforcement guidelines for 
the Child Support Recovery Act as responsive as possible to custodial 
parents who had legitimate cases for prosecution. In July of last year, 
the Justice Department issued guidelines for the preparation and 
prosecution of these cases. These guidelines have had little practical 
effect.
  Rather, because the guidelines suggested that State child support 
agencies be used as a resource for case information and referral, most 
U.S. attorney's offices are turning away custodial parents who are not 
referred by State agencies even though there is a legitimate case for 
prosecution.
  Furthermore, there is little evidence that State agencies are aware 
of, or are even in the business of making these referrals. As a result, 
custodial parents seeking help under the law are caught in a continuing 
cycle of rejection, bouncing between the Federal and State authorities 
without satisfaction.
  Madam President, alarmed by this situation, Congressman Hyde and I 
wrote the Attorney General last year and expressed our concerns about 
the lack of enforcement and the difficulties that custodial parents are 
facing in bringing charges under the law. I received a response in 
April of this year from Assistant Attorney General Sheila Anthony. The 
letter indicated that the Justice Department believes the State 
referral system to be the best method available for initiating and 
handling cases.

  Madam President, this amounts to buck passing by the Justice 
Department. I cannot remember many cases where the Federal Government 
has seen fit to defer to State agencies to enforce Federal criminal 
statutes.
  Furthermore, Madam President, anyone who has dealt with the issue of 
child support as long as I have will learn that many custodial parents 
live in continuing frustration with State agencies. In fact, one of the 
main reasons for passing this law was that many State agencies are 
unwilling or are simply unable to pursue interstate child support 
orders. Many custodial parents turn to U.S. attorney's offices because 
of frustration with the State agencies only to be sent back to the same 
agency.
  Madam President, do not think that cases that are being turned away 
by Federal prosecutors do not have merit. They do. I have several 
letters here from U.S. attorneys referring parents back to State 
agencies even though the case meets the criteria for prosecution and 
other rejected cases that have come to my attention. In particular, I 
would like to briefly mention a couple of the case rejections.
  A mother in Florida whose two children are owed $50 thousand in 
support dating back to 1980 was referred back to the very State agency 
that could not solve her problems for over a decade although the local 
U.S. attorney believes the case qualifies for prosecution.
  A mother of three in New York who is owed nearly $47 thousand in 
child support has tried unsuccessfully for over a year to have the U.S. 
attorney bring charges against her husband only to be ultimately 
informed that the Justice Department was not interested in pursuing the 
case.
  These are just two of the many cases that have come through my office 
in the last year and a half--cases of desperate parents being turned 
away or sent back to the source of their problems.

  Madam President, child support reform is a major component of the 
President's welfare reform initiative. Yet, we have an existing Federal 
statute that can be a valuable weapon in the fight to collect 
interstate child support that is being virtually ignored by the 
Department in charge of its enforcement.
  Madam President, millions of children do not and should not have to 
wait until the next Congress for child support reform. They need to see 
a tangible commitment to enforcing the Child Support Recovery Act 
rather than becoming a pawn in a political football game called welfare 
reform. I hope our commitment to enforcing reforms in child support 
collections under welfare reform will be greater than our effort to 
enforce the current law.
  Madam President, the Senate can send a message today. This body can 
say that we care about the welfare of our children after the debate 
ends and the press releases are issued. Otherwise, we will be saying 
that children's issues are good politics but unimportant policy. This 
amendment simply puts the Senate on record by calling on the Attorney 
General to rectify the deficiencies in the law's enforcement and to 
increase the number of cases filed and prosecuted under the statute. 
This amendment is supported by the Association of Children for the 
Enforcement of Support, better known as ACES. This is a simple but 
important statement and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to President 
Clinton, my subsequent letter to Attorney General Reno and Assistant 
Attorney General Anthony's response, letters from U.S. attorney's 
offices regarding State referral, and a letter to Attorney General Reno 
from Ms. Diana Berner of New York be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 1993.
     President Bill Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As the chief sponsors of The Child 
     Support Recovery Act of 1992, Public Law 102-521. we would 
     like to express our desires relating to the enforcement of 
     this law.
       Given your commitment to child support enforcement, we are 
     sure that you share our desire that the law is vigorously 
     enforced by the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies. 
     The passage of this law has given hope to thousands of 
     custodial parents not receiving child support payments 
     because of the woeful interstate enforcement mechanisms 
     available to them. On a daily basis they confront an often 
     hostile bureaucracy that is unwilling to take even the most 
     rudimentary steps toward the enforcement of an order.
       For this reason, we ask that any guidelines issued by the 
     Justice Department be as ``user friendly'' as possible. We 
     ask that no undue burden of proof of arrearage, avoidance of 
     payment, location of the non-custodial parent or the failure 
     of local enforcement be placed on any individual wishing to 
     pursue charges under the statute. In addition, we ask that 
     the procedures for filing charges be as clear and as simple 
     for the custodial parent as possible.
       We are aware that officials within the Justice Department 
     are preparing guidelines to present to the new Attorney 
     General for approval. We would request that you have your new 
     Attorney General carefully review these guidelines and 
     consider appropriate revisions based on these recommendations 
     before approving the directive.
       We appreciate your commitment to child support enforcement 
     and are grateful for your willingness to focus public 
     attention on this vital issue. We look forward to working 
     with you on future reforms of our child support system and 
     appreciate your immediate consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Henry Hyde.
     Richard Shelby.
                                  ____

                                                   Congress of the


                                                United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 1994.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: One of our greatest rewards in 
     the 102d Congress was seeing the enactment of the Child 
     Support Recovery Act of 1992 (Pub. L. #102-512). We all had 
     met many single parents in our districts struggling to get by 
     and make a new life for themselves and their children whose 
     efforts were imperiled by their ex-spouses' flight across 
     state lines to avoid making child support payments. In 
     talking with state officials, we found that interstate 
     collection was the most difficult kind for the states to 
     perform and that they needed federal help. The Child Support 
     Recovery Act was the result--it established the Federal crime 
     of willful failure to pay child support to a child living in 
     another state. We put our hearts into this bill, and were 
     delighted that our efforts were ultimately successful with 
     the help of so many our colleagues in the House and Senate.
       We were very appreciative of your quick release last July 
     of the written guidelines and procedures needed by United 
     States Attorneys to begin enforcement. However, we are 
     frustrated and distressed by an apparent lack of serious 
     enforcement efforts following your action. We know of no case 
     in preparation--more than a year after the bill was enacted 
     into law--and a constant stream of custodial parents inform 
     us of getting indifferent responses or worse from their U.S. 
     Attorneys' offices. We find this lack of activity hard to 
     square with the high priority President Clinton has placed on 
     child support enforcement (most recently in his State of the 
     Union address). If vigorously enforced, the Child Support 
     Recovery Act will help us realize the President's hope that 
     ``[p]eople who bring children into this world can't just walk 
     away.''
       We would greatly appreciate learning what the Department 
     believes the enforcement strategy to be for the Child Support 
     Recovery Act and whether any prosecutions are planned in the 
     near future. To the many parents contacting us for whom the 
     Child Support Recovery Act is a last hope, we would like to 
     be in the position of giving an encouraging answer. We look 
     forward to hearing from you soon.
           Sincerely,
     Henry Hyde.
     Richard Shelby.
                                  ____

                                            Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: This is in response to your letter to the 
     Attorney General regarding the Child Support Recovery Act 
     (CSRA), in which you requested information regarding the 
     Department's enforcement strategy for the CSRA and whether 
     any prosecutions are planned in the near future. I hope the 
     following information is helpful.
       Shortly after enactment of the statute, a working group was 
     formed to develop policy and procedures to ensure the most 
     effective enforcement of the CSRA. The group considered 
     various issues, including those matters referenced in your 
     correspondence to the President. The group's proposal was 
     signed by the Attorney General and distributed to United 
     States Attorneys' offices in July 1993.
       The prosecutive guidelines and procedures secure effective 
     enforcement by providing means for United States Attorneys to 
     find the most egregious cases, which the states are unable to 
     handle because of the interstate nature of the case. The 
     guidelines encourage United States Attorneys' offices to 
     coordinate enforcement efforts with the state and local child 
     support enforcement agencies.
       Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 651 
     et seq., requires states to establish programs for the 
     enforcement of child support, and the agencies operating 
     these programs are known as IV-D agencies. These agencies 
     must pursue child support on behalf of individuals who are 
     receiving public assistance, as well as at the request of 
     individuals who are not. Because of the expertise of IV-D 
     agencies and the information available to them, the 
     guidelines suggest that the United States Attorneys arrange 
     for the IV-D agencies or their designees to screen potential 
     violations and refer appropriate cases for Federal 
     prosecution. The IV-D agency is to prepare a referral package 
     for each case containing information pertinent to Federal 
     prosecution, including whether all reasonably available 
     remedies have been exhausted.
       In August 1993, a two-day training seminar for Assistant 
     United States Attorneys was held to address issues relating 
     to the enforcement of the CSRA. The training included 
     detailed discussion of the prosecutive guidelines and 
     policies, and extensive information regarding existing state 
     and interstate remedies, as well as information relating to 
     ethical issues, pre-trial and trial matters, and legal and 
     practical concerns.
       The Department of Justice intends to enforce the CSRA 
     through effective prosecution of egregious cases. The 
     enforcement strategy is to deter non-payment of child support 
     by identifying the worst offenders which the states cannot 
     bring to justice because of the interstate nature of the 
     case, prosecuting these offenders to the fullest extent of 
     the law, seeking maximum penalties upon conviction, and 
     publicizing the case to assure wide public attention. The 
     Department does not intend to use the CSRA as a mere 
     mechanism to collect child support.
       The Department realizes, however, the importance of Federal 
     involvement in interstate cases, and is coordinating 
     enforcement efforts with the states to identify appropriate 
     cases for Federal prosecution. The United States Attorneys' 
     offices are currently working with their respective IV-D 
     agencies, or other state agencies, to establish procedures to 
     be used to screen and refer appropriate cases. The United 
     States Attorneys in some districts have established task 
     forces or committees to implement procedures, and others are 
     meeting directly with appropriate personnel within the state 
     agency.
       In 1993, United States versus Lewis was successfully 
     prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 12, 
     1993, Lewis entered a guilty plea to a one count information 
     and was sentenced to restitution in the amount of the 
     arrearage, three years probation conditioned on payment of 
     child support, payment of $75 a week directly to the mother, 
     wage assignment with any employer the defendant may have, and 
     a special assessment of $10. In South Carolina, an indictment 
     was filed on December 8, 1993, in the case United States 
     versus Bell. Bell remains a fugitive. In South Dakota, there 
     is one case pending, United States versus Duke. The case was 
     transferred to Florida under Rule 20 and is pending for plea 
     and sentencing. There is also a case pending in the Southern 
     District of Texas.
       The Department and the United States Attorneys share your 
     commitment to this important effort. We are now considering 
     how best to educate the public on how to proceed under this 
     program to maximize its effectiveness. While the IV-D 
     referral system does not prevent the public from directly 
     contacting Federal prosecutors, the best enforcement plan is 
     to have all complaints go through the appropriate IV-D 
     agency. This will assure that the complainants have exhausted 
     reasonably available state and interstate remedies, assist in 
     identifying the most egregious cases, and provide information 
     necessary to establish a violation of the CSRA, all of which 
     will facilitate Federal prosecution and prevent unnecessary 
     duplication of effort and resources.
       Your concern in this matter is appreciated. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions 
     concerning this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sheila F. Anthony,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                            Department of Justice,


                                       Office of the Director,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1993.
     Ms. Geraldine Jensen,
     National President, Association for Children for Enforcement 
         of Support, Toledo, OH.
       Dear Ms. Jensen: I am responding to your letter to the 
     Attorney General dated March 19, 1993 concerning the 
     implementation of the criminal penalties enacted by the Child 
     Support Recovery Act of 1992.
       As you know, the Attorney General is particularly 
     interested in addressing the needs of the children of our 
     society, especially with regard to the prevention of their 
     entry into criminal activity. She has long been an advocate 
     for them. In that spirit, we are working with her to develop 
     guidance for the United States Attorneys concerning the 
     implementation of the new federal crime. As you know, the 
     Child Support Recovery Act makes it a crime to willfully fail 
     to pay court-ordered child support payments when the child 
     and the debtor parent reside in different states and when the 
     debt owed is at least $5,000 or delinquent for at least one 
     year.
       We are aware that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 
     Sec. Sec. 651 et seq. requires states to establish programs 
     for the enforcement of child support. These state agencies, 
     the experts in the field, are know as ``IV-D agencies'' (Four 
     D agencies). To achieve maximum success in this program, the 
     United States Attorneys' offices will most likely coordinate 
     their efforts closely with these state agencies. We expect 
     that most specific guidance to the United States Attorneys 
     will be issued shortly.
       Thank you for your interest in this important issue. Please 
     do not hesitate to contact us again if we can be of further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Anthony C. Moscato,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Attorney,


                                    Northern District of Ohio,

                                       Cleveland, OH, May 9, 1994.
     Ms. Julia Ray,
     Findlay, OH.
       Dear Ms. Ray: Our office is in receipt of your inquiry 
     regarding Federal prosecution of Darrell M. Ray for willful 
     failure to pay child support. Please be advised that the 
     Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern 
     District of Ohio coordinates its criminal enforcement efforts 
     with County Child Support Enforcement Agencies and County 
     Prosecutors. Direct referrals for prosecutive determination 
     are accepted only from these agencies.
       Please direct your request to evaluate your case for 
     possible Federal prosecution to the appropriate CSEA agency. 
     We are notifying the Director of the Hancock County CSEA that 
     you will be contacting that agency for a review of your case.
       Please be further advised that the State of Ohio, Office of 
     Child Support Enforcement, has provided a toll-free hotline 
     for resolution of any child support related difficulties you 
     may experience with your case. The number is 1-800-686-1556.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Phillip J. Tripi,
                                          Assistant U.S. Attorney.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Attorney,


                                    District of Massachusetts,

                                         Boston, MA, May 26, 1994.
     Re Child Support Recovery Act of 1992.

