[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 97 (Friday, July 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
          COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the committee 
amendments are set aside.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats].


                           Amendment No. 2354

 (Purpose: To transfer funds to the Department of Defense to reimburse 
   accounts out of which international peacekeeping activities have 
                       previously been supported)

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2354.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
   The amendment is as follows:

       On page 95, line 9, before the period insert the following: 
     ``Provide further, That the amount appropriated under this 
     heading shall be transferred to the appropriate 
     appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense to 
     reimburse the Department for amounts expended out of such 
     accounts in support of international peacekeeping 
     activities''.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, during the past weeks and months we have 
spent many hours in this Chamber debating various aspects of 
administration defense and international security policy, especially 
with regard to peacekeeping and peacemaking, which is the intellectual 
centerpiece of the President's foreign policy.
  We have haggled over funds. We have attached various strings or 
restrictions to aspects of the President's policy that represent causes 
for concern in this body.
  Yet, in my view, we have not significantly questioned the underlying 
premise of a policy that fundamentally alters the way the United States 
has historically viewed questions of international security and vital 
national interests.
  Frankly, with all the concerns that have been raised about the 
conduct of our foreign policy in Somalia, in Bosnia, and now in Haiti, 
I am surprised that the premise underlying the administration's 
policies has been accepted with so little question, without 
congressional hearings, with no focused debate on the particular 
underlying question, the premise underlying that policy. And I intend 
to question that premise now.
  Mr. President, the President's policy, we have to understand, is a 
drastic departure from foreign policies of the past.
  It assumes that all international conflicts pose or will pose a 
threat to U.S. national security. It assumes that all peacekeeping, in 
the President's own words, ``serves United States interests by 
promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth.'' It 
believes that all peacekeeping operations are good; that they will be 
ongoing and that they will grow in number and scope. The only decisions 
that we need to make, and I quote again from the President, are ``about 
which operations to support.'' Not whether we should support, not 
whether we should be engaged, but which ones we want to be engaged in.
  And it believes that since multilateral peace operations are in our 
national interests, the capacity to conduct them must be part of our 
national military security strategy.
  Mr. President, I believe that that premise which underlies those 
assumptions is flawed.
  It is flawed because, while sometimes necessary or useful, 
multilateral peace operations seldom represent a matter of vital 
national interests to the United States.
  The real question that must be addressed is whether or not our 
foreign policy should continue to be guided by considerations of vital 
national interests or, as the administration seems to suggest and as 
many would have us believe, that our policies should be guided by a 
policy that says we need to keep the peace in places of war, wherever 
those places of war occur.
  Mr. President, the cold war, for all of its attendant fears and 
problems, had a marvelous way of concentrating the national mind on our 
vital national interests. It neatly divided the globe into two camps--
the free world and the unfree clients of communism. And that dictated 
pretty much what our vital interests were and what our policy ought to 
be.
  But today, the picture is much less clear.
  Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and demise of the Soviet Union, 
nations no longer stand simply behind or beyond the Iron Curtain. Each 
day, it seems new factions, new alliances, or countries struggle to 
assert their dominance or independence--often with violent result.
  Since the end of World War II, more than 160 wars have been waged 
around the world. In this year alone, according to Jane's Defense 
Weekly, there are at least 70 hot spots--countries either engaged in 
full-blown conflict or on the verge of becoming so engaged.
  And if current projections of future conflicts hold true, it will get 
worse before it gets better, if indeed it ever does get better.
  Mr. President, rather than the peace and explosion of democracy many 
envisioned as a result of the fall of the old world order, the new 
world is a bloody place, and order, still a dream to be realized.
  Not surprisingly, the United Nation's demand for peace operations has 
grown accordingly--and so has its budget. Since 1991, the annual price 
for peacekeeping has skyrocketed from $700 million to more than six 
times that amount today. Nineteen peacekeeping operations are currently 
underway; a half dozen more have been proposed in many places that many 
Americans probably are not all that familiar with--the Sudan, Sri 
Lanka, the Solomon Islands, Zaire, Burundi, and Afghanistan.
  The number of troops required for these missions has more than 
quadrupled, and if all of its new missions are accepted, the total 
number of U.N. troops deployed will rise to approximately 168,000, 
requiring an increase in annual outlays of more than $8.6 billion.
  Yet, we are told, it is still not enough.
  While the White House's request for an additional $175 million 
contingency fund for unanticipated future peacekeeping was canceled by 
Congress--and I think wisely so--15 countries have agreed to set up an 
exclusive force of 54,000 troops, which the U.N. can call up--under its 
own command--for the express purpose of keeping the peace in places of 
war.
  During the last 9 months, 170 United Nations peacekeepers were 
killed, 30 of them Americans.
  Mr. President, it is time to ask, not only where are we headed with 
this policy, but what should that policy be and where might it end.
  How many of those 19 missions will Americans be asked to protect or 
defend? How often will American men and women be called upon to fight 
and die in foreign lands for reasons that have nothing to do with 
America's vital national interest?
  Mr. President, perhaps in the post-cold-war world it is inevitable 
that the use of multilateral force will increase. Maybe it should.
  I am not arguing that there are not situations where the use of 
multilateral force is necessary or important or constructive in 
resolving a conflict.
  But the United States should not drift into situations in which 
American forces are automatically incorporated into multilateral 
military forces without our having clearly assessed whether or not such 
action is in our own national interest.


              vital national interest and the use of force

  Frederick the Great had a maxim for his generals: ``He who defends 
everything, defends nothing.'' We would do well to remember that wise 
injunction.
  The United States cannot, and should not, defend everything. The 
question then remains: What should our policy be? What should be our 
criteria for military intervention?
  In 1984, former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinburger said:

       We cannot assume unilaterally the role of the world's 
     defender * * * We have learned that there are limits to how 
     much of our spirit and blood and treasure we can afford to 
     forfeit in meeting our responsibility to keep peace and 
     freedom.