     Leslie Souve,
     President of ACES of Massachusetts,
     Centerville, MA.
       Dear Ms. Souve: In response to your letter dated May 18, 
     1994, I am pleased to advise you and other members of ACES as 
     to the procedures this office follows in enforcing the Child 
     Support Recovery Act of 1992.
       Please be advised that the Massachusetts Department of 
     Revenue (DOR), as the designated ``IV-D'' agency (IV-D refers 
     to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act), is charged with 
     primary enforcement of child support obligations. The U.S. 
     Attorney's Office accepts referrals from DOR for possible 
     criminal prosecution. The decision whether to prosecute a 
     particular case referred to this office by DOR is the U.S. 
     Attorney's.
       When this Office receives a complaint from a member of the 
     public, the caller is referred to DOR. The U.S. Attorney's 
     Office does not have the resources to investigate cases 
     referred by the public without first requiring the 
     complainant to exhaust the remedies DOR may pursue. Once DOR 
     has concluded that the remedies available to it are 
     exhausted, and that the matter appears suitable for criminal 
     prosecution, then they may refer the matter to this Office.
       This procedure is in keeping with Department of Justice 
     guidelines for the enforcement of the Child Support Recovery 
     Act. Indeed, the Department of Justice encourages U.S. 
     Attorney's Offices to work with the state IV-D agency to 
     develop referral procedures, and recommends that cases should 
     be accepted only when referral makes clear that all 
     reasonably available remedies are exhausted.
       Thank you for your inquiry.
           Very truly yours,

                                               Jonathan Chiel,

                                          Chief, Criminal Division
                             (For Donald K. Stern, U.S. Attorney).
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Attorney,


                                    Northern District of Ohio,

                                     Cleveland, OH, June 16, 1994.
     Patricia A. Brown,
     Perrysburg, OH.
       Dear Ms. Brown: Our Office is in receipt of your inquiry 
     regarding Federal prosecution of Charles Allen Brown for 
     willful failure to pay child support. Please be advised that 
     the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern 
     District of Ohio coordinates its criminal enforcement efforts 
     with County Child Support Enforcement Agencies and County 
     Prosecutors. Direct referrals for prosecutive determination 
     are accepted only from these agencies.
       Please direct your request to evaluate your case for 
     possible Federal prosecution to the appropriate CSEA agency. 
     We are notifying the Director of the Wood County CSEA that 
     you will be contacting that agency for a review of your case.
       Please be further advised that the State of Ohio, Office of 
     Child Support Enforcement, has provided a toll-free hotline 
     for resolution of any child support related difficulties you 
     may experience with your case. The number is 1-800-686-1556.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Phillip J. Tripi,
                                          Assistant U.S. Attorney.
                                  ____

                                                     May 21, 1994.
     To: Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of 
         America
     From: Diana Berner, a mother, abandoned in 1986 and left with 
         three minor children. Please note: I have resumed the use 
         of my maiden name.
     Re: Debtor: Richard D. Unanue, Social Security Number: 000-
         00-0552, and the failure of the United States Justice 
         Department to act to enforce the Child Support Recovery 
         Act of 1992.
     Abandoned. Abandoned, first by a father and husband, 
         deadbeat, runaway dad and debtor Richard D. Unanue 
         (pronounced OOO-NON-WAY) in December 1986, just before 
         Christmas. Abandoned, now, by the United States Justice 
         Department (May 1994).
       Dear Ms. Reno: I would like you to know that I am very 
     sympathetic to you and your work and the overall work of the 
     Justice Department. But I would also like you to know that I 
     am afraid of being abandoned once again by a civil justice 
     system that doesn't give a hoot about the rights of mothers 
     and their dependent children. What you will read in the 
     following letter is an expression of my fear and frustration 
     as a single parent, a mother who was abandoned seven and a 
     half years ago with three minor children to support and bring 
     up . . .  who had to start out at the age of forty-four with 
     no business skills or college education and go out and earn 
     enough to pay the mortgage, the school and local taxes and 
     clothe and feed four people. We survived, but not because of 
     any assistance from the civil justice system, that only aided 
     and abetted every means to grind me into the ground! I was 
     afraid then that we might not make it, but we did. Once 
     again, I am afraid that I am about to be abandoned! This time 
     it is the Federal government, the Justice Department of the 
     United States that is acting to abandon mothers and dependent 
     children. No diabolical spouse is delivering the abuse this 
     time. This time, it appears that the Justice Department is 
     delivering the abuse to abandoned mothers and dependent 
     children. That's what causes me to write to you at this time. 
     Are you there to listen? Are you there to back up your many 
     high-sounding principles with action? We'll see.
       I understand fear. How would you feel if your husband 
     walked out and disappeared for six months leaving you with no 
     means of on-going support? I was scared almost to death, but 
     I made it through. How would you feel if you were forced back 
     into the work force at the age of forty-four with three 
     dependent children to house, clothe and feed and provide for 
     their education, and medical, dental and psychiatric care? 
     How would you feel being thrown back into the work force, 
     as a woman, already discriminated in the work-place with 
     lower wages and lower benefits and lowered opportunities, 
     with no special skills other than housewifery, washing the 
     dishes and the clothes, changing diapers, driving the 
     children back and forth to school and to the school yard 
     and to their friends' house to play?
       How would you feel years later, as the runaway deadbeat dad 
     is still failing to pay court-ordered child support? He has 
     consistently failed to pay the bare necessity needed to pay 
     the mortgage and the school taxes (the children think that 
     the ``public'' schools in Scarsdale are ``free'') and the 
     real estate taxes and the dog and cat food and the veterinary 
     care? Should I have put the dog and the cat to death 
     immediately? I was plenty scared that we wouldn't make it!
       How would you feel when a runaway deadbeat put you through 
     one court test after another forcing you to pile up a hundred 
     thousand dollars in legal fees just to get divorced, all the 
     while not sending enough funds to keep a roof over your head 
     for yourself and your three children or to supply them with 
     food and schooling? I was scared! How would you feel when an 
     opposing lawyer tells the Judge that you are too stupid to 
     get into college and certainly not smart enough to pass any 
     courses and certainly not smart enough to go to a ``real'' 
     college like he did (Yale). I was outraged and sick over this 
     ad hominem outburst, and so was Judge Nastasi. But I survived 
     even those despicable personal attacks and bested them in the 
     short run by getting into New York University and making the 
     Dean's list regularly and will finish my Sophomore college 
     year at the end of this year, going to school at night and on 
     weekends and working a full-time job during the day. I should 
     have my Bachelor's degree by 1996 or 1997 at the age of 
     fifty-three or fifty-four.
       How would you feel if you were getting physically sick from 
     working two jobs, back to back, putting in sixteen hours a 
     day because your deadbeat runaway sent only $1,830 (of a 
     court-ordered $46,928) as ``child support'' and not one penny 
     more for the whole year of 1989? Scared. Frightened! Fearful 
     that my children would be denied their education and their 
     health care! But I found ways to support them and myself.
       I was physically overwhelmed and emotionally devastated 
     when for the entire year of 1990 I didn't receive a single 
     penny in child support or one cent in alimony, all the while 
     being additionally thrashed about by lawyers and lawyers 
     bills. Scared! But my children have survived and I have 
     survived although the emotional cost has been severe. I have 
     survived and my children have survived although the 
     psychiatric costs are still extreme. In the end, it is the 
     entire society that loses. The society gets mentally sick 
     children and worn out adults as a reward for their not having 
     the time or inclination to carry out the laws that are being 
     put in place to stop this thievery against mothers and 
     children.
       I don't need to tell you that the State IVD system is sick, 
     almost beyond repair. That is common knowledge. But I do have 
     an obligation to tell you that we now have Federal law to 
     supplement the State system and so far all that I see is that 
     the Federal Justice system is just as cruel and unwilling to 
     carry out their mandate in favor of mothers and children. A 
     mandate to defend and speak for helpless mothers and children 
     was given to the Justice system by Congress in the form of 
     the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. But it seems clear to 
     me that it is time to be scared and frightened again, that I 
     will be abandoned once more, by a civil justice system that 
     only gives lip service to ``saving the society'' and that 
     refuses to act even when the means to act are put directly 
     into their hands. Tell me it isn't so. Show me by your 
     actions that you will defend the abandoned mothers and 
     children. I hope that you will understand from my vantage 
     point, why I am sending this letter to you at this time and 
     why it may sound so angry.
       Talk is cheap when it is never backed up with action and I 
     am sorry to say that, as much as I would like to believe what 
     you say about saving our society and saving the children in 
     our society, all I see now is that your Department, the 
     Justice Department of the United States, is about to abandon 
     me and all the other mothers and dependent children even 
     though you have been given the tools to defend us.
       Why I am afraid of being abandoned once again? I do not 
     have to explain to you that the Child Support Recovery Act, 
     signed into law on October 25, 1992, made it a federal crime 
     for a parent to fail to pay child support with arrears up to 
     $5,000, or up to one year, if they have willfully removed 
     themselves from their children's venue to avoid child support 
     payments. However, it may be necessary for me to inform you 
     that it appears certain that the Department of Justice, of 
     which you are the titular head as Attorney General of the 
     United States, has done everything possible not to enforce 
     the law embodied in the Child Support Recovery Act! That is a 
     crime that only you can rectify. And I appeal to you to 
     review this matter in general and in particular in the case 
     of debtor Richard D. Unanue. No person exemplifies the crime 
     against dependent children, intended to be prosecuted under 
     the statutes of the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 more 
     perfectly than debtor Richard D. Unanue. You will be able to 
     understand this fully when you yourself have the opportunity 
     to review the extensive record of the willful, deceitful 
     activities debtor Richard D. Unanue has engaged in over the 
     past seven years with the express purpose of not paying court 
     ordered child support! This record is currently in the office 
     of the Southern District of New York under the care of Gloria 
     Calabrese, legal aide acting for U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White. 
     You will not find a more perfect example than debtor Richard 
     D. Unanue as a person in flight from his child support 
     responsibilities that the Child Support Recovery Act was 
     intended to catch. Furthermore, and more upsetting to our 
     generally law-abiding society, you will not find a person 
     like debtor Richard D. Unanue more certain of his ability 
     to flee from the law and get away with it. The example 
     that debtor Richard D. Unanue has set has only made his 
     own children absolutely sure that the law has no teeth and 
     that cheating and stealing is both profitable and certain! 
     If that is the lesson you plan to leave the children of 
     the United States of America as your legacy as Attorney 
     General, then so be it.
       According to Lincoln Caplan (The New York Times Magazine 
     May 15, 1994) you [Janet Reno] have ``set for yourself a 
     restorative role, reviving confidence in the integrity of the 
     Justice Department'', but is it happening? On your favorite 
     subject, concerning the family and the rights and needs of 
     children, considering how your Justice Department has acted 
     towards me and other mothers and children, it is my 
     impression that you have failed miserably.
       Fact: The Justice Department is not interested in women's 
     rights or children's rights. When it comes to the issue of 
     prosecuting dead-beat dads under Federal law, the Child 
     Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Justice Department has not 
     acted with integrity.
       Fact: In July 1993 an Assistant U.S. Attorney by the name 
     of Roger S. Hayes was sent extensive data concerning one of 
     the most flagrant deadbeat dads in the United States named 
     Richard D. Unanue. The Justice Department chose to throw all 
     of the data into the garbage and make believe they never 
     received it.
       Fact: When a follow-up letter was sent to U.S. Attorney 
     Hayes in November 1993, to the Justice Department of the 
     Southern District of New York (after letting more than enough 
     time go by to have the Justice Department act on the 
     information sent to them in July 1993) * * * no response was 
     forthcoming.
       Fact: Another follow-up letter was sent to Attorney Hayes 
     of the Justice Department of the Southern District of New 
     York in December 1993.
       Fact: A telephone response was finally received on January 
     31, 1994, from Ms. Calabrese, a legal assistant to U.S. 
     Attorney Mary Jo White. Ms. Gloria Calabrese indicated that 
     ``they had never received any data from ACES (the Association 
     for Children for Enforcement of Support) on behalf of Diana 
     Berner and against debtor Richard D. Unane. Their excuse was 
     that lawyer Hayes didn't work there anymore and his [Hayes' 
     former] secretary ``confirmed'' that the Justice Department 
     had not received any data concerning the prosecution of a 
     debtor under the Federal Child Support Recovery Act, that had 
     been sent to them by ACES in July 1993.
       Ms. Calabrese, under orders from her superiors, then 
     proceeded to inform me of the ``guidelines'' of the Justice 
     Department. Apparently you have ordered your attorneys to 
     refer cases of child support abuse back to the states' IVD 
     agencies (even though they fulfill the criteria for immediate 
     prosecution under Federal Law). Counsel for Anthony C. 
     Moscato, Director of the Executive Office of the United 
     States Attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice, 
     Washington, D.C. wrote to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney 
     explaining: ``* * *In order to make maximum use of Federal 
     resources to prosecute egregious offenders under the 
     National Child Support Recovery Act, these cases are 
     referred to the appropriate State IVD Agency for 
     evaluation and work up as set forth in the Attorney 
     General's guidelines* * *.'' What madness. You are just 
     passing the buck. Women, mothers and their children have 
     been messed around by IVD agencies for periods of one to 
     three to nine years or more and have never received a 
     penny in child support by runaway deadbeat fathers. It's 
     common knowledge. Then a private collection agency is 
     hired, taking as a fee 30% or more of the amount owed in 
     child support, finds the out-of-state father in a few 
     days, collects the child support and takes the hefty fee 
     out of the children's mouths.
       I had already been taken over the ropes with IVD and they 
     are still trying. But, IVD has State rules. The Federal rules 
     are different and in my opinion stand separate from any 
     action taken by IVD. That's why a ``national'' Child Support 
     Recovery Act was passed by Congress. The Federal rule is 
     about a Federal crime and the United States Department of 
     Justice should not be hampered in any way by what a State 
     Agency is doing. Certainly, in the case of debtor Richard D. 
     Unanue, he has proved repeatedly that no State agency is 
     going to get him to pay child support. Furthermore, presuming 
     that your ``guidelines'' have been followed over the past 
     eighteen months (since the Child Support Recovery Act was 
     signed into law) is there a single case yet to be prosecuted 
     by the Justice Department against ``egregious'' or even not 
     so ``egregious'' runaway deadbeat dads, as long as they just 
     fulfill the simple ``guidelines'' of the Federal law? Or, 
     have you devised your set of ``guidelines'' merely to stall 
     and prevent any action on the part of the Justice Department 
     against runaway deadbeat dads?
       Despite the fact that deadbeat dads constitute one of the 
     major criminal elements undermining and destroying our 
     society by failing to support their minor children and 
     despite the fact that it is estimated that billions of 
     dollars go unpaid in child support because these deadbeat 
     dads merely run to another State to avoid payment of child 
     support and despite the fact that a clear and succinct 
     federal law was passed to attempt to catch up with these 
     deadbeats your department, the U.S. Justice Department spends 
     its effort doing everything conceivable not to prosecute 
     anyone under the Child Support Recovery Act. I hope that you 
     will review your instructions to your attorneys before the 
     Child Support Recovery Act becomes a symbol of a mockery of 
     justice rather than a true means of achieving justice for the 
     children in the United States of America.
       Ms. Calabrese sent me a copy of your ``guidlines'': 
     Clearly, the Justice Department has developed their own 
     ``Guidelines'' that supercede the simple conditions set 
     down under the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992.
       The fact that the deadbeat debtor Richard D. Unanue was in 
     arrears by more than $5,000 for one year and had fled the 
     State of New York to avoid payment of Court Ordered Child 
     Support was insufficient evidence for the Justice Department. 
     A simple Federal Law was being arbitrarily ``adjusted'' by 
     the U.S. Attorney's office. The Justice Department, in order 
     to avoid their responsibility in upholding Federal law had 
     made up their own ``guidelines'' as to whether or not they 
     will prosecute cases under the Child support Recovery Act of 
     1992. ``O.K.,'' I thought, ``send me your `guidelines' and I 
     will comply fully with your `guidelines' and leave hostility, 
     and stonewalling to others.
       Fact: The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, passed by the 
     Congress and signed into law on October 25, 1992, an act 
     sponsored by Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and Schumer 
     has been in effect since October 1992 and, as far as I know, 
     not one single case, has ever been prosecuted by any member 
     of the United States Justice Department.
       Fact: I have been stonewalled for almost a full year since 
     we first submitted data to the Southern District office in 
     July 1993 concerning debtor Richard D. Unanue who abandoned 
     his wife and three minor children in December 1986.
       Fact: Although I complied with the letter of the 
     ``guidelines'' I am being stonewalled again by the United 
     States Justice Department.
       Fact: Debtor Richard D. Unanue is a millionaire debtor who 
     hides his cash in off-shore banks, washes his money and other 
     people's money through a hundred phony corporations in New 
     York State, North Carolina, Florida, Panama, Colombia and 
     Switzerland and England who knows where else and avoids 
     paying any income tax to any State or to any authority of the 
     Federal Government.
       Fact: Debtor Richard D. Unanue, in attempting to bring his 
     first wife to both financial and emotional ruin, in 1989 paid 
     only $1,830, of that year's $46,982, due in court ordered 
     child support for the entire year of 1989. In addition, he 
     vowed never to pay one penny in Court Ordered ``equitable 
     distribution'' of other assets or one penny in ``alimony'' 
     (maintenance) and he has held to that vow while avoiding 
     prosecution under both State Law and now under Federal Law.
       Fact: During the entire year of 1990, debtor Richard D. 
     Unanue compounded his assault against me and our children by 
     not sending us one red cent (neither one penny in child 
     support or one penny in alimony)! Instead, debtor Richard D. 
     Unanue committed bigamy, committed fraud to obtain ``health'' 
     insurance to pay for his new wife's pregnancy, repeatedly 
     lied to the Internal Revenue Service about his income and his 
     home address, failed to pay one penny in taxes to either the 
     United States Internal Revenue Service or any State or local 
     Government.
       Fact: Debtor Richard D. Unanue ran from an IVD subpoena in 
     1992 in Buncombe County, North Carolina to reside temporarily 
     in Costa Rica for abut six months but then returned to North 
     Carolina where he has been living ever since.
       Fact: Debtor Richard D. Unanue is now in arrears of his 
     child support payments to the tune of $218,358, as of January 
     1994. (How's that for ``egregious''?)
       Fact: In compliance with the ``Guidelines'' of the Justice 
     Department of the Southern District of New York and complying 
     in every way with the instructions of Ms. Calabrese, legal 
     aide to U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in March 1994 I sent 
     Justice the extensive data they requested, fulfilling in 
     every way all of the ``Guidelines'' arbitrarily set up by the 
     Justice Department. (I have enclosed an outline of the 
     extensive data that was sent and received by the Justice 
     Department for your review. If you want to see a complete 
     record of the data ask Ms. Calabrese to send you copies)
       Fact: Ms. Calabrese received the data and responded 
     immediately by phone call to indicate to me that she was 
     overwhelmed by the completeness of the data and that if it 
     was up to her she would have sent out a `'target letter'' 
     immediately to debtor Richard D. Unanue through his multiple 
     numbers of personal lawyers. But she was not a lawyer and 
     that would have to wait the decision of the ``lawyers'' in 
     Justice. She informed me that a lawyer, a Mr. James Johnson, 
     was returning from his holiday vacation in a few days and he 
     would look over the material and let me know what Justice 
     would do.
       Fact: April 1994. With still no response from Justice, 
     Attorney Johnson, Attorney White, or Ms. Calabrese, I wrote a 
     note asking what was going on.
       Fact: May 20, 1994. Still no response from Justice, so I 
     called Ms. Calabrese. She indicated that the probability was 
     that Justice would not be bothered with cases concerning the 
     adjudication of the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. That 
     has prompted me to write to you now and let you know what 
     your Department plans to do for the mothers and children you 
     speak so much about.
       I guess, Ms. Reno, all of your personal concern and public 
     pronouncements concerning the importance of children's rights 
     means very little to your Justice Department, and your tens 
     of thousands of words and hundreds of speeches on the matter 
     of the importance of the family and children is no more than 
     ``pap'' for the public. Certainly, that is the way I am left 
     to feel and understand when it is almost a full year (!) 
     since we first informed the Justice Department of debtor 
     Richard D. Unanue and your Justice Department has done 
     nothing but throw the data into the garbage and/or stonewall 
     Americans who not only feel disenfranchised by the system, 
     but who are disenfranchised by the system!
       Fact: Although I have complied with all the ``guidelines'' 
     set up by the Justice Department and although I had supplied 
     the lawyers of the Justice Department, namely Mary Jo White, 
     with enough data to prosecute debtor Richard D. Unanue, and 
     certainly with enough data to allow them to begin the process 
     of attempting to collect the past-due child support funds, by 
     sending out their first ``target'' letter to the debtor, I am 
     now led to believe that the Justice Department has no 
     interest or intent to proceed with the prosecution of any 
     cases brought against debtors such as Richard D. Unanue who 
     live in defiance of all moral rules of decency and in 
     defiance of the Federal Law, the Child Support Recovery Act 
     of 1992, passed by the Congress of the United States and 
     signed into law one and a half years ago!
       I am sorry to say that I see the problem with the actions 
     of the Justice Department on this matter of the enforcement 
     of Federal Law as outlined in the Child Support Recovery Act 
     of 1992 as an issue of failed integrity of our system of 
     justice: Is Lincoln Caplan wrong when he says (The New York 
     Times Magazine, May 15, 1994): ``Reno had announced that the 
     test of her leadership would be her ability to turn ideas 
     into action.'' And is it true that in the beginning you were 
     ``clueless'' as to how to make this happen, but now you know 
     what to do? Is Lincoln Caplan right when he says that ``Reno 
     likes spreading the word about the law's power to solve real 
     problems of real people'' * * * but you, according to some 
     sources, ``* * * regularly make promises [you] don't keep''. 
     Is Lincoln Caplan right when he points to the lack of 
     integrity and downright illegal activities of lawyers in the 
     Justice Department who intimidate witnesses, manipulate grand 
     juries, fail to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant * 
     * * and I will add * * * throw evidence into the garbage and 
     then make believe they never received it!
       I, as a woman, a housewife, a mother of three children, 
     have been sufficiently debased, abused, intimidated, by 
     enough lawyers, and a dead-beat millionaire ex-husband to 
     know when I am being spat on once again by a legal system 
     that only gives lip service to women's rights and children's 
     rights and needs. The fact that I have complied in every way 
     with the laws of the State of New York, the laws of the 
     Federal Government, the wishes of every order of every Court 
     and pay all of my taxes to support my local, State and 
     Federal Government, the highways, the public parks, the 
     Federal debt, welfare payments to the indigent, etc., etc., 
     etc. apparently makes no difference to the Justice Department 
     of Janet Reno. Integrity is not rewarded. It is spit upon, 
     stonewalled and while I am made to feel debased and ignored, 
     by the very forces that are supposed to be my legal 
     supporters * * * the deadbeat dads, the debtors, the runaways 
     like Richard D. Unanue who cheat, lie, and commit fraud 
     against the U.S. Government, various insurance companies, 
     multiple States of the United States, never hesitating to 
     steal from me or our children, is allowed to go scot free 
     while the Justice Department armed, finally, with Federal Law 
     to back them up against his thievery, refuses to act. 
     Integrity and the Justice Department's unwillingness to fight 
     for women's rights, mothers' rights and children's rights. 
     That is the issue. The United States Justice Department, when 
     it comes to defending the rights of abandoned mothers and 
     their dependent children appears to be acting no differently 
     than the deadbeat dads, the debtor runaways. As long as the 
     Justice Department of the United States and its lawyers are 
     willing to toss evidence into the garbage, stonewall against 
     the rights of children and mothers, then justice will not be 
     served and Janet Reno will end her term as Attorney General 
     unable to fulfill her goals and her life-long commitment to 
     justice, integrity and service to the people.
       Dear Ms. Reno: Say it isn't so. Say that my fears of being 
     abandoned once again should be allayed. Say that Justice's 
     role in defending women, mothers and children is not a sham, 
     and not ``Too Bad. Tough! Bye. Bye.''
       Have a happy Memorial Day Holiday. I anxiously await your 
     response.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Diana Berner.