  ``We should only engage our troops,'' Weinburger said, ``if we must 
do so as a matter of our own vital national interest.''
  Weinburger also had a list of essential tests which he said must be 
met before any U.S. combat troops are committed abroad:
  Number one, action should be taken only to meet a threat to vital 
national interests.
  Number two, political and military objectives must be clearly 
defined, and strategies developed to accomplish them, prior to any 
deployment.
  Number three, ample force must be committed, not only to fight but to 
win.
  Number four, such a course must have the support of the Congress and 
the American people.
  ``These tests can help us avoid being drawn inexorably into an 
endless morass,'' Weinburger said, ``where it is not vital to our 
national interest to fight.''
  The question we have to ask then is, what then constitutes a ``vital 
or major national interest?''
  Well, certainly defense of U.S. territory is a vital interest; 
defense of our allies or treaty obligations; support for historic 
commitments and interests, such as Israel, Taiwan, or the Monroe 
Doctrine; protection of economic interests, international waters, or 
U.S. citizens and operations abroad; aggressive challenges to regional 
stability in areas important to the United States; and the prevention 
of nuclear proliferation, particularly where it threatens democracy or 
regional stability such as in North Korea.
  These are not all inclusive, but they are instructive and perhaps the 
heart of what we should use as criteria to define our vital national 
interests.
  Mr. President, the situations we have recently witnessed in Bosnia, 
Rwanda, and other places are tragic. They offend our sensibility. They 
stir our passion. But they do not constitute a vital national interest.
  It does not mean that we should not be engaged in humanitarian 
relief. I am proud of the many actions the United States has taken, 
supported by the Congress and supported by the American people, to 
provide help and human assistance, food and medicine, in times of 
crisis.
  (Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. COATS. These have been important contributions that we have made 
and these must continue. And we currently are, obviously, engaged in 
one in Rwanda just as we speak.
  Mr. President, while moral force can be an important factor in war, 
moral judgment is not a substitute for wise statecraft and moral 
outrage is not a substitute for wise, sound policy. In the world of 
moral polity, any policy that is dominated not by strategic 
considerations but by absolute moral judgment is, by definition, 
indifferent to success. What matters most is not victory, but that it 
is right to intervene.
  Let me quote military strategist Colin Gray who said:

       Public debate on foreign policy is frequently cast in moral 
     terms * * * In our personal judgment, we are all authorities 
     about behavior, but few of us are experts in the means-end 
     issues that pertain to those judgments.

  Gray goes on to say:

       Public discourse is littered with the claim that Policy X 
     is morally wrong, and by the way it will not work. Rare, 
     indeed, is the claim that Policy Y is morally right--and by 
     the way it will not work.

  Until we establish clear, national interest before any international 
involvement, and rigorously apply the Weinberger criteria before any 
U.S. combat troops are committed abroad, we will continue to find 
ourselves in situations with questionable purposes and tragic results.
  Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, ``A page in history is worth a volume of 
logic.''
  When we examine a page of the peacekeeping history in just our recent 
time, we realize the truth of that statement.
  On August 20, 1982, in the aftermath of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, 
the United States, Britain, France, and Italy dispatched an 
international peacekeeping force to Beirut to protect its citizens and 
help the fragile Lebanese Government secure the evacuation of hostile 
forces from Beirut.
  Later, on September 29, 800 United States marines were deployed to 
the Beirut Airport to facilitate the restoration of the Lebanese 
Government's sovereignty and authority.
  Their mission, as described in President Reagan's formal notification 
to Congress, was ``to provide an interposition force at agreed location 
* * * a multinational presence.''
  ``American forces,'' he said, ``would not engage in combat,'' and 
there was ``no intention or expectation that U.S. Armed Forces will 
become involved in hostilities * * *.'' Accordingly, U.S. military 
personnel were not equipped with any offensive capability, only M-16 
rifles and other light weapons.
  President Reagan also advised Congress that United States military 
personnel would be ``withdrawn from Lebanon within 30 days.''
  Mr. President, on October 23, 1983, 241 American marines died on that 
``mission of presence'' while they slept--by a terrorist bomb. That 
small 30-day mission simply to establish a presence lasted 17 months.
  In describing the deployment of American forces to Lebanon, the 
President said:

       We must continue to search for peace and stability in that 
     deeply troubled country * * *. You need only see the pain and 
     suffering in the eyes of the Lebanese people, and 
     particularly the children, to understand that we have a moral 
     obligation not to abandon those people.

  I voted to support that mission in Beirut--which is why, in 1983, I 
made a trip to the Beirut Airport where our marines were stationed, to 
see for myself just what kind of mission I had asked our men to 
undertake. I found that out in a very dramatic way.
  Their position was so hazardous, their situation so dangerous, the 
limitations on their abilities so circumscribed, that when the 
helicopter carrying myself and Congressman Wolf set us down on the 
tarmac, not one marine would venture across that runway to escort us to 
a place of safety. We, like themselves, were targets for snipers, those 
with mortars, those with intent to do anything they could to kill 
Americans and disrupt that presence.
  I stood before that barracks that was bombed, where those Marines 
were killed, and I vowed that day never again to vote to send U.S. 
troops on a mission where there were no clearly defined objectives, no 
clearly defined strategy, and no means to secure their safety and 
reduce their risk.
  The United States had no vital national interest in Lebanon, nor did 
we meet any of the other criteria justifying the use of force in that 
situation. Political and military objectives were unclear. There was no 
defined strategy to guide the military mission. And clearly we had no 
intention at the time of using whatever force was necessary to 
accomplish our stated goal. And the result, 240 young men needlessly 
lost their lives.
  To paraphrase Senator Hollings who is here on the floor: If they were 
there to fight, there were too few. And if they were there to die, 
there were too many.
  Desert Storm is probably the best example of how to do it right. We 
acted out of vital national interest. Not only was Kuwait a friendly 
country and Saudi Arabia an old ally, but 25 percent of the world's oil 
was clearly threatened and the world's economy was clearly threatened 
by the actions of Saddam Hussein. We developed and we articulated a 
clear, achievable political and military goal. We built a coalition 
around those goals. We followed through with clarity and consistency. 
We acted decisively. Our coalition partners knew they could count on us 
to commit the forces necessary to fight and win. We had a plan to 
withdraw, and once our objectives were achieved, we did so.
  President Bush defined why the United States needed to commit its 
might. He focused the American people on the issue, and he assembled an 
international coalition to accomplish the task. Most important, our 
actions met the criteria for a successful operation. These facts are 
the single most important lesson to be learned from the Persian Gulf 
war.
  As my colleague Senator McCain observed, it is the same important 
lesson which we and other countries have been learning and relearning 
since earliest history. Unfortunately, today in the conduct of United 
States foreign policy, it seems to be a lesson that we have once again 
forgotten.
  Somalia was the opposite of the Desert Storm in almost every respect 
and a clear example of why U.N. military missions are inclined to fail. 
In national undertakings, military objectives generally flow naturally 
from stated political objectives. The two work in tandem. In United 
Nations operations where the mission is primarily political, and thus 
subject to intense political pressure, military action is usually 
imprecise for the very same reason. Invariably, this lack of definition 
results in U.N. forces taking only minimal symbolic action in an effort 
to avoid action on a larger scale. When this timidity of action fails 
to produce the desired result, the mission's mandate as well as the 
nature of the force inevitably goes through a series of incremental 
changes.
  In Somalia these changes lead to the death of 18 Americans. Even 
though the Bush mission of providing food and medicine to all 
starvation-threatened areas had been successfully concluded months 
before, the Clinton administration changed the political objective, or 
at least allowed it to be changed, broadened the military mission, yet 
at the same time drastically reduced our military presence.
  Under President Bush, Somalia began as a tightly defined, 
humanitarian mission to be executed by the military. However after 
President Bush left office, the humanitarian mission became a nation-
building mission; a nation-building mission dissolved into a combat 
mission; and no one in the current administration seemed to understand 
or define the difference.
  Today, 4 months after the majority of United States forces were 
pulled out of Somalia, and almost 1 month after the remaining 58 
American marines were scheduled to depart on June 30, we have learned 
not only that the administration decided to extend their deployment 
until the end of the diplomatic mission next year, but that the 
situation in Somalia has, once again, deteriorated to the point where 
another outbreak of hostilities is imminent.
  According to the Defense and State Department officials who briefed 
the Armed Services Committee yesterday, peace negotiations have broken 
down with no chance of a political settlement in sight. U.S. FAST 
marines have already been subjected to small arms fire, mortar, and 
rocket attacks, and large-scale interclan fighting is expected with a 
high probability of spillover violence against U.S. and U.N. facilities 
and personnel.
  This situation has not gone unnoticed by the military forces of 
General Cedras in Haiti who, according to published reports in today's 
papers, is organizing paramilitary fighters to attack United States 
military personnel in the event we are foolish enough to invade that 
country under another questionable U.N. resolution.
  How did we get to this place? Let us look at Bosnia, as an example. 
While the mere presence of United States troops in Lebanon was viewed 
as sufficient to deter violence, today our mere involvement seems to 
have the opposite effect with regard to aggression.
  In Bosnia, thanks to a series of foreign policy blunders; wishful 
thinking, and empty rhetoric, we failed to convince either our allies 
or our adversaries of our resolve.
  The Serbs, on the other hand, clearly understand vital national 
interest. In fact, from the beginning, the Serbs have been the only 
ones with a clear, consistent policy; not a policy I agree with, but a 
policy that, they have followed consistently. They know exactly what 
their goals are, and they are moving relentlessly forward in pursuit of 
them--establishment of a Greater Serbia.
  One top administration adviser was recently quoted as saying, ``We 
believe in the limited use of force for something short of total 
victory. I'm not uncomfortable at all with a good deal of adhockery in 
our foreign policy.''
  Mr. President, I do not have a problem with an hoc component to our 
foreign policy, if it means that we will remain flexible enough to 
match our resources and political will to the circumstances of each 
unique situation.
  But I am very concerned if adhockery is the policy itself, especially 
when it concerns the use of force in the conduct of foreign policy. And 
that seems to be the case in Bosnia.
  As President Nixon once so aptly pointed out: ``A riot is a 
spontaneous outburst. A war is subject to advance planning.''
  We all know that this administration prefers domestic policy, over 
foreign policy.
  But what troubles me is the fact that it does not seem to realize 
that while mistakes in domestic policy may result in a rise in interest 
rates, increased inflation, or prolonged joblessness, mistakes in 
foreign policy cost lives, American lives.
  The truth is that U.N. peacekeepers serve very little purpose; they 
are merely observers of aggression. U.S. air strikes can achieve only 
limited results; they will not resolve any conflict. And neither this 
Congress nor the American people will permit the commitment of U.S. 
ground troops to a cause for which neither the President nor the 
Congress can demonstrate any vital national interest.
  President Bush said:

       Force is justified only where and when force can be 
     effective, where its application can be limited in scope and 
     time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential 
     costs and sacrifice.
       The fact that America can act does not mean that it must. A 
     nation's sense of idealism need not be at odds with its 
     interest, nor does principle replace prudence.

  What we face today in Bosnia--and other places--is an open-ended 
situation, very much reminiscent of past situations--and past mistakes.
  It is time we determined what types of peace-related missions deserve 
U.S. participation. It is time we defined under what circumstances U.S. 
troops will be committed to these undertakings. And it is time we 
decided what limits should be placed on both the tangible and the 
intangible costs of these endeavors.


                      united nations: then and now

                          article 42 versus 51

  Mr. President, prior to the war in the Persian Gulf, all U.N. 
military operations were founded upon article 51, which enunciates the 
right of states to protect themselves, and permits third countries to 
participate if requested by the country under attack.
  Desert Storm was the first military operation to invoke article 42, 
which states that when economic sanctions fail--as was determined in 
the case of Iraq--the United Nations ``may take such action by air, 
sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore 
international peace and security.''
  Under article 42, authority rests with the U.N. Security Council. It 
also forms the basis of a justification for a unified U.N. command 
structure.
  At the time, Britain Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed 
reservations about invoking article 42. She believed it would not only 
limit what individual member States could do in their own interests and 
restrict rules of engagement, but she also suggested that sovereign 
states lacked the moral authority to act on their own behalf. Out of 
similar concerns, President Bush insisted that the operation be carried 
out under national, not U.N., flags.
  However, since the successful invocation of article 42 during the 
gulf war, reliance upon its provisions has become routine--with three 
unanticipated results:
  First, it has fundamentally changed the way the United States deals 
with the Security Council of the United Nations;
  Second, it has altered the way the United Nations builds and 
justifies military operations; and
  Third, it has laid the groundwork for this administration's current 
foreign policy.


                     reinventing the united nations

  Mr. President, America has always been reluctant to put U.S. troops 
in harm's way, which is why U.S. Presidents have always had to build 
strong public support before sending any armed personnel overseas. They 
did this by establishing that the vital national security interests of 
the United States was at stake.
  But under U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and our 
current President, however, the gulf war/article 42 precedent has 
become an ominous new vehicle for a new generation of U.N. peacekeeping 
functions, priorities, operations, and costs.
  In fact, in foreign policy, the administration's only consistent 
theme has been its effort to upgrade U.N. military capabilities and to 
institutionalize U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  While many may believe that only U.N. actions are justified--that 
U.N. operations somehow represent a higher moral ground--I continue to 
believe that the United States is capable of determining for herself, 
and acting wisely to support, her own vital national interests.
  And I do not believe that what the administration likes to refer to 
as ``assertive multilateralism'' should be the new standard for sending 
U.S. military men and women into conflict.
  Trying to justify this approach, Mr. Clinton's Ambassador to the 
United Nations, Mrs. Albright, has said:

       We are facing increased ethnic and subnational violence. 
     Wherever we turn, someone is fighting or threatening someone 
     else. These disputes may be far removed from our borders, but 
     in today's global environment, chaos is an infectious 
     disease.