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I yield as much time as she wants to 
consume to the distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Shelby, for taking the leadership on this issue. Child support is an 
issue in which I am very interested because, particularly from the 
California perspective, it is a major issue. I give my strong support 
to this amendment.
  Nationwide we have a big problem. Only $13 billion out of $48 billion 
in court-ordered child support is actually collected each year. In 
California, about $3 billion goes uncollected. In 1990, only about 39 
percent of child support orders tracked by district attorneys have 
resulted in any payment, and that figure has only improved slightly 
since then. Nearly one-third of child support cases involve out-of-
State fathers.
  My State, the State of California, has targeted 11,600 non-custodial 
parents. These are the most egregious examples of people, living 
outside the State, who owe child support to their families. There is no 
reason for the Federal Government not to aggressively pursue each and 
every option to recover these funds.
  Just yesterday, in testimony before the Senate, the GAO was critical 
of the Federal Government's role in collecting child support. At that 
same hearing the Children's Defense Fund testified that, while in 1992 
the default rate for used car loans was less than 3 percent in this 
Nation, the delinquency rate for child support was 49 percent in 1990. 
This goes to show you that people pay their car loans and they do not 
necessarily support their children. One out of four children in this 
Nation today is born in poverty. It is shameful that the largest single 
reason for this, is the absence of child support, people who earn a 
living, who walk away from their family, and leave one parent with a 
child without child support. It is time to get tough on irresponsible 
parents. Even if they walk away from their families, and their 
obligations, they should not be permitted to walk away from the law.
  In yesterday's hearing also, Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Secretary for 
Health and Human Services, acknowledged that a substantial increase in 
child support collections would yield a reduction of 25 percent in AFDC 
payments. The annual cost of AFDC, to Federal and State governments, is 
$22 billion. So if we collect child support we can cut back on AFDC 
costs by 25 percent. It seems to me this in fact would be a good start 
to welfare reform.
  But this problem is not limited just to AFDC recipients. The 
Children's Defense Fund also reports that the nonwelfare caseload of 
child support enforcement agencies quadrupled from 1.7 million 
nationally in 1983 to 6.5 million in 1992. While an estimated $14 
billion is owed as a result of interstate flight, the Justice 
Department has filed only 5 cases, as Senator Shelby has pointed out, 
against deadbeat parents since the Child Support Recovery Act was 
enacted in 1992. It simply has not been a priority for Justice.
  What we say in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is that it should 
be a priority for Justice. I am pleased to join with my colleagues. I 
think it is time to get tough on irresponsible parents.
  You know, no child says before the fact, ``I want to be brought into 
this world.'' The fact is, parents bring children into the world. And 
the inescapable fact must be that parents have a responsibility and 
that you cannot walk away from your kids and you cannot avoid child 
support by crossing State lines.
  Along with Senator Bradley, I and others in this body are 
cosponsoring the Interstate Child Support Enforcement Act, which 
includes establishment of paternity very early on, and then, through a 
new W-4 form which would be filed with the Federal Government, would 
enable authorities to garnishee wages from an individual who leaves the 
State to avoid child support. The legislation also contains other tough 
enforcement measures requiring States to enact criminal penalties as 
well as suspend drivers and professional licenses of parents in 
default.
  Let me summarize. In my State, one in four youngsters grows up in 
poverty. A major reason for this is the absence of child support. There 
are $3 billion in unpaid court-ordered child support in California, and 
one-third of all child support cases involve out-of-State fathers.
  So in the United States we have $48 billion owed, according to court 
judgments, and only $13 billion collected. We ask by this sense-of-the-
Senate, please, Department of Justice, for the U.S. Senate, this is a 
priority. Begin to enforce the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, of 
which Senator Shelby was author in this distinguished body.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the sense-
of-the-Senate offered by my colleague from Alabama.
  Two years ago, Senator Shelby and I worked together to pass 
legislation that sent a stern message to deadbeat dads--and moms: Pay 
up or go to jail. As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile 
Justice, I held hearings on our bill, and moved it through the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Sadly, the message of our measure has not been heeded. Deadbeat 
parents continue to evade their responsibilities. Our Nation's children 
continue to suffer. We passed the law, but the Department of Justice 
failed to enforce it. In fact, after almost 2 years, Justice has 
prosecuted only five cases. This gulf between rhetoric and reality in 
unconscionable.
  Our legislation was simple, effective and straightforward: We made it 
a Federal criminal offense to willfully avoid paying support for a 
child who lived in another State. And we established a system of stiff 
penalties for noncustodial parents who refuse to support their 
children.
  The ``deadbeat parents'' measure was meant to help kids. But it has 
not. According to the most recent statistics, 23 million of our 
Nation's children are not receiving child support. Of these 23 million 
children, 40 percent have a delinquent parent who lives in a different 
State. So by some estimates, our legislation could reach more than 9 
million children--and more than 4 million parents who are not paying 
child support.
  But how many children have been helped by this law? Five. Not 5 
million; not even 5,000; just 5. By the nearly 95,000 Justice 
Department employees.
  To be fair, we know that not all out-of-State delinquent parents can 
be caught, prosecuted, and made to pay or punished. But no parent 
should be allowed to abandon their child simply because that child 
lives in another State. And no parent should be allowed to shirk their 
financial responsibility and pass it off to the taxpayers.
  Our Nation can not afford that, and our children do not deserve that.
  And so, with this sense-of-the Senate, we ask the Justice Department 
to get going. I know that Janet Reno and President Clinton care about 
this problem. There is no question about that. But we want--and our 
children need--the Justice Department to move forward on this matter.
  We in the Congress fulfilled our part of the bargain in passing the 
law. Now we ask Justice to do its part by enforcing the law. And so I 
urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I yield what time remains to the Senator 
from Texas, Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I, too, want to start by congratulating 
our dear colleague from Alabama. I want to be sure if I understand 
these facts, if I could ask a question?
  As I recall, on October 25, 1992, we passed a bill that gave the 
Justice Department the right to go into court and to force these 
deadbeat dads, I think the debate called them at that point --we are 
great with catchy phrases around here----
  Mr. SHELBY. That is right.
  Mr. GRAMM.--To pay child support. It is also my understanding that 
the Attorney General, Janet Reno, has now gone into court and 
prosecuted in only five cases in 18 months. Is that right?
  Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator will yield for an answer on that, the 
Senator from Texas is exactly right.
  In October of 1992, this law was signed by the President of the 
United States as part of the U.S. Criminal Code. Today it is a crime to 
go from State to State to avoid child support. It used to not be a 
crime to do that. We had to go State by State. The Justice Department, 
to our knowledge, has only tried to prosecute 5 cases nationwide. Yet 
there are billions and billions of dollars at stake here. What we are 
trying to do is say, ``Do your job.''
  Mr. GRAMM. Does the Senator believe that perhaps there are only five 
delinquent fathers in the country who have crossed State lines to avoid 
paying child support?
  Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator will yield further, there are thousands of 
cases; 40 percent of the child support cases in America, I understand, 
are interstate cases that fall into this category that would be subject 
to the criminal statute. And there are billions and billions of dollars 
owed.
  Just think, if we could collect for the children, the children of 
America, something that is already owed to them. And most of these 
people are gainfully employed.
  Mr. GRAMM. And we could save the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely.
  Mr. GRAMM. I simply want to make an obvious point.
  Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator will yield for one quick statement? There 
are 9 million children who are owed this billions of dollars in the 
United States, already on court decrees--9 million children.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Clinton administration wants to understand why it 
has a credibility problem, look at this. The President stands up and 
says let us have welfare reform. Let us get these deadbeat dads. His 
Attorney General, in 18 months, has tried to get 5 of them.
  I offered an amendment tonight to try to stop taxpayer funding to 
fight welfare reform, and the Attorney General of the United States 
writes that the Clinton administration opposes this amendment.
  The President talks about three strikes and you are out, yet the 
Justice Department of the Clinton administration has spent every hour 
since they have been empowered, when the President put his hand on the 
Bible, from that moment on they have been trying to overturn minimum 
mandatory sentencing for drug felons who are trying to sell drugs to 
our children.
  So, my point is this. You cannot very well have credibility when you 
say one thing and you do another. What the Shelby amendment is saying 
to the Clinton administration is, put your actions where your mouth is. 
We passed the law. It is the law of the land that the Justice 
Department can go after these deadbeat dads, as we called them in this 
debate. The President does not have to wait on welfare reform. He can 
do it. If he is so anxious to do it, why only 5 cases in 18 months? If 
we really want welfare reform, if we really want to require welfare 
recipients to work, and if we want to cut off economic incentives for 
people on welfare to have more children, why are we opposing an 
amendment which is trying to deny taxpayer funding, or the use of it, 
to try to fight exactly what we claim to be for?
  And if we are for grabbing violent criminals by the throat, why is 
the Justice Department trying to overturn minimum mandatory sentencing?
  The answer to all these questions, obviously, depends upon the eye of 
the beholder but, in my opinion, the answer is there is a huge gulf 
between the rhetoric of the Clinton administration and the reality of 
their program. The rhetoric is tough on welfare reform. The reality is 
it tries to kill probably the only welfare reform amendment we are 
going to vote on this year. They have had an opportunity on deadbeat 
dads and they have only gone to court five times.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2344

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for small business disaster 
   loans in areas affected by the flooding in Georgia, Alabama, and 
                                Florida)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for himself and 
     Mr. Nunn, proposes an amendment numbered 2344.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 118, line 25, strike ``and other'' and 
     all that follows through page 119, line 1 and insert the 
     following: ``, the flooding and other damage caused by 
     Tropical Storm Alberto in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, and 
     other disasters and associated administrative expenses, 
     $470,000,000, which shall be''.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I rise on behalf of myself and the 
distinguished Senator Sam Nunn, of Georgia, to offer this amendment to 
the main bill. The original legislation provided $400 million to the 
Small Business Administration to collateralize loans in the California 
earthquake.
  Subsequent to the legislation, we have had the most significant 
disaster in Georgia in contemporary history. That disaster spilled over 
into the States of Alabama and Florida.
  This amendment adds $70 million to the $400 million so that the Small 
Business Administration can extend disaster loans in a greater degree 
in the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
  The amendment has been negotiated with the Small Business 
Administration, with the floor managers on both sides and, to my 
knowledge, there is no disagreement about the need of this important 
legislation as one more assistance and one more flexibility to be made 
available in the face of this grave disaster in our State.
  This $70 million will collateralize almost $300 million in disaster 
loans to, again, add to what we have been doing in the last few days: 
To try to bring relief and diminishing of anxiety in the path of this 
great flood of 1994.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I know the other Senator from 
Georgia, Senator Nunn, would like to speak on this amendment and has 
perhaps another amendment to offer.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend and 
colleague, Senator Coverdell, in presenting this amendment. I want to 
express my appreciation to the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator 
from New Mexico, and their staffs for working with us on this amendment 
and giving us advice on the amendment and working with the SBA on the 
amendment.
  As Senator Coverdell, the junior Senator from Georgia, has already 
said, this amendment will increase the lending authority of the Small 
Business Administration by between $250 million and $300 million, which 
we believe is essential and which the Small Business Administration has 
verified in terms of helping those who have been the victims of the 
storm we call Alberta which struck Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.
  So this involves three States. Of course, the money can be used in 
the broad category to which it is attached, but we believe this amount 
of money will be a minimum that may be required. It may be more than 
that. No one can really appropriately assess the damage as yet.
  There has been an unprecedented flood in Georgia. We have never had 
anything with this devastation since the Civil War. It, basically, 
wrecked many small communities, and a number of large communities are 
still struggling to dig out of the mud and debris in the aftermath, 
including a town near my hometown of Perry, called Macon. About 200,000 
people still do not have water as we speak here tonight. They still do 
not have water.
  Americus, GA, has been hit very hard. We had some 31, 32 deaths. Some 
of them were in Americus, and Montezuma, GA, in Macon County has been 
hit very hard.
  Senator Coverdell and I, the Governor and others flew over the area a 
number of times, and that town was literally under water. I was there 
this Monday and walked the streets and went in the stores. They are 
having to gut all the stores, take everything off the walls, take out 
anything remaining and, in effect, start over with nothing but the 
frames of the buildings, and even the frames of the buildings, in many 
cases, are also going to have to be replaced.
  Almost every merchant in Montezuma, GA, lost their entire inventory. 
They are struggling with that. It is going to be difficult for them to 
make it. The SBA loans are speedy, and they are needed. We want to make 
sure there is enough money to cover it. So we appreciate very much the 
efforts of the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from South 
Carolina in this regard.
  I will also have another amendment. I will discus that one very 
briefly after this one. I hope that one will also be accepted. That 
will add $50 million to the Economic Development Administration, 
because we are informed that they will need this kind of money to play 
their role in this disaster.
  In small towns, particularly like Montezuma, GA, and Newnan, GA, the 
merchants are going to have a very hard time, even if someone makes 
them a loan and even if the loans are interest free, because they 
simply do not have the wherewithal to be able to replace all the 
inventory and the buildings because those are very small towns without 
a very robust economic base.
  They are determined people, and I believe they will make it. I am 
confident they will make it, but it is going to take some help.
  Both of these amendments offered on behalf of myself and Senator 
Coverdell, we believe, are very important. We appreciate very much the 
Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Mexico working 
with us on this important matter to meet the tragedy that has occurred 
in our State.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been a privilege to work with the 
distinguished Senators from Georgia, Senator Nunn and Senator 
Coverdell, and also with the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator 
Graham, and the other Senators from Florida and Alabama, to work out 
this amendment. We all have been shocked at the devastation caused in 
the three States, particularly right around Macon, GA, as the Senator 
from Georgia, Senator Nunn, has pointed out.
  The good thing about this first amendment is it does not have to be 
offset. It has to be within the emergency sections of the Small 
Business Administration, and the Small Business Administration is 
administered by none other than Mr. Erskine Bowles who is an 
outstanding financial executive. He was in this particular discipline 
for years in Charlotte, NC, before President Clinton enticed him to 
come to Washington.
  With SBA, where we have had some problems sometimes in the disaster 
loans and how they were allocated, I go particularly back in my 
experience when they had the fault out in California--not the 
earthquake last year, but the one that was caused some 15 years ago 
where some took advantage of it.
  We do not have that problem. That is the one thing that concerned us.
  So the aim here is to do what is intended by the disaster loan 
program, to take care as expeditiously, in as orderly a process as we 
possibly can. We thought it was $470 million, but that has gone up. 
With the $400 million, we were going to be able to finance some $1.8 
billion in disaster loans. So with the $470 million, it will be over 
the $2 billion amount, which is really, in our estimation, going to be 
needed.
  The committee is ready to accept it, and I will yield in a minute to 
my ranking member to confirm that.
  With respect to the Economic Development Administration, the $50 
million to remain available and the $5 million also for the 
administration, that has to be declared an emergency, under the 
particular amendment, by the President. So if that is needed, that, 
too, avoids the scoring problem that Senator Domenici and I have had 
since the very beginning working on this bill.
  So I have looked them over, and the Senator from Georgia is correct. 
We have worked with their staffs and everything, and we would be 
prepared to accept them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, let me indicate to the 
Senators from the affected States, in particular Senator Nunn and 
Senator Coverdell, whom I visited with at length on the disaster, I 
think it is good for us to see how concerned both Senators are about 
this kind of event in their States.
  I have noticed that both Senators have been extremely diligent in 
going home, going to see the disaster, seeing the people, and then 
reporting back to us who have to try to get the money in the best way 
possible.
  I congratulate the Senators. This Senator comes from a State where we 
have not yet had one of these disasters, but I had a little experience 
with it because my first assignment in the Senate was the Subcommittee 
on Disaster Relief, Mr. President. I think they assigned disaster 
relief then to the least senior person around, and so I was supposed to 
have nothing to do.
  But it turned out hurricane Agnes came. Do you remember hurricane 
Agnes? That was a big one. It came in from the northeast, got a big 
piece of New York, Pennsylvania, and right through here. And so I had 
my first field hearings, and they were in the midst of a disaster. I 
learned a lot, and I learned a lot about the laws, and I think we have 
improved the law since.
  Frankly, I am hopeful that we do not have any more. We have had our 
share this year as Americans. But when we have them, when we have them, 
in the tradition of the Senate and our National Government and, I 
think, in behalf of all of our people, the people of the country, we, 
indeed, must come to the help of States like Georgia and Florida. I for 
one wish we did not have them in the midst of these States, but since 
we do, I think it is good to help right now. And we are going to do 
that as far as I am concerned.
  The loan program is working. I hope it continues to work in these 
States, and I know in some instances where it will not work, I say to 
the Senator from Georgia, we do not have a catchall disaster relief 
that will cover everybody, and I think the people of Georgia probably 
know that. But a very substantial portion of the assistance will come 
by virtue of these loans which are geared to helping people that are in 
disastrous situations.
  I am also pleased that when we drafted the laws and the rules 
regarding budget restraint, we did provide in the case of a real 
emergency we could break the budget caps and spend money that was 
needed as declared by the President and concurred in by the Congress. I 
am sure that is the case with reference to this SBA loan at $70 million 
in new money. It can only be used in disaster areas anyway so it is 
kind of self-policing in that respect.
  Frankly, on many occasions I have struggled, as one familiar with 
that agreement, on permitting disaster money to exceed the caps and 
spend it over the budget, so to speak. I have been on the floor 
sometimes when I had to really argue that people were seeking money for 
things that were not a real disaster. But this one obviously fits what 
we had in mind, and so even that is going to work to the benefit of the 
three States affected, with obviously the predominant damage in 
Georgia.
  I am hopeful that the EDA amendment will be accepted. I intend to 
accept it on this side, I say to the Senators from Georgia, and I 
gather that when the President does declare this is needed and it is 
for emergency purposes, there will be some effort to tailor it to the 
needs of the disaster area. And that may not be easy, but we hope it 
works.
  So I am very pleased, on behalf of our side of the aisle, to say to 
both Senators from Georgia, it is almost a responsibility of the Senate 
to do this, and I am glad we are in the Chamber saying we are going to 
do that and do it as fast as we can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I hope we could vote on the first amendment, 
but perhaps it would facilitate everyone if I went ahead and explained 
the second amendment and then perhaps we could vote on it. I will send 
it to the desk after the first one is approved.
  This second amendment, which I will withhold at the moment but will 
send to the desk, has already been described by the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from New Mexico. I will make my information 
very brief. This, too, will be on behalf of myself and Senator 
Coverdell.
  This amendment would appropriate $50 million for the Economic 
Development Administration to help communities and businesses cope with 
the aftermath of the tropical storm Alberto. An additional $5 million 
is included to cover the administrative expenses involved in overseeing 
the funding. So it is a total of $55 million.
  The release of these moneys, as has already been referred to, would 
be contingent upon a request from the Administration that the spending 
is for emergency purposes as outlined in section 251(b)(2)(D)(I) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Unless the 
administration makes this request, these moneys would not be available 
to be spent. These emergency restrictions are similar to those imposed 
upon use of emergency EDA moneys for floods in the Midwest and the 
Northridge earthquake.
  As yet, we do not have damage estimates from the flood in Georgia and 
Alabama and Florida. This appropriation is in anticipation of requests, 
if this amendment passes, for assistance for communities in the three 
affected States to help replace damaged infrastructure and assist 
businesses that were displaced by the flood.
  Mr. President, I hope we can vote on the first amendment, and after 
that is approved, I will send the second one to the desk.
  I appreciate the voices of support that have already been given by 
the managers to both amendments.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2344.
  Is there any objection to amendment 2344?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment 2344 is agreed 
to.
  So the amendment (No. 2344) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NUNN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2345