  America's task, Mrs. Albright said, is ``to reform or isolate the 
rogue states * * * to contain the chaos and ease the suffering.''
  Mr. President, I respectfully disagree with that assessment of what 
our foreign policy should be. That is not America's task. While I do 
agree that we cannot live totally apart from all the world's problems 
righting all the world's wrongs is not our responsibility. Nor is it 
our capability.
  That is not to say that there are not situations deserving of 
international intervention. But that is far different proposition than 
making U.S. troops mere mercenaries for the United Nations.
  In April of this year, during a visit to the NATO air base in Aviano, 
Italy, I received an outstanding operational briefing on the Allied air 
campaign taking place over Bosnia.
  The brief described in detail the confused process of command during 
U.N.-directed operation. The procedure is literally a two-headed 
monster under which the United Nations, NATO, and U.S. forces are 
required to operate.
  One head is the U.N. command structure which suffers from a lack of 
military experience in operational matters. The other is the NATO/U.S. 
structure which has performed operations together in and around Europe 
for 40 years.
  This U.N.-imposed method of command has caused delays and confusion, 
and even direct vetoing of U.S. direction of its own operational 
forces.
  As a direct result, the goals have changed, and the efforts of our 
forces have been looked at as indecisive and weak.


president and national security team must get back to basics on foreign 
                                 policy

  Mr. President, the burgeoning ethnic conflicts that are erupting 
throughout the world make it more likely that, in the future, we will 
be facing challenges that looks a lot more like Bosnia than Iraq.
  Will we keep drifting from one international crisis to another? Will 
we have a foreign policy that defines our priorities clearly and 
consistently? Or will the new litmus test for U.S. intervention be 
whatever the United Nations determines to be the priority of the 
moment?
  In other words, Mr. President, will our foreign policy be defined by 
the United States or the United Nations?
  There was no United Nations in 1825, but the sixth President of our 
Republic, John Quincy Adams, clearly understood the importance of 
limiting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy to America's vital 
interests:

       Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has or 
     shall be unfurled there will be America's hearts, her 
     benedictions and her prayers. But she goes not abroad in 
     search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the 
     freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and 
     vindicator only of her own.
       She will recommend the gentle cause by the countenance of 
     her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She 
     well knows that by once enlisting under banners other than 
     her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, 
     she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, 
     in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual 
     avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and 
     usurp the standard of freedom.

  Of course, since President Adams' time, the United States has 
committed herself to the defense of many allies, and to the support of 
various treaty obligations. But his point is no less apt today than it 
was in 1825.
  Today, more than at any other time in our Nation's history, we face 
wars of ``interest and intrigue, individual avarice, envy, and 
ambition.'' And today, more than at any other time, we risk involving 
ourselves ``beyond the power of extrication.''
  At the funeral of President Nixon, former Secretary of State Henry 
Kissinger noted that, after Vietnam, America as a nation passed from 
the position of one that could win by sheer dominance to one that must 
win by leadership.
  For decades after Vietnam, America--like Nixon--rebuilt her 
credibility, and finally demonstrated both leadership and strength in 
the Persian Gulf.
  That leadership and that strength have not been squandered. In its 
place is a policy of ``adhockery.''
  As a result, Members of this Chamber, and others, are demanding that 
we now must intervene in the Bosnian conflict to preserve U.S. 
credibility; to challenge Serbian aggression; or because it is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. President, no one--most particularly, this administration--has 
yet made a convincing argument that intervention in Bosnia or Haiti is 
in America's vital national interest, although with each new day's 
batch of blunders, it could be argued, that is becoming more the case.
  Mr. President, it is time our President and his national security 
advisers stopped running foreign policy as if it were a campaign issue 
to be improvised on a daily basis, according to the latest polls.
  It is time they realized that foreign policy is not just another item 
to be successfully navigated in daily press briefings, or avoided by 
holding a ``summit,'' or abdicated by passing it off to the United 
Nations.
  Most of all, it is time they realized that foreign policy must, in 
fact, be a predetermined ``policy'', not an ever-changing set of 
positions.
  And they must realize that when America decides to act, America must 
lead.


                       questions must be answered

  Mr. President the present course that this administration is 
following in foreign policy is no longer acceptable. Not in Bosnia, not 
in Haiti, not anywhere else.
  While oversight of the executive branch is the responsibility of 
Congress, the formulation of foreign policy and the development of 
strategic national goals is not our prerogative. It is the 
administration's prerogative.
  We are not the Department of State. We are not the National Security 
Council. We do not speak for the United States at the United Nations.
  Yet, because this administration has refused to live up to its 
responsibilities in these areas, we are now forced to deal with these 
matters, and to ask questions the administration has never even raised, 
let alone answered.
  With each new diplomatic initiative, with each new foreign 
intervention, with each new proposal for multinational missions, 
Congress is forced to ask:
  What is in the national interest?
  Where do our allies stand?
  What are our political objectives?
  Is force necessary?
  Should that force be multilateral or unilateral?
  What are the likely consequences of military intervention?
  How do we achieve success?
  What are the risks and costs?
  How is it likely to conclude?
  These are questions the administration needs to ask. These are 
propositions they need to put to us so that we can assess them and 
evaluate them and give them our best advice and consent. These are not 
the questions we should be asking of the administration. These are the 
questions they should be providing us their answers to and asking our 
advice and consent.
  What we need is insightful analysis, decisive action, and strategic 
vision. What we have gotten out of this administration is bluster, 
bombast, and blunder.
  Mr. President, what we have is ambiguity. What we need is leadership.
  Before the United States commits herself to any more missions--before 
the President decides to intervene militarily in Haiti, build a nation 
in Rwanda, or ask American soldiers to stand sentry on the Golan, the 
questions that have been raised must be answered.
  Mr. President, we need more than a half-hearted nonpolicy. In the 
words of my colleague, Senator Lugar, America needs ``a game plan, and 
the world is looking at the President of the United States to provide 
one.''
  It is time that he did
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this lengthy period of time. In 
that we are dealing with an appropriations bill for the Department of 
State, I thought it appropriate to raise these questions and this 
issue. I have decided not to pursue my amendment at this time, but I 
hope that we can engage with this administration in formulating a 
foreign policy which clearly defines our national interests and which 
answers the vital questions which need to be answered.
  And so at this time I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2354) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say to the junior Senator from 
Indiana that I listened attentively to his remarks, and I congratulate 
him on the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the remarks he made here 
before the Senate today. Obviously, he knows what he is talking about 
and he has spent a great deal of time and effort in this field. And 
once again, this is going to be very helpful to a lot of people and, 
hopefully, to the President of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana and some of his comments, but there 
are some differences. I think we are going to have to move along here 
to the next measure. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, let me thank the distinguished 
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] for his well-defined and interesting 
comments, which I think clearly lays out some of the concerns many 
people have and have had over the years and not just this 
administration. So I thank him for that.