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second 
amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I do not believe the second amendment has 
been sent to the desk. On behalf of myself and Senator Coverdell, I 
send that amendment to the desk. It already has been described. I ask 
the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself and Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 2345.

  Mr. NUNN. 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 118, after ``Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations'' on line 20, insert the following:


                         department of commerce

                  economic development administration

                economic development assistance programs

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Development 
     Assistance Programs'' pursuant to the Public Works and 
     Economic Development Assistance Act of 1965 as amended, to be 
     used for grants to assist States and local communities in 
     recovering from the flooding and damage caused by Tropical 
     Storm Alberto and other disasters, $50,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended; and in addition $5,000,000 to 
     remain available until expended, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriations for ``Salaries and 
     expenses'': Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request, for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement, as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted to Congress.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe the floor managers have already 
indicated they would accept this amendment, so I hope we can vote on 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, is there any objection to adoption of the amendment? Without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2345) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. NUNN. Mr. President, again I wish to thank the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from New Mexico. They have been most 
cooperative. Their staffs have been terrific. They understand the 
devastation that has taken place, and they have been a tremendous help 
to Senator Coverdell and myself and all the people in Georgia, Florida, 
and Alabama who are the victims, the continuing victims of the 
flooding.
  The most severely damaged counties in Georgia are Bibb County, Macon 
County, Dooly County, Sumpter County, Lee County, Dougherty County, 
Mitchell County, Baker County, and Decatur County.
  There are a number of others that are severely damaged, including 
Pulaski County. There are about 43. I am sure the people in all of 
those counties will be very grateful for the Senate's action this 
evening.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to echo the remarks of the 
senior Senator with regard to the management on both sides of the 
aisle. At an appropriate time, it is my intention to thank each 
distinguished Senator. There are so many of our colleagues who have 
come forward on their own volition, out of concern for so many 
thousands of people that have been ravaged by the flood. But in 
particular this evening I want to thank the Senators from South 
Carolina and New Mexico for their assistance.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein], has been working diligently with us in the 
committee, Senators Domenici and myself, around the clock from the 
beginning of the year, to tell you the truth. Immigration is a real 
problem nationally. If you hit the bull's eye, it would be the State of 
California, as well as the State of the distinguished presiding 
officer, the State of Florida.
  We have worked in every regard. The first order of business, of 
course, is stop the flow as best we can. We have done that in this 
particular bill by putting in $100 million, $60 million for the Border 
Patrol for the construction of the Border Patrol stations, check 
points, and the physical border features.
  We have also included $54.5 million to hire 700 additional Border 
Patrol agents. That is above the President's request. So there is a 
total increase of 940 Border Patrol agents for next year over this 
year's budget, and $10 million is provided to hire 220 land border 
inspectors. We put that in at the instance of Senator Feinstein, and 
some other measures down there.
  We have a work force down at Tijuana coming to San Diego. For them to 
do their work, the flow needs to be expedited so that we can 
distinguish between the legal and the illegals, and rather give passage 
to those who are working. We have quite a work force over in Tijuana 
coming up into the State of California. We have many other initiatives 
in here.
  I express the gratitude of the committee to the distinguished Senator 
from California for her leadership on this score.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and the 
bill manager for those very generous comments. But I think those 
comments really should be directed toward the committee. Chairman 
Hollings and Senator Domenici, the ranking member, have really produced 
a very fine bill.
  I have taken the time to tab the bill, and really go through it. As 
all Members should know, this bill is provides more than $12 billion in 
discretionary funds to the Department of Justice, actually 31 percent 
more than last year. It includes more than $2 billion from the crime 
bill trust fund, funds for State and local police hiring grants, an 
expanded Byrne Grant Program, 300 new agents for the Drug Enforcement 
Agency, more than 430 new FBI agents, and greatly expanded resources 
for U.S. attorneys' offices across the country, including almost $44 
million for implementation of the Attorney General's Violent Crime Task 
Force.
  I might say that those of us in California, where the Los Angeles 
U.S. attorney's office has been substantially understaffed for a very 
long time, are really particularly grateful for the latter.
  So there is real money in this bill. Funds that I believe will make a 
real difference in fighting crime on our streets, in our communities, 
and in every State of this Nation.
  There is also money in this bill to fight illegal immigration, Mr. 
President. A problem that I know from personal experience to be 
substantial and of tremendous importance to my State.
  I know that a year ago that a year and a half ago, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service was a very demoralized agency. I visited the 
border and saw and heard for myself why. The Border Patrol in San Diego 
was at that time overwhelmed on the Southwest border by better than 60 
to 1.
  Since then, the Appropriations Committee and Congress have expanded 
the size of the Border Patrol by 600 agents. I went back to the border 
and saw the difference that this infusion of funds made. The first 40 
of the new agents underwritten were on the job and had increased the 
sector's efficiency from 50 percent to 60 percent in just a few months. 
New infrastructure, including 14 miles of reinforced fence, new 
lighting, new vehicles and other equipment were making a difference. On 
the night of my visit less than a month ago, the Border Patrol arrested 
2,000 people.
  In this bill, as the ranking member and chairman have pointed out, 
funds are made available for 700 new, and 240 redirected, agents that 
will be added to our borders where necessary--North, South, East, West. 
I believe that this new complement of agents, once fully deployed, will 
really begin to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into our country in 
a substantial way.
  This bill, and the funds it provides, are important: $54.5 million 
for the 700 new agents; $55 million more for automation technology that 
I have actually seen tested on the border and which will free up the 
those additional 240 agents; $100 million for INS construction 
projects, including nearly $60 million for new or improved border check 
points; 220 new land border inspectors to speed legal border crossing; 
$55 million for expedited deportation of illegal aliens; and $55 
million for reform of the overburdened asylum process.
  I also want to point out that there is money in this bill to help 
create counterfeit-proof work authorization documents. Three weeks ago, 
in Los Angeles, I could have bought, on three occasions, counterfeit 
drivers' licenses, counterfeit green cards, and other forged documents 
for anywhere from $10 to $60. In the INS office, I saw literally 
thousands of these cards that had been confiscated. I saw a 
demonstration of sophisticated counterfeiting methods, and I went to a 
hotel right across the street where these documents are produced in 
less than 1 hour's time from the time of purchase. This issue needs to 
be addressed.
  Finally, Mr. President, I do have some questions about the funds made 
available under this bill for Federal reimbursement of costs incurred 
by States in incarcerating criminal aliens. Congress acknowledged its 
responsibility in 1986 to provide such reimbursement, but no 
appropriations bill before this one actually made real money available 
to the States for this purpose. Chairman Hollings has graciously 
offered to engage me in a colloquy for the Record on this subject. I 
also know that you and I, Mr. President, my colleague from Florida, 
hope to meet soon with the Attorney General to discuss this subject in 
depth. I ask unanimous consent at this time, Mr. President, that 
colloquy to which I referred appear in the Record immediately following 
my remarks.
  In conclusion, I want to make clear that there is no bill other than 
this one that will do what needs to be done with respect to fighting 
illegal immigration and fighting crime. This is the bill that makes the 
promises real, that provides the funds to do what--otherwise--we will 
simply have talked about.
  So people may talk, but if they do not vote for this bill, they will 
be voting against putting resources where they are needed for more 
police, more border patrol agents, more FBI agents, more DEA agents, 
better border infrastructure, and asylum reform--to name just a few of 
the many programs funded by this bill. A vote against this bill, is a 
vote against all that and more.
  Mr. President, I salute the subcommittee, and thank the Chairman and 
his staff very much. Thank you, too, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Subcommittee of the 
Appropriations Committee, would be kind enough to discuss the pending 
bill with me for a few moments?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be pleased to engage my colleague from 
California in a colloquy, Mr. President.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend from 
South Carolina.
  Having reviewed this bill and the accompanying report carefully, and 
having listened carefully to the Chairman's opening remarks on this 
crime bill, it is certainly my impression that the Appropriations 
Committee has in many ways concurred that the control of illegal 
immigration to the United States must--and is in this bill--a national 
priority.
  Is that a fair characterization of the committee's thinking in 
establishing funding priorities for the Department of Justice and 
Immigration and Naturalization Service?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The short answer is, absolutely.
  As I highlighted in my opening comments, this bill fully funds the 
President's $300 million immigration initiative announced this winter: 
$181 million for border control--critically needed automation 
initiatives that will free up 240 Border Patrol agents who can be 
deployed to the line; $55 million for expedited deportation of illegal 
aliens; another $55 million for asylum reform; and $8.5 million for the 
immigration emergency fund.
  There is also $100 million in this bill, almost $60 million of it for 
the Border Patrol, for the construction of Border Patrol stations, 
checkpoints, and physical border features and $40 million for INS 
processing centers.
  And we have also included $54.5 million to hire 700 additional Border 
Patrol agents--above the President's request--increasing agents on the 
line by 940 in fiscal year 1995. And, $10 million is provided to hire 
220 land border inspectors to ensure that traffic moves more quickly 
through their ports of entry.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman. It is very gratifying to have 
the committee's support for the proposition that I have advanced since 
I arrived in the Senate; namely, that we can and must control our 
borders.
  Let me address another issue of tremendous concern, Mr. President: 
the cost to California--and to six other States which together are home 
to 85 percent of the American people--of incarcerating aliens in this 
country illegally who commit crimes and wind up in State and local 
prisons and jails.
  As the chairman knows better than anyone, immigration is--without 
question--solely a Federal prerogative and responsibility. Accordingly, 
Congress acknowledged its obligation to reimburse States for the costs 
associated with criminal aliens in 1986 when it authorized the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program in ``IRCA''--the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act. Before this bill, however, virtually no budget request 
or appropriation to effectuate Congress' intent has been made.
  As a direct result, the States have born an estimated $600 million 
burden annually to imprison individuals deportable under Federal law, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  I noted in the committee's report and in the chairman's remarks that 
the bill before us--in effect, for the first time--makes it possible 
for states affected by criminal alien incarceration to apply to the 
Attorney General for funds to offset the cost of imprisoning illegal 
aliens.
  Mr. President, could the chairman detail for me, please, what portion 
of the $1.3 million in community policing funds will be available to 
the Attorney General out of which to make criminal alien reimbursement 
grants?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The committee estimates that--nationwide after the 
individual State minimum awards of $6.2 million are made--approximately 
$900 million will be available for both community policing and criminal 
alien incarceration grants. I want to emphasize, however, that the 
Committee makes clear in its report that the Attorney General must 
assure, before awarding any criminal alien incarceration grant to any 
State applying for such aid, that the legal status of all foreign-born 
inmates housed in its jails has been determined as required by section 
501(b) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Public Law 99-603).
  This grant authority is not intended to reimburse States for people 
in prison who are foreign born, or on whom the INS has placed a hold, 
but prisoners who are, in fact, here illegally for reasons independent 
of the conviction that put them in prison. It is critical that this 
money not be awarded in a vacuum, or based on speculative estimates of 
alien prison populations.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman. I want to say for the record, 
as well, that I completely agree with you that no State should receive 
any alien incarceration funds unless their prison census is accurate. 
Is it the chairman's understanding that the Attorney General will be 
responsible for promptly publishing a methodology, or set of 
methodologies, for making acceptable estimates of this kind?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is my understanding, but let me say that the 
Commissioner of INS, Doris Meissner, testified before the 
Appropriations Committee on June 22, 1994 that such verification could 
take 12 to 24 months.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is it also the Chairman's understanding that--once 
the Attorney General does publish acceptable accounting methods--that 
she must notify the committee of her intention to reprogram community 
policing moneys for the purpose of making criminal alien incarceration 
grants?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is also true, Mr. President.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chairman. Once that reprogramming notice 
is filed, however, is further action by the committee or Congress 
required to begin the flow of funds to States that have made successful 
applications for reimbursement?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is correct, and I refer her and others to 
section 605 of the bill for details on reprogramming in general under 
the bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. Finally, I just want to make clear 
this Senator's deep appreciation to Chairman Hollings, Chairman Byrd, 
and their excellent staffs for speaking at length with me over the past 
several months regarding the critical need to reinvigorate the INS and 
begin to truly enforce our borders.
  This bill overall, in my view, increases the momentum generated by 
the Appropriations Committee last year in making fiscal year 1994 
appropriations for 600 new Border Patrol agents. I hope that we can 
maintain and, if necessary, increase that momentum and commitment 
further next year.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator. She has been a force on the 
Appropriations Committee and--while we will deal with next year when it 
comes--I am very proud of this bill and appreciate the support of the 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman. I yield the floor, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator from California 
leaves the floor, might I just say, from my standpoint, as part of this 
team of the chairman and ranking member, I thank her for her 
compliments about the bill. I do believe we have heard what the people 
of the country really want, and I believe we have heard what Senators 
on both sides of the aisle speaking for the people want. They want the 
new money we get in this year's budget for crime fighting and to 
control our borders. Frankly, they are tied together. It is very tough 
for the border States to control time if our borders are wide open. We 
tied those together, and we think we made a giant step and a real 
commitment to try, within the limitations of the current agencies of 
Government, to better control our borders. We are not going to kid 
anybody; it is such a giant problem and we may not succeed with 924 new 
border patrol and modernization and $100 million for new kinds of 
facilities needed on the border to make their jobs easier. But we are 
sure trying.
  I do not think anybody can say, for those who are talking about 
fighting crime, that this committee has not joined with them and said 
we are going to pay for some of that. So we are very pleased that some 
of this will go to your State. Your State has big problems in that 
regard--bigger than mine, and I come from a border State. They will all 
get help. We are hopeful that the border States with these problems, 
including the State of the occupant of the chair and that of the 
Senator from Texas who raises questions about this, they are going to 
be helped, including Arizona, in this very serious American problem. We 
ought to be doing this as well as we can. I think we are going to make 
a giant step when this bill becomes law.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join in my gratitude for the 
leadership and support of the distinguished Senator from California.
  I have four amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle.