                           Amendment No. 2356

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

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2356:

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following: ``Provided 
     further, of the funds appropriated in Title V and in Chapter 
     II of Title VII, up to $100,000,000 may be transferred, at 
     the discretion of the President and subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Appropriations Committees of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, to support 
     humanitarian relief in and around Rwanda.''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the scenes of the flood of Rwandan refugees 
are heartbreaking: husbands watching their wives die; children alone on 
the side of the road, next to their dead parents. The situation in 
Zaire is a humanitarian catastrophe of staggering proportions. Around 2 
million Rwandans have crossed the border into Zaire, only to find 
severe shortages of food and water. And now, we hear news of an 
outbreak of cholera which could make the current death tolls skyrocket.
  The international relief organizations were clearly not prepared for 
this massive flood of Rwandan refugees. And I certainly welcome the 
action taken by the Clinton administration to send AID Administrator 
Brian Atwood to assess the situation and the decision to commit an 
additional $41 million to provide assistance to needy Rwandans. 
However, looking at our experience with the humanitarian crisis in 
Somalia and in Bosnia, these funds will be rapidly expended and more 
assistance will be needed. We are talking about nearly 2 million 
refugees in Zaire--with little food, little water, no shelter, and no 
sanitation.
  And so, Mr. President, my amendment is intended to provide the 
administration with sufficient resources to respond to this colossal--
and I underscore the word ``colossal''--crisis. These funds could be 
used for any type of humanitarian assistance--food, water, water 
purification supplies, sanitation equipment, or medicine and medical 
supplies.
  It seems to me that America has a responsibility to respond quickly 
and appropriately to this humanitarian nightmare. I have no doubt that 
the American people care about suffering, and support the U.S. 
Government providing the aid they so desperately need. I hope that all 
of my colleagues will support this amendment.
  I might just add, as an aside, that I discussed, not this amendment 
but the general attachment with the President of the American Red 
Cross. The Red Cross is now attempting to raise the money because they 
understand. I think we can all try to think about when a calamity like 
this occurred last. Was it 10, 15, or 20 years ago when so many people 
died? So many people have been slaughtered, and so many people have 
been threatened with the loss of life and loved ones.
  I have notified other of my colleagues who have primary 
responsibility dealing with Africa: Senator Simon, Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Kassebaum, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and others who have a 
direct interest in this.
  I hope that, if they wish to make statements, their statements will 
follow mine later in the Record today.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this 
amendment. It is in the spirit of a humanitarian effort. We all commend 
it. We are all disturbed about what we see happening in Rwanda.
  I counsel that this is not a foreign aid bill, when we take money 
from the peacekeeping. The amendment of the distinguished Senator is 
really a discretion given to the President of the United States for 
emergencies of this kind. Perhaps discretion of that kind is in order.
  So in that light, we are prepared to accept the amendment. But I 
counsel our colleagues that we are getting into different things. I was 
delighted that the previous amendment was withdrawn because it was 
taken from the State Department appropriations peacekeeping and put 
over to the DOD. It is a swapping between departments.
  We put up walls, as you remember, budgetarily now have been removed 
relative to defense and domestic. Now we are coming with the matter of 
aid itself.
  I just did not want the chairman to come down on the floor here later 
on and say you are getting into my particular bill. I think he would 
understand the amendment of the Senator from Kansas.
  We are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept it.
  As I understand, this amendment is calculated to give the President 
another tool, if he needs it, with reference to this catastrophe and 
calamity, as the distinguished minority leader indicated. He can, if he 
desires--I assume that means if he does not have enough resources 
elsewhere--he can use $100 million out of the funds, as the 
distinguished minority leader, Senator Dole, indicated--up to that 
amount.
  We accept the amendment on this side.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the goal of the distinguished minority 
leader, Mr. Dole, is to help those poor people who are the victims of 
such an enormous tragedy in Rwanda, and now refugees in Zaire. These 
are goals that are critically important.
  The minority leader suggests that we shift peacekeeping funds to pay 
for Rwanda relief. But the fact is we need funds. Our world is a 
troubled world. And the famine and human misery abroad in the world 
tend to come from conflict. So we need to use peacekeeping funds. And 
moving them--even to a laudable humanitarian purpose--is a concern.
  As was pointed out just a moment ago by the minority leader, Mr. 
Dole, and as the President himself has stated yesterday, this is a 
tragedy unlike any we have seen in our lifetimes.
  There are now over 2 million refugees in Rwanda and Zaire. Half a 
million people have died due to the ethnic strife in Burundi and 
Rwanda. And because a million people have descended on Goma, Zaire, a 
town of 13,000, in only 10 days, cholera is breaking out in the refugee 
camp there.
  The scale of this disaster, which developed so quickly, is without 
parallel. The world cannot look into the eyes of these victims and say 
that it does not matter. It matters to all of us.
  This morning we saw a young man holding his dying wife in his arms. 
She will probably die of cholera. There is not enough medicine and food 
for the million refugees.
  No one on this Earth can say it does not matter. It does. If we are, 
in fact, going to help the refugees, we have to mobilize resources for 
this purpose.
  The amendment of the minority leader, Mr. Dole, would do that. He 
would devote $100 million to help alleviate the misery in Zaire and 
Rwanda. People may say we have people here at home who need help. Of 
course, we do. But we cannot ignore what is happening in other parts of 
the world. We will forever regret it if we do not help with the means 
that we have. As the free world has substantial resources to help in 
this matter, we should do everything we can to save lives. I certainly 
share that goal of helping by transferring money.
  I compliment Senator Dole.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. 
I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  It is up to $100 million. It is at the discretion of the President. 
It will come out of not only peacekeeping funds but all of the funds in 
this bill.
  So we did not try to raise the peacekeeping funds. We say, OK, if the 
President needs $30 million, $40 million, $50 million--he may come in 
at $4l million--certainly we may need additional money. Hopefully we 
can get more money. I assume there will be a supplemental, also.
  I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Dole amendment 
that provides the President with the discretion to transfer up to $100 
million in peacekeeping funds and use these funds for humanitarian 
assistance in Rwanda.
  The current situation in Rwanda is a tragedy on a scale that is 
simply hard to imagine. Of the 8 million people that live in Rwanda, 
approximately half a million were killed in April and almost 2.5 
million are refugees. The arrival of nearly a million refugees in a 
week crossing into Zaire constitutes the largest human migration ever 
in that time period. Cholera is rampant. Temporary shelters are needed, 
and proper sanitation is all but nonexistent.
  We need to take some action as soon as possible. In this context, I 
am pleased to see that the Clinton administration decided today to 
speed up humanitarian relief operations as part of a multinational 
effort. It would have been helpful if the administration had moved more 
quickly in the early phases of the crisis, but it is imperative that we 
carry out this vital work as rapidly and effectively as possible at 
this stage. The most immediate health problem is to provide clean water 
to refugees in Goma, Zaire.
  Providing humanitarian relief on this scale will be a large and 
complex undertaking. It will be difficult in terms of logistics and 
infrastructure, but there is no time to lose because the human costs is 
simply too high.
  I thank the Chair and the distinguished Republican leader for 
offering this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kansas.
  The amendment (No. 2356) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment on behalf 
of my distinguished colleague from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison]. I know the 
managers want to get this thing moving. She will be here very shortly.
  It might be appropriate if I could offer the amendment, make a very 
brief statement, and lay aside the pending amendment, if that is 
satisfactory with the chairman.


                           Amendment No. 2357

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the committee amendment is 
set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for Mrs. Hutchison (for 
     herself and Mr. Dole) proposes an amendment numbered 2357.

  Mr. DOLE. 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, add the following: ``Provided 
     further, of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     Contributions to International Organizations and 
     Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities in 
     title V, and for Contributions for International Peacekeeping 
     Operations in title VII, not less than $350,000,000 shall be 
     made available until expended to carry out the provisions of 
     section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
     1986, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1365), to reimburse States for the 
     cost of incarcerating illegal aliens,''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand this amendment may be 
controversial. I hope it is not controversial. But understand that it 
may be. We will hear from the managers. But I think it is a sound 
amendment. I hope there will be some agreement that it is a responsible 
amendment.
  It fully funds the administration's request of $350 million, which is 
not funded directly in the bill. There can be little doubt that the 
needs are great. The administration's official communication on this 
legislation says:

       The Senate is urged to support the separate request for the 
     State Criminal Aliens Assistance Program to ensure that 
     States most affected by the cost of incarcerating criminal 
     aliens receive as much as possible of the $350 million in 
     requested Federal assistance.

  That is the official communication from the administration. That is 
exactly what the amendment does.
  We are here in an effort to support the administration's position. 
The administration may not like the source of the transfer of more than 
$2 billion of the United Nations in this legislation. That is where we 
are going to get the $350 million, out of that $12 billion.
  I have been told by the distinguished ranking member on the committee 
that this is sort of making up some of the arrearages. I think some of 
us at least--I am certain the managers do not disagree that $2 billion 
from what most people agree is already a bloated, unaccountable 
bureaucracy, may be acceptable in a time of no budget constraints.
  But when five vital programs, like Federal imprisonment of for 
illegal aliens are not funded, we need to make some tough choices. And 
I know the United Nations is having difficulty and we owe money that 
probably ought to be paid. We should support the States that are 
incurring the costs. This is important to the States of Texas, 
California, Arizona, Florida, and probably others I may not be aware 
of. I know that the Governor of California, Governor Wilson, is 
prepared to talk to anybody. He said he would get on the phone and stay 
on the phone all day to indicate how important this is to the State of 
California.
  In fact, they are incurring the costs on a daily basis. You can 
imagine the burden placed on all of these States. The following 
organizations have endorsed full funding for this program: National 
Governors Association, National Council of State Legislatures, National 
Association of Counties, National Association of State Budget Officers, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, California Police Chief 
Association, and the California District Attorneys Association.
  Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota is prepared to 
offer an amendment. Does the manager want to set this amendment aside 
until Senator Hutchison arrives, or whatever may be the desire of the 
managers?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to setting the amendment aside. 
Does the chairman agree?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. I think that is in order.
  What we need is not only the distinguished Senator from Texas, but we 
will all have to be heard. With respect to the $350 million requested 
by the President for the incarceration of illegal aliens, the money was 
not provided. The best recommendation that was made was about $75 
million, which comes from additional fees, spectrum fees in the 
broadcast section, and another $270 million in law enforcement, FBI 
agents, DEA agents, and all. We listed those things.
  On the matter of the spectrum fees, we raised last year, on a very 
close vote, $95 million. We found that was not going to fly in any 
manner or means of increasing taxes. Otherwise, with respect to the 
alternatives, this is the crime bill, and we were not going to take it 
out. The House, faced with the same dilemma, put in, with respect to 
policemen on the beat--they set an increased amount for policemen on 
the beat, and that the money alternatively could be taken from that 
source. We decided, rather, that they got it out of the Byrne grants. 
We decided, on the matter of the policeman on the beat, the new 
initiative yet to be adopted in the conference on the crime bill.
  So you can see that we were all looking for money, trying to find it, 
and the best judgment of the subcommittee and the Senate Appropriations 
Committee is that here was a new initiative of $1.700 billion for 
policemen on the beat, to actually gear up the bureaucracy and hire the 
policemen. If there was any flexibility within the amount, it could be 
better found in that particular item rather than, let us say, the 
peacekeeping, or some of the other measures that we feel deserve higher 
priority.
  I say that for the understanding of the colleagues, as we set this 
aside and wait for the Senator from Texas to come, so we can move on to 
the next amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the 
amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment will be laid aside.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if there is an agreement over there about 
hte order of amendments, I do not want to interrupt, but I do not see 
anybody else wishing to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We had agreed, and I passed it on to Senator Bumpers, 
that the Hutchison amendment would be set aside temporarily, and 
Senator Smith would be next, and you would follow that with your NED 
amendment. Obviously, Senator Smith is not available now.
  Mr. BUMPERS. May I go ahead and let Senator Smith follow me?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Why do we not do that, and we will send word to Senator 
Smith that he need not hurry.


                           Amendment No. 2358

  (Purpose: To eliminate the authorization of appropriations for the 
                   National Endowment for Democracy)