                           Amendment No. 2346

  (Purpose: To provide funds for staff personnel for the Broadcasting 
                          Board of Governors)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 2346.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 110, line 9, add the following after the word 
     ``expenses'':
       ``Provided further, That on the date upon which the Board 
     for International Broadcasting Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 2871, 
     et seq.) is repealed, as provided for by Section 310(e) of 
     the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 108 Stat. 442), funds made 
     available for expenses of the Board for International 
     Broadcasting shall be made available until expended only for 
     expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors to carry out the authorities provided in Section 
     305(a) of P.L. 103-326, including the appointment of staff 
     personnel as authorized by Section 305(a)(11) of P.L. 103-
     236:''

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is simple and 
straightforward. It provides that funds made available for the expenses 
of the Board for International Broadcasting [BIB] shall be made 
available for the new Broadcasting Board of Governors established in 
the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, once the BIB ceases to 
exist.
  Under that Act, which is Title III of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, all of the 
international broadcasting entities funded by the U.S. Government--the 
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, Radio and TV 
Marti, and the soon-to-be established Radio Free Asia--will be 
consolidated under the supervision of a new ``Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.'' Once that new Board is appointed and confirmed by the 
Senate, the Board for International Broadcasting--which currently 
oversees Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty--will go out of operation.
  In enacting the U.S. International Broadcasting Act, Congress made 
clear that the new Broadcasting Board of Governors would have 
sufficient independence and authority to direct and supervise all 
broadcasting activities funded by the U.S. Government. It should go 
without saying that the Board, which will not be full-time, cannot 
carry out these tasks unless it has sufficient staff personnel to 
assist them.
  This amendment is designed to enable the Board to carry out the tasks 
assigned to it by providing funds for staff personnel and 
administrative expenses. This is consistent with the provisions of the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which provide the Board with its 
power and authority. Section 305(a) of that Act sets forth the 
authorities of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Section 305(a)(11) 
provides that the Board shall have the authority to ``appoint such 
staff personnel for the Board as the Board may determine to be 
necessary.''
  It is clear that the plain language of the statute leaves it to the 
discretion of the Board to determine the size of the staff that it 
needs to carry out its tasks. Additionally, section 305(a)(10) provides 
that the Board shall have the authority, ``to the extent considered 
necessary to carry out the functions of the Board, procure supplies, 
services, and other personal property.''
  But the Foreign Relations Authorization Act made no express provision 
for a separate budget for the Board. The funds made available in this 
amendment would provide such funds.
  I want to make clear to my colleagues that this amendment adds no 
funds to this bill. My amendment simply provides that funds in this 
bill appropriated for the administrative expenses of the Board for 
International Broadcasting [BIB], which will cease to exist when all 
the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors are confirmed by the 
Senate, shall then be made available for the expenses of the new Board. 
It is likely that the new Board will be fully constituted in fiscal 
1995--hence the need to make these funds available to the new Board.
  I also want to stress that I do not intend by this amendment that 
these funds shall be the only funds available for the Board. As I 
stated earlier, the authorization statute clearly provides that the 
Board has the power to determine how much staff personnel it requires.
  In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to the chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senators Hollings and Domenici, 
for their assistance with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2346) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2347

       (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding the 
     Southwest border.)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 2347.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Sec.     . Sense of the Senate--It is the Sense of Senate 
     that the Attorney General should:
       (a) Evaluate the number of individuals illegally crossing 
     the U.S.-Mexico border;
       (b) Develop and implement a policy that seeks to curb the 
     number of illegal border crossings;
       (c) Ensure that any policy developed seeks to curb the 
     number of crossings equally along the entirety of the 
     Southwest border; and
       (d) Ensure that such policy enables law enforcement 
     officials to shift resources to address any increases in the 
     number of illegal border crossings wherever they may occur.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It 
expresses the Sense of the Senate that the Attorney General should: 
Evaluate the number of individuals illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico 
border; develop and implement a policy that seeks to curb the number of 
illegal border crossings; ensure that any policy developed seeks to 
curb the number of crossings equally along the entirety of the 
Southwest border; and ensure that such policy enables law enforcement 
officials to shift resources to address any increases in the number of 
illegal border crossings wherever they may occur.
  Mr. President, much of what this amendment calls for is already being 
done. The Attorney General is already monitoring illegal border 
crossings and taking steps to stop such crossings.
  I applaud the Attorney General for her efforts.
  However, there still does not appear to be any plan to address the 
entire border situation.
  For the record, I want to note that the Committee has included 
language in its report echoing my concerns regarding this subject. The 
purpose of this amendment is to send a clear and strong signal to the 
Attorney General that the full Senate believes that problems along the 
Southwest border must be addressed in a comprehensive manner.
  Let me recount the facts regarding this issue.
  On February 3, the Attorney General made a significant announcement 
regarding the border patrol and our nation's priorities. Ms. Reno and 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Doris Meissner 
outlined their plan to strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws 
and ``to safeguard her borders.''
  The highlight of this plan, as it was announced, was strengthening 
the border patrol. Specifically, for 1994, San Diego border patrol 
strength was increased by 40 percent, the equivalent of some 300 agents 
and 97 support staff.

  The Attorney General stated that such action will ``stop the 
revolving door on the border * * * by a strategy of deterrence through 
prevention.''
  This localized plan--in lieu of a national plan--caused others and 
myself great concern.
  After the Senators from Arizona and New Mexico publicly noted this 
unfair, irrational distribution of agents, the Border Patrol took steps 
to change its original policy.
  The Border Patrol told my staff that Arizona ``need not worry'' about 
increased illegal immigration because if it were to occur--and they 
admitted it will--and the facts now prove it is--that agents could be 
moved to Arizona. Unfortunately, these are simply hollow words.
  Mr. President, when my staff asked Border Patrol officials what 
criteria would be used to determine when agents would be shifted from 
one region to another--for example from California to Arizona--my staff 
was told there was no official criteria and that such moves would be 
made at the policy level when determined to be appropriate. In other 
words, when the politics of the situation merit a shift in agents, the 
Attorney General's office will comply.
  Mr. President, the people of Arizona have a right to know when our 
Border Patrol problems merit the concern of Border Patrol officials. I 
expect that the Attorney General's office will be forthcoming with 
specifics regarding this issue.
  Under the Attorney General's plan the revolving door at San Diego 
will be closed. Nothing, however, will be done at this time in Arizona. 
This appears to be a shortsighted, politically expedient solution to 
our immigration problems.
  It is the political aspect of this solution that particularly 
concerns me.
  Mr. President, for the information of those at the Attorney General's 
office and the Border Patrol, the Southwest border is comprised of four 
States: Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas. The Arizona-Mexico 
border is three times the length of the California-Mexico border and 
has more border crossing stations. I would hope that the Attorney 
General and all other officials concerned with that border would 
remember that each State on the border has equal concerns that must be 
addressed.
  The needs of the people and of this country must be put ahead of what 
appears to be a political agenda. It is discouraging and disheartening 
that the Attorney General's office and the Department of Justice is 
acting in such a overtly political fashion. Of all Federal agencies, 
the Department of Justice should be above politics.
  This sense of the Senate amendment would direct the Attorney General 
to implement a border-wide policy. It is drafted as a sense of the 
Senate so as not to tie the hands of the Attorney General. Simply, it 
sends a message to the Attorney General that the U.S. Senate expects 
her to put policy above politics--in other words, to implement a 
national plan that addresses the needs of the entire Southwest border.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2347) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2348

       (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain 
appropriations made available to the National Institutes of Justice be 
allocated to research on the crime of stalking, and for other purposes)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 2348.

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

       On page 2, insert between lines 22 and 23 the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that of the funds 
     appropriated under this title that are made available to the 
     National institute of Justice for criminal justice research 
     funds should be allocated for research on the crime of 
     stalking and strategies to protect the victims of such 
     crimes.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, It is estimated that: over 200,000 
Americans are currently being stalked; five percent of the female 
population of the United States will become stalking victims; and 90 
percent of all women killed by husbands or boyfriends were stalked 
before being murdered.
  Stalking is an offense that effects a substantial number of innocent 
victims, with women disproportionately terrorized. Stalking often leads 
to violence resulting in serious injury or death. At a minimum the 
crime has a catastrophic effect on the lives of the victimized.
  One victim, for example indicated that her ex-husband had, for four 
years, aggressively pursued her through threatening telephone calls, 
letters, horrifying late-night visits, and bizarre messages--such as a 
simulated grave placed on her front porch with a tombstone bearing her 
name. The woman, in fear of her life, moved four times, changed her 
telephone number countless times, changed jobs twice, and rarely did 
anything without looking over her shoulder. For this victim, stalking 
removed any trace of her former, normal lifestyle.
  While all 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed anti-
stalking legislation, the ineffectiveness of existing statutes and 
legal remedies has undermined the public confidence in the criminal 
justice system. Victims are afraid to report the crime for fear the 
abuse will become more violent.
  Maria Navaro, for example, obtained a protective order against her 
estranged husband in an effort to end a long history of threats and 
harassment. She called to report to police that her husband had called 
her and was on his way over to kill her. The police told her there was 
nothing they could do until he actually arrived at her home. She was 
instructed to call police at that time. The next call the police 
received was from Ms. Navaro's neighbor reporting that Mr. Navaro had 
just killed Ms. Navaro and two of her friends. The entire crime was 
witnessed by Navaro's two young children.
  Another victim was quoted as saying ``Until he rapes or kills me, the 
police can't do anything. When I'm a statistic of some kind, they'll 
put every man they have on it''.
  Mr. President, this is unacceptable. We must do everything possible 
to protect Americans from this abuse.
  The amendments I am offering today are a small step toward improving 
our research and response to the crime of stalking. Hopefully, the more 
we learn about the crime and it's perpetrator, the more we can protect 
the victim from harassment and violence. In addition, law enforcement 
and victim service provider training will ensure that our professionals 
understand the need to intervene at the earliest stage and not wait for 
a catastrophe.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2348) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2349

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain funds 
appropriated for discretionary grants should be granted to the National 
  Victim Center for research on the crime of stalking, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 2349.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 5, insert between lines 21 and 22 the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that $200,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this title to the Department of Justice 
     for discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs should be 
     granted to the National Victims Center to conduct criminal 
     justice and victim service provider training on the crime of 
     stalking.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2349) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish, if I may, to address a subject 
with the distinguished managers of the bill which is of great 
importance to me and, I understand, to the Senator from South Carolina, 
as well.
  The weed and seed program has, in my view, been one of the most 
extraordinary and successful marriages of a number of attempts to deal 
with crime in a few areas in the cities of the United States from the 
point of view of the sociology of the crime and of the people, 
especially the young people living in these communities, together with 
strong and vigorous law enforcement.
  The Department of Justice suggested $13.5 million for the fund. The 
House of Representatives gave it the same amount that it has in the 
current year--$13.2 million. The Senate subcommittee in this bill have 
the $13.5 million recommended by the Department of Justice, with the 
understanding that an additional $10 million will be available from 
discretionary money at the Department of Justice, raising the total 
amount to almost $25 million. Even this figure, I feel, underfunds this 
important program, which exists only in 20 or 22 cities across the 
United States. I know that a number of other smaller cities in the 
State of Washington would like to join in what has been so successful 
an experiment in Seattle. I know this is true all across the United 
States.
  As a result, I was seriously considering an amendment to try to find 
additional money in this bill, perhaps from some of the functions of 
the Department of State, to add to weed and seed; but I felt that the 
justifications for those programs were high. And as I said privately 
and publicly to the two managers of the bill, I am not sure that in my 
years on the Appropriations Committee I have seen any subcommittee do a 
better job weighing priorities among a wide range of really good 
programs across a disparate group of departments than have the 
distinguished Senators from South Carolina and New Mexico in this case.
  So I was very reluctant to try to interfere with the set of 
priorities they came up with as strongly as I do feel about the 
importance of this program.
  Just 2 weeks ago, I joined in the middle of the morning with a number 
of Seattle police officers in visiting a neighborhood in the heart of 
the weed and seed area of the city of Seattle, the center of drug 
trafficking in the city just a couple years ago.
  The remarkable part about that visit was it was like visiting any 
other neighborhood. Nothing was happening. Arrests were not taking 
place. Kids were playing in the parks and in the streets and in a 
number of other enterprises funded partly by weed and seed programs. 
The neighborhood had been recovered. It is a wonderful program.
  But what I would really like to ask a response from the two managers 
is, since I have not felt it appropriate to ask for even more money in 
the form of an amendment because of all of the difficulties under which 
they operated, I certainly hope I can get their agreement as to the 
vital and successful nature of weed and seed and their undertaking to 
do the very best they possibly can to really struggle to see to it that 
we get the Senate level and not retreat from that level, not just so 
that this program may be continued in Seattle and in a number of other 
cities across the country but so that it can be extended to other 
cities and towns which can utilize the success which those who have 
already utilized these funds have shown are possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for his support and enthusiasm for this program.
  We started this program here in 1991, just 3 short years ago. We 
started it up in Philadelphia, really in the poverty section there.
  I know firsthand. It has been extended to one in my own backyard. I 
had a similar experience that the distinguished Senator has had. 
Everyone has been interested recently in soccer. I went to an area 
where there was nothing but youth crime and drugs and everything else 
of that kind. It is now all cleaned up with a field and a volunteer who 
took over and got 284 of the kids in that area in a soccer program. One 
team won the State championship here this past year.
  So I have seen a dramatic change from weed and seed. I have been 
trying to impress on the administration that we need more funds there. 
They are about to announce, I think, an additional 10 sites. They only 
have 21 right now. And they assured me that they will. But they should 
have put more money into it.
  At the Senator's request--I am sure Senator Domenici would agree with 
me--we are going to do our dead-level best to keep this right here just 
under the $25 million level. We do not want to yield on this. In fact, 
if we find some elbow room in that conference and find some more money, 
there is nothing it could be spent on better than enhancing this 
particular program.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership in the program and 
particularly for his nice remarks relative to the work of the 
subcommittee, because we did work hard, and we are pretty proud of it. 
I think we did come out with a crime bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to say to Senator Gorton, first 
``thank you'' for the accolades regarding the bill.
  As I said before, it was easy for us to do the work because I believe 
we were doing what the people of the country want and also what we 
heard from Senators on our side of the aisle and that side of the aisle 
as to where we ought to be spending our money, and that is for crime 
prevention and a serious attack on crime.
  I thank the Senator for concurring in that and for the support you 
have given us.
  Second, with reference to the weed and seed, we are not as privileged 
as the Senator is. We do not have a major weed and seed program in our 
State, although I am very familiar with it. It was initiated in one of 
our cities and did not quite reach fruition for one reason or another.
  But I think it is a good concept, and from what I understand its 
achievements in the cities where it is working are truly admirable. You 
get in and get rid of the crime, but you do not leave. You bring right 
back in the seeds and you bring in the tools to assist that area so 
that those who have been committing crimes and making it a neighborhood 
not worth living in find new ways to make it a good place to live, 
including organized efforts, principally for young people but not 
singularly.
  So I understand the Senator's enthusiasm and congratulate him for it.
  From my standpoint, we are going to do everything we can to keep our 
level, which is the highest level, and if we can find some money that 
we do not need elsewhere, we might even increase it over the budget 
request which we have fulfilled here.
  I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the comments and the 
enthusiasm of the two managers of the bill. They make me feel very good 
about my own efforts and about their ability to set priorities under 
very difficult circumstances. As I say, I understand the intense 
difficulties and the intense priority setting which has been required 
of them.
  I find this assurance to be most welcome and most reassuring.
  I do not intend to offer an amendment on this subject but having 
their attention and their support and their commitment to do the best 
possible job for what I believe to be the best combination of approach 
toward law enforcement and the betterment of our communities in the 
country today I regard myself as satisfied with their commitment both 
in what they have done in this bill and what they will attempt to do in 
conference with the House.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending State, 
Justice, Commerce appropriations bill that is before us. I want to 
commend Senator Hollings and Senator Domenici and their staffs for 
their effort to report an appropriations bill that makes combating 
undocumented immigration one of its top priorities.
  This bill contains most of the administration's immigration 
initiatives. For example, the committee included funding for: New 
Border Patrol stations and border checkpoints; the hiring of additional 
border patrol agents, land border inspectors, and support personnel; 
border patrol automation and technology enhancements, which will result 
in the redeployment of additional border patrol agents; automation 
initiatives at ports of entry and overseas, to prevent entry of 
terrorists; removal of criminal alients; and enhanced asylum 
processing.
  Senator Domenici, being from the Southwest and having served with him 
on the Treasury Committee, which has authority over Customs, knows so 
well the problem that we face. I really appreciate Senator Domenici and 
Senator Hollings for paying attention to this problem that goes way 
beyond the borders of just those States.
  Senator Domenici, I want you to know we miss you on our committee, 
but I am so glad you are where you are.
  I am most appreciative of Senators Hollings' and Domenici's efforts 
to enhance resources for Southwest border enforcement to stop 
unauthorized entries. At the same time, I believe it is important to 
ensure that those legal immigrants, who have followed our immigration 
laws, and who pay taxes, are able to become fully participating members 
of our society. I regret, therefore, that the $30 million for 
Naturalization that was requested for the administration's Immigration 
initiatives was not included in this bill. Perhaps that can be 
addressed in conference.
  Protecting our borders has been an issue of concern to me throughout 
my Senate career. For many years, I have expressed concern that the 
Border Patrol, one of the lead agencies in this country's war on drugs 
and undocumented immigration, has been treated like the stepchild of 
the Justice Department.
  Time and time again, I have raised this question in hearings and in 
correspondence directed to current and former Attorneys General and INS 
Commissioners, in an effort to focus their attention on the needs of 
the Border Patrol. And time and time again Senator Hollings--who has 
been chairman or ranking member for as long I have been in the Senate--
has added Border Patrol funds only to see them reprogrammed or not 
used. And this time, the administration has asked for those funds, and 
once again Senator Hollings and Senator Domenici have responded to a 
very important need. Their attention to the needs of the border are 
appreciated. Let me tell them both, if they come to Arizona, they will 
be heroes to the people on the southwest border. I welcome them there 
any time.

  Despite assurances that steps were being taken to address the 
problems of staffing and equipment, I was disturbed by reports that 
Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border did not have the 
resources necessary to operate effectively and safely.
  This bill moves us in the right direction. It is the first time that 
we have seen an administration offer something. They did not offer 
enough, in my opinion, but they actually have asked in their budget 
request for additional Border Patrol. And, obviously, this committee 
and this Senate is going to respond to that.
  In 1990, I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a study 
into the changing mission of the Border Patrol and its ability to carry 
out that mission along the southwest border with existing staff and 
equipment. Results from their survey of the nine Border Patrol sectors 
along the southwest border underscored many of the concerns which I had 
expressed.
  This report stated that while the mission of the Border Patrol had 
expanded considerably in the last 5 years, their budgets had failed to 
keep pace with the new demands on staff and resources. Despite these 
circumstances, the men and women of the Border Patrol continued to 
respond admirably to the challenge of protecting our country's borders.
  Since 1986, the amount of time spent on border enforcement activities 
along the southwest border had declined 11 percent. Time spent on other 
activities, such as enforcement of the provisions of the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA], increased from 29 percent in 
fiscal year 1986 to 40 percent in fiscal year 1991. I seriously 
question the need for increased time spent on non-border activities 
given the Border Patrol's diminished resources.

  The results of this report confirmed much of what I suspected. 
Beginning with Attorney General Thornburgh and continuing until today, 
I have continued to pursue adequate resources for the Border Patrol. I 
am especially concerned about what is happening in my State of Arizona 
due to an allocation of resources to Texas and California.
  Once again, I commend the managers of the bill for their efforts to 
control our borders. I also commend this administration for focusing 
their attention on this important issue.
  Mr. President, Senator Hollings and Senator Domenici are to be 
commended for their efforts to report an appropriations bill that makes 
combating undocumented immigration one of its biggest priorities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the very first Senator who ever brought 
the Border Patrol really to our attention--we had the budget, we worked 
on it, but really in the context of the need and getting in behind it, 
years ago, and he has kept it, pursued it, is the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona, Senator DeConcini. We are very grateful to him for his 
leadership on this score.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. 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.


                       vote on amendment no. 2343

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Under the previous order, the 
question occurs on amendment No. 2343, offered by the Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     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
     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
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2343) was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2342

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota, or his designee, is to be recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2342 offered by the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] 
to the committee amendment on page 85, line 5. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2342) was agreed to.


            vote on excepted committee amendment on page 85

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the committee amendment 
on page 85.
  The committee amendment on page 85 was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. 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. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 THE IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMIC STATISTICS

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, the Joint Economic Committee has a 
longstanding interest in the quality and integrity of the Federal 
statistical infrastructure. As vice chairman of the committee, I would 
like to take this opportunity to raise an important issue with respect 
to the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill, 
which is being considered on the Senate floor today.
  It is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations Committee 
recommended funding for both the Bureau of the Census periodic program 
and current program at levels which are $13 million and $12 million 
below the President's request respectively. The bill also includes 
funding for the Bureau of Economic Analysis which is $7.5 million below 
the President's request.
  Madam President, these may seem like very small reductions, but for 
statistical agencies these cuts are devastating. The Census Bureau has 
not had any increase for economic statistics in the last two budgets. 
The committee bill does not fund the increases requested for economic 
statistics at the Census Bureau. The major program increase requested 
by the Census was for developing new industry classification system 
which more accurately represents the current reality of the American 
economy. In addition, the committee bill does not include funding for 
initiatives to improve service, construction, and environmental 
statistics.
  The committee reported bill also does not fund any new initiatives at 
BEA--the most important being the program to reengineer the data 
collection and processing system. Nor does the bill include funding for 
the new International Trade in Financial Services Survey, part of BEA's 
effort to improve statistics on services and international accounts, or 
proposals to revamp the reporting system of international capital 
flows.
  Madam President, if we fail to make the needed investment in our 
statistical infrastructure, it will be even more difficult to make the 
necessary policy decisions to keep pace with rapid changes in the 
economy. Two articles in Business Week from July 18 entitled ``Uncle 
Sam's Stats: Call Them Unreliable'' and ``Bad Policy Starts With Bad 
Numbers,'' emphasize this point.
  In ``Uncle Sam's Stats: Call Them Unreliable,'' the author states:

       In a classic example of shortsightedness, Uncle Sam has 
     been starving its statistical agencies for more than a 
     decade, denying funding to improve data collection and 
     analysis.