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2358.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 page 113, strike lines 16 through 21.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor once again to 
try to torpedo the biggest boondoggle in the history of the Republic. 
By the standards of this bill, it is not very much money--$35 million--
but when I consider the benefits we get for the $35 million, which is 
point blank zip, I ask why are we doing it and why do we continue to do 
it?
  Here is the National Endowment, designed to spread the joys of 
democracy around the world. We have just passed a $13 billion foreign 
aid bill, and most of it goes to countries that we want to be friends 
with; it goes essentially to countries that are democracies. It is 
intended, virtually all of that $13 billion, not only to promote 
democracy but to keep it and to preserve our friendship with those 
nations. We have the U.S. Information Agency, which broadcasts the joys 
of democracy all over the world. I will come back to that in a moment.
  Within the foreign aid bill, we have the Agency for International 
Development. Hundreds of millions of dollars go to spread the joys of 
democracy around the world.
  Here we have ``poor, pitiful Pearl,'' the National Endowment for 
Democracy, with $35 million to democratize the world.
  Mr. President, the $35 million is bad enough. But I will tell you 
what compounds the insult; that is, who gets that $35 million. Well, 
the CIPE gets it. They get 13.5 percent. The FTUI gets almost 30 
percent. IRI gets 11.2 percent. NDI gets 11.2 percent.
  The people who are watching this or listening to this are saying, 
``Who are those people? What is he talking about? CIPE? I never heard 
of that. I never heard of FTUI.''
  Well, let me tell you who they are. Let us start here with FTUI. Mr. 
President, those are the initials for the Free Trade Union Institute. 
Who is that? Why, that is the AFL-CIO. That is right. The AFL-CIO gets 
30 percent of this $35 million. But we are not going to favor labor in 
a manner such as that. We are not going to give just labor over $10 
million of this $35 million. We have to provide balance. So do you know 
what CIPE is? Why, CIPE is the Center for International Private 
Enterprise. Do you know who that is? That is the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce. So the AFL-CIO gets 30 percent, and the chamber of commerce 
gets about $5 million, or 13.5 percent.
  What else is funded by NED? NDI. NDI gets 11.2 percent. What is NDI? 
That is the National Democratic Institute. Do you know who that is? 
That is the Democratic Party. That is right; $3.5-plus million of this 
is going to go to the Democratic Party.
  But that would not be fair, Mr. President, would it? If we are going 
to balance labor and the chamber of commerce, we have to balance the 
Democratic Party with somebody else.
  So IRI gets 11.2 percent. What is IRI? That is the International 
Republican Institute. Do you know who that is? Why that is the 
Republican Party.
  So here you have $35 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, and 
65 percent of it is going to labor, the chamber of commerce, the 
Democratic Party, and the Republican Party to spread democracy. Can you 
not see the head of the AFL-CIO and the head of the chamber of commerce 
sitting down with Deng Xiaoping and giving him their version of 
democracy? Can you not just see the Democratic leadership or the 
Republican leadership sitting down with Kim Chong-il, the new leader of 
South Korea, and telling him about the merits of democracy?
  If that is not an absurdity on the face of it, I have never seen one 
since I have been in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, this whole thing started in 1983. It started in 1983 
with a paltry appropriation of $18 million. It was designed to attract 
private money. It was supposed to be balanced with private money.
  You will be happy to know this thing has been such a howling success 
in attracting private money that last year six-tenths of 1 percent of 
their budget was contributed by private donors not 50 percent, as we 
envisioned in 1983--six-tenths of 1 percent. You cannot stop anything 
around here.
  The fact is the whole thing is a disaster. It is not being carried 
out the way we intended, and all these so-called core grantees of 
labor, the chamber of commerce, the Democratic Party, the Republican 
Party, what do they do to get the money? They wait until we appropriate 
it and it is handed to them. They do not even have to compete for it. 
There is no competition. The minute we pass this bill and October 1 
arrives, we call these folks up and say ``Come and get it.'' We don't 
even ask, ``What are you going to do with it?''
  Look at this chart. NED started out with $18 million that was 
supposed to be matched by private contributions. We are all the way up 
to six-tenths of 1 percent in private contributions and look where the 
appropriation is. This huge increase is what has happened to it--the 
same thing that happens to every Government program.
  If I had not stood on this floor and cut the authorization of this 
program back from $45 million to $35 million in January, we would be 
sitting here debating not $35 million but $45 million. Every single 
chairman of every single Subcommittee on Appropriations has labored 
endless hours and days trying to figure out how we were going to fund 
necessary, worthwhile programs and nobody even looks or questions this 
ineffective, useless program.
  Some people might be listening and asking themselves, why? Why does 
Congress just routinely continue to appropriate this money with no 
accountability?
  After the debate on the authorization for NED in January, I received 
an anonymous letter that said, ``Please do not let up on NED. You ought 
to go down and look at that new suite of offices they just 
redecorated.''
  I have not been down to look at their offices, but I know how that 
works, too. But you ask yourself, how can a program like this survive 
when it has no merit? Here is the answer to that question.
  You have $35 million which is like a bird's nest on the ground. What 
do you do? Why you get every big name in Washington on the board. Those 
Senators are not about to cut a $35 million appropriation for an 
organization with board members like these: Madeleine Albright, John 
Brademas, former Congressman; Bill Brock, former Senator; Zbigniew 
Brzezinski, former adviser to Jimmy Carter; Henry G. Cisneros; Lynn 
Cutler; Frank Fahrenkopf; Dante Fascell; Malcolm Forbes, Jr.; David 
Gergen; our very own Senator Orrin Hatch; Steny Hoyer, Congressman; 
Fred C. Ikle, former State Department official under George Bush and 
Ronald Reagan; former Governor of New Jersey Tom Kean; Lane Kirkland, 
head of AFL-CIO; Henry Kissinger; Winston Lord; our very own Senator 
Dick Lugar; Charles T. Manatt, a fine man, former chairman of the 
Democratic National Committee; Walter Mondale; our very own former 
Senator, Ed Muskie; Stephen Solarz, recently long time member of the 
House of Representatives; Albert Shanker, head of the American 
Federation of Teachers; and Paul Wolfowitz.
  Mr. President, I did not read all the names. I just read the names 
that I know every Member of the Senate will recognize.
  If you have not had a letter from at least one of those people, you 
are a nobody in the U.S. Senate. If you have not been lobbied by at 
least one of those people, you ought not to even be voting on this; you 
do not amount to anything. Every year just before this appropriation 
comes up, that crowd goes to work and everybody in the U.S. Senate gets 
lobbied. And here we go again--$35 million of taxpayers' money right 
down the old tube.
  It is incredible to me that this program has been able not only to 
survive but to prosper.
  Thirty-five million dollars is not much. I had a terrible time 
cutting $600,000 out of the foreign operations bill the other day, 
$600,000 to democratize China. It was said some of the Chinese 
dissidents in Tiananmen Square favored that $600,000, but I could not 
help wonder how Li Peng and Deng Xiaoping felt about it. I could not 
help wonder who in America was going to take this $600,000 to China and 
be permitted to teach one of the great authoritarian governments of the 
world the joys of democracy.
  You could throw that $600,000 off the top of the Washington Monument 
and while you are at it gather up this $35 million and throw it off the 
monument too, and I promise you that you will do as much to democratize 
the world as you do by spending this money the way it is being spent.
  Mr. President, I am not going to belabor this. We are trying to 
finish this bill. I would like to get out of town myself.
  Thirty-five million dollars is not much money. We do not pay much 
attention to appropriations of $35 million around here. But when you 
add it all up, it comes to the tidy sum of a quarter billion dollars 
that we have sunk into this rat hole since 1983.
  Do not talk to the folks back home about what a great budget balancer 
you are and how you would spend the taxpayers' money the way you would 
if it were your own. You can ask the Members of the Senate in their 
heart of hearts if they had all the money in the world how much of it 
would they put in this, and I can tell you the answer is zip.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, 
is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas would enter into a time agreement. We talked last evening 
about the time agreement. I am not trying to cut anybody off. But if we 
could get a time agreement I say to the distinguished Senator, it would 
be helpful to all of us.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say this to the Senator from South Carolina. We 
are going to wrap this up shortly. I am reluctant to do so at this very 
moment. I will discuss this privately with the Senator in a moment. I 
am reluctant at this time to enter into a time agreement.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2359