  Also in the article, Janet Norwood, the former Commissioner of Labor 
Statistics pointed out that ``The economy doesn't stand still * * * we 
need a statistical system that can change with it.''
  In ``Bad Policy Starts With Bad Numbers'' the author asks ``how can 
policymakers take the Nation in a new direction when they do not have a 
good grasp on current reality?''
  Madam President, these quotes show how extremely important it is to 
have adequate funding for our statistical infrastructure. Without 
adequate funding, the Census Bureau and the BEA will be unable to 
produce and disseminate important information to inform the Nation 
about the economy's progress. These efforts are crucial in our current 
circumstance, when economic change is rapid and new policy initiatives 
require sophisticated and up-to-date information.
  I understand the constraints that my distinguished colleague from 
South Carolina was under due to the very tight committee allocations; 
however, this is one place where a little money makes a very large 
difference. I urge the chairman to accept higher levels for these 
programs in conference.


                         noaa ocean initiative

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, as I have said before, Chairman Hollings 
and ranking Republican Senator Domenici have done an outstanding job in 
the funding priorities in this bill. I was pleased so many initiatives 
which I have already mentioned that were funded in the Justice section. 
But, I wanted to take this opportunity to also mention another new 
initiative that is reflected in this bill--the NOAA ocean initiative.
  Our Nation has always depended on its coasts and is illustrated by 
the fact that over half the population lives in coastal areas. Yet, the 
degradation of our marine environment is something that hurts all 
citizens. Fish catches are declining worldwide and more than one-third 
of the planet's fish stocks are over or fully exploited. On the Pacific 
coast, dozens of salmon stocks are in severe decline, harming 
commercial fishing and charter fleets, as well as vacation plans of 
hundreds of thousands of anglers. Coastal resources and communities 
have withstood pressures of overharvest, loss of habitat, poor hatchery 
practices, excessive development and pollution. It is imperative that 
job creation and economic growth in coastal areas be promoted while 
preserving quality marine and nearshore environments. This requires 
solid partnerships and innovative new management initiatives.
  It is for this reason that I commend the subcommittee leaders for 
providing the funding necessary to enhance key ocean and coastal 
programs within NOAA. The targeted programs may be small but they have 
a significant impact on our coastal economy. Our ability to properly 
understand, manage, and protect our marine environment is crucial to 
our economy. For example, commercial and recreational fishing accounts 
for $50 billion in domestic economic activity; coastal tourism accounts 
for tens of billions more. These important industry sectors support 
vast numbers of direct and indirect jobs.
  Washington State and Puget Sound are heavily impacted by our ability 
to properly manage our marine environment. Washington has the largest 
commercial fishing fleet in the country, harvesting over 50 percent of 
the domestic seafood catch in the United States since the late 1980's. 
Recent decline in salmon stocks and Puget Sound marine fish stocks have 
been substantial creating grave concern for the health of the fishery 
resource and severely impacting coastal communities. According to the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington has the highest oyster 
production in the country. Yet, invasion of nonindigenous species into 
our estuaries threatens our most productive oyster populations.
  The NOAA programs supported by this bill offer support for needed 
innovation in science and management and sound policy that will aid us 
in addressing these pressing coastal problems. The National Sea Grant 
College Program deserves special attention. It currently receives fewer 
dollars for its core research program than it did in 1981, yet it has 
still been able to make impressive advances in research areas such as 
marine biotechnology and nonindigenous species which could prove 
extremely important in solving the problems facing Washington's marine 
fish and oyster population. The funding provided in this bill for the 
Sea Grant Program will allow it to significantly increase its research 
efforts in these and other areas, thus helping to address both present 
and future problems facing our marine waters. Sea Grant's unique role 
in focusing on the interplay between the human community, marine 
resources, and the marine ecosystem has allowed it to maximize 
productive use of marine resources for human benefit while preserving, 
and, if need be, helping to restore, the essential qualities of a 
healthy environment. Creating jobs while promoting a healthy 
environment must be one of our Nation's highest priorities.
  In conclusion, Madam President, I offer my strong support for the 
committee's recommendation for the NOAA ocean initiative and I hope 
that the committee will continue to press the Senate's position in 
conference with the House.


                      patent and trademark office

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, today I rise to address an ongoing 
problem concerning the funding of the Patent and Trademark Office 
(PTO). As chairman of the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and 
Trademarks, I have been working for a number of years now to make sure 
this important office is adequately funded.
  Beginning with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (1990 
Budget Act), the funding scheme for the Patent and Trademark Office 
changed significantly. Prior to this Act, the PTO was partially 
federally funded. Funds were received from both appropriations and also 
from direct user fees. In 1989, the PTO generated 64 percent of its 
total funding from user fees and received 36 percent or $109,000,000 
through appropriations. In 1990, the last year in which the PTO 
received any significant Federal funding, the PTO generated 72 percent 
of its total funding from user fees and received 28 percent or 
$85,900,000 through appropriations. The 1990 Budget Act required the 
PTO to raise patent fees 69 percent, which made the PTO effectively 
fully user-fee funded.
  Higher fee were agreed to so that the PTO would not require Federal 
funds and be able to provide better service. User fees currently 
generate all funding for the PTO and are not supplemented in any manner 
by Federal funding. However, the 1990 Budget Act requires that the PTO 
deposit a specified amount of fee income into a special account, the 
Patent Surcharge Fund, in the Treasury. The funds in the special 
account are not available to the PTO for expenditure until appropriated 
by Congress.
  The goal of the 1990 Budget Act was to reduce the Federal deficit. As 
a technical matter, the new PTO fees had to be classified as offsetting 
receipts in order to qualify as savings in future years. As offsetting 
receipts, the fees generated had to, in turn, be subject to the 
appropriations process. It was always the intention of this Senator and 
others involved that the total fees generated would be appropriated to 
the PTO.


 the problem: congress fails to appropriate all of the funds generated 
                              by user fees

  The problem I call to your attention today is that Congress has 
failed since 1992 to appropriate all of the money raised by the user 
fees. The Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill before us today 
only provides $75 million of the $107 million required to be deposited 
into the patent surcharge fund. If the bill passes in its current form, 
then users of the Patent Office will have paid, since 1992, $67 million 
for services they will not receive.
  Needless to say, those who use the Patent Office and pay these fees 
are outraged. This lack of funding will place a significant strain on 
the PTO. Pendency rates are likely to increase, efforts to automate 
will be restricted, and the hiring of qualified examiners is likely to 
be affected. This Senator believes that Congress can no longer justify 
taking from American inventors. The effect of this action is that users 
of the PTO are paying for entirely unrelated Government services.
  How much money are we talking about here? The amount of 
appropriations withheld from the PTO for each year since 1992 has 
continually risen. In 1992, we failed to appropriate over $8 million. 
In 1993, we failed to appropriate over $12 million. In 1994, we failed 
to appropriate nearly $15 million. In the bill before us today, the 
Senate recommends withholding $32 million from the PTO for FY-92. That 
is $32 million that will not be used to improve the U.S. Patent System, 
yet we charge the American innovator anyway. How can we justify to the 
small inventor that higher fees are needed and that he or she cannot 
expect any better services for this increase?
  The number of applications filed at the PTO continue to increase 
every year. In 1991, the PTO's workload consisted of 298,448 patent, 
design and trademark applications. In 1992 and 1993, this number rose 
to 310,683 and 327,834 respectively. In 1994 and 1995, the number is 
estimated to be 341,500 and 357,000 respectively. Patent applicants can 
expect fewer services if this trend of not appropriating all of the 
money generated by user fees continues. The PTO cannot be expected to 
keep up with its workload, provide the necessary services to users, and 
implement technological advances if Congress continues to withhold 
larger amounts of money.
  Some people have suggested that we just increase the fees if more 
money is needed to provide better services. This argument misses the 
mark entirely. American innovators already pay their taxes to support 
programs that require Federal funding. What we are doing here amounts 
to double taxation on American inventors. On top of their regular taxes 
which go into the treasury, we are asking them to also pay for services 
that they will never receive because the money has been spent on other 
programs. We cannot possibly justify raising fees when users currently 
do not receive the services for which they pay.


                     how did this problem develop?

  Users of the patent system vigorously fought against the increase in 
fees that was incorporated into the 1990 Budget Act. The filing fee for 
a patent increased from $370 in 1990 to $630 in 1991. This represented 
a 69 percent surcharge on the filing fee for a patent. Users agreed to 
the fee increase with the understanding that the PTO would become self-
funded and would be able to provide better services. Clearly, the users 
had no idea that the PTO would not receive all of the funding generated 
by user fees.
  This year, efforts were made to remedy the problem. The PTO and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) believed a workable solution had 
been found. The proposed solution was to reclassify the funds in the 
special account as offsetting collections rather than offsetting 
receipts making all of the fees available for expenditure. Thinking 
this would solve the problem, the administration submitted its FY-95 
budget requesting no discretionary appropriations for the PTO. However, 
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) declared that the proposal 
violated the budget enforcement act and that the reclassification of 
fees from offsetting receipts to offsetting collections must be 
accompanied by new treasury revenues under the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Users of the PTO should not have to suffer for what has happened. 
Although the administration's efforts were technically flawed, the 
intention to have all of the fees available to the PTO is clear. To 
satisfy the technical requirements of the 1990 Budget Act, new revenue 
sources to take the place of the PTO's special fee account must be 
identified. I am hopeful that all interested parties will work together 
to find a long-term solution to this problem.

  This Senator would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary for his efforts to see to 
it that the PTO receive some funding in light of the administration's 
request. However, I would urge that in conference, the House 
recommendation of just over $88.3 million be adopted. The House 
recommendation would appropriate the same amount as the PTO received 
from the special account for FY-94. A funding level equal to last year 
would at least minimize the damage to the services that users receive. 
Congress can then look to find a long-term solution to this problem. A 
permanent fix must be found so that the PTO and everyone involved will 
not again be faced with this technical problem imposed by our 
commitment to deficit reduction under the 1990 Budget Act.
  The United States and American inventors need a patent system which 
encourages rather than taxes innovation. The PTO needs all of the funds 
generated by user fees to keep the U.S. Patent System unparalleled in 
the world and American innovation at its best. I would look to my 
colleagues for support in reaching a permanent solution to a problem 
which seriously jeopardizes the spirit of innovation in this country 
and urge the conference committee on this bill to accept a higher 
funding level during conference.


                    ocean initiative is most welcome

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
Chairman of the Commerce, State, and Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee and manager of this bill for his work to increase funding 
for coastal and ocean programs through a ``NOAA Ocean Initiative'' 
within the Department of Commerce.
  As an author of the Sea Grant College Program Act, I have long 
supported small but effective programs, which serve the majority of our 
nation's citizens who live and work in coastal areas.
  Regrettably, ocean and coastal programs have not kept pace with the 
rate of growth for NOAA as a whole, and I commend Senator Hollings and 
his fellow committee members for acting to correct this imbalance.
  Our Nation's marine and coastal resources are at great risk today. 
The marine environment has undergone great stress. Many of our 
productive fisheries have all but collapsed and the great potential of 
the oceans for new products and resources has barely been explored.
  The programs which comprise the ``NOAA Ocean Initiative'' directly 
address these problems and can play a significant role in improving our 
coastal economy. For example, while our fisheries are in crisis, one of 
the major elements of our trade imbalance is the importation of seafood 
from abroad.
  Promising new areas of ocean use, such as marine biotechnology, are 
the focus of major funding initiatives in other countries. Senator 
Hollings deserves great credit for helping to ensure that we do not 
lose this promising new technology to our international competitors.
  The NOAA programs supported in this bill provide the scientific 
innovation and support for sound management and policy that will help 
us to deal with our coastal problems. I particularly want to single out 
the National Sea Grant College Program.
  The National Sea Grant College Program plays a major role in 
improving the coastal economy through applied marine research. The 
funding provided in this bill will allow Sea Grant to significantly 
increase its efforts in marine biotechnology.
  Sea Grant's important work not only addresses the problems of today 
but enables our nation to compete effectively in the global marketplace 
with new products, drugs, and industrial processes from the sea.
  Sea Grant's marine advisory service allows new technologies and 
scientific advances to be transferred directly into applications that 
help the coastal economy while protecting the marine environment.
  Sea Grant's focus on job creation and economic growth, consistent 
with a sound environment, responds directly to the Clinton 
administration's highest priorities.
  Again, I commend the Senator from South Carolina and his colleagues 
on the committee for their ``NOAA Ocean Initiative,'' and I urge them 
to make this a high priority in their subsequent discussions with the 
House of Representatives on a final bill.

                          ____________________