 (Purpose: To reduce the appropriation for the National Endowment for 
                               Democracy)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from North Dakota amending the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for clarification, I would say the Senator 
from North Dakota is amending the underlying language that the Senator 
from Arkansas is attempting to strike.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself, Mr. 
     Brown, and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 2359.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 lieu of the language proposed to be stricken by the 
     Bumpers amendment the following:


                                  NED

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act, $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. While I 
support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas which would 
strike all funds, I have offered an amendment that will strike $10 
million in funds for the program.
  I would like to strike all the funds in this program this second, 
immediately. The Senator from Arkansas and I have strategized this 
morning. We would like to win. We would like to cut some money. We 
think we probably cannot get a favorable vote to cut this program out 
entirely, but perhaps we can make a start today and save $10 million. 
And I would hope the Senate will act favorably on this approach in my 
amendment.
  Let me add to some of the discussion offered by the Senator from 
Arkansas. The chart offered by the Senator from Arkansas shows 
authorizations and appropriations for the National Endowment for 
Democracy.
  It is interesting that at a time when virtually everything else is 
being cut, virtually every other program in the discretionary area is 
subject to belt-tightening and greater public scrutiny, that the 
National Endowment for Democracy is growing. Over the past 4 years, it 
has doubled in size.
  I would suggest that any Member of the House or the Senate who is 
worrying about spending the taxpayers' money go to a cafe anyplace in 
the Member's district. Find a small diner someplace and sit down and 
talk to the nearest group of people you meet who are having a hot beef 
sandwich with some gravy and potatoes and coffee and talking a little 
bit about life and probably complaining about politics, and more likely 
complaining about the politicians, and ask them: ``What do you think of 
this proposition? What do you think of the notion of taking $35 million 
and dividing it up, like cutting an apple pie in four pieces? We will 
give part of the it to the National Democratic Party. We will give 
another piece to the Republican Party. And we will give a piece to the 
AFL-CIO, the labor union. And then we will give a piece to the Chamber 
of Commerce.'' We will say, ``You all take these millions of dollars 
and go around the world with a little program in which you promote 
democracy. We will not watch over your shoulder too closely. You just 
take this money and do good things with it. We have just divided it all 
up and you get it.''
  My guess is that almost anybody sitting across the booth in the 
restaurant from you is going to say: ``Are you daft? Have you lost your 
senses? What are you talking about? We have got all kinds of problems, 
enormous deficits, the need to cut budgets in virtually every area, and 
you are talking about cutting $35 million four ways and giving it to 
the Republicans, the Democrats, and the labor unions, and the Chamber 
of Commerce and telling them to send folks around the world to promote 
democracy? What on Earth are you thinking about? What kind of waste is 
this?''
  Now, do I support promoting democracy? Yes. There is $2.7 billion now 
spent in the Federal budget to promote democracy, spent by AID, spent 
by the State Department, spent by other agencies--$2.7 billion is 
already spent promoting democracy in many, many different ways.
  What about this notion of the idea of democracy and its need for 
promotion?
  Does anybody here remember a young man who wore a white shirt one day 
in Tiananmen Square in China? When a line of five tanks came down the 
road, this young man in a white shirt stood in front of the front tank 
and would not let them cross. The tank driver decided not to run over 
this young man.
  I watched that happen on television. We all remember it. I wondered 
what on Earth exists in the breast of that young man that gave him the 
courage to stand in front of a line of tanks and as if to say, ``Kill 
me, if you must. I'm going to stand up for freedom and democracy.''
  What is it that compels someone to do that? Nobody knows who that 
young man is, but he stands as a symbol of courage on behalf of 
liberty. He stands as a symbol of someone willing to die for freedom.
  Does he need somebody to tell him he ought to be concerned about 
freedom? No, not that young man in China. Not the people in Tiananmen 
Square who built a papier-mache Statue of Liberty and were butchered 
for it. They understood freedom. They understood democracy. They did 
not need somebody from our Chamber of Commerce or our Democratic or 
Republican Party to go over on a plane someplace trying to convince 
them this is the right thing to do.
  Look, the desire for freedom, the desire for self-government and 
democracy exists around the world. Lech Walesa taught us that. We do 
not need to concoct some wasteful expenditure of money to an 
organization like this to somehow alert people that this opportunity 
exists.
  I mentioned last week Lech Walesa, who came and gave one of the most 
memorable speeches I have heard in the House of Representatives to a 
joint meeting of Congress. This guy walked down the aisle--he is a 
short, little guy, with a big mustache and kind of a ruddy face--he 
walked down the aisle and stood up, and wave upon wave of applause 
washed over him. What he said to us was one of the most powerful things 
I have had heard in a joint session of Congress.
  This man was not a diplomat. This was not a statesman. This was not 
an intellectual who comes from the academic circles. He had been, 10 
years previous, an unemployed electrician who on a Saturday was beaten 
senseless by the Communists in Poland. They threw him over a fence into 
the dirt because he was trying to lead a strike for democracy in 
Poland.
  He told us that he lay there and thought about what to do next. He 
pulled himself back up, bloodied, climbed back over the fence, and 
marched back into the shipyard to continue. Ten years later, he came to 
this country as the President of Poland.
  He said, ``You know something? We didn't even break a window pane. 
They had all of the guns. They had all of the bullets, the Communists 
had all the arms, and we were armed with an idea, the idea of 
democracy, the idea that people ought to be free to make their own 
choices.''
  He did not need the Chamber of Commerce or the Republicans to tell 
him how important this idea was. He knew. All around the world people 
know.
  Lech Walesa began a chain of events that led to a largely free 
Eastern Europe. There is no Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union is gone. The 
Berlin Wall is down.
  The fact is, we had not in our lifetime expected to see what has 
happened in the last 6 or 8 years.
  Now, why has all of that happened? Is it because we have concocted 
some mechanism by which we provide money to people in the two political 
parties and the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO to go spread the 
word this would be a desirable thing? Of course not.
  The fact of the matter is, while others exhibit enormous courage 
around the world to strive for what we have, to strive for freedom and 
democracy, we have plenty of problems here in this, the oldest 
democracy.
  We hold an election, and half the people do not bother to vote. Maybe 
if we want to endow democracy, maybe if we want an endowment about how 
to improve democracy, we need to figure out how we improve ours as 
well. A democracy in which half the people say, ``No, I do not care, I 
will not show up, it does not matter to me,'' is one that has real 
problems.
  Contrast our democracy with democracies where people have just gained 
the very thing that we have always had, and have stood in lines for 
hour after hour to cast their first votes in their first election.
  I describe all of that because I understand the stakes when it comes 
to democracy. The world needs it, the rest of the world wants it, some 
people are willing to risk their lives to get it. Today we are talking 
about $35 million. It does not seem like very much.
  But you cannot decide that it does not matter when you pick up the 
Washington Post this morning and look at the picture on the front page, 
at the eyes of a young Rwandan man holding his wife, who is dying of 
cholera, in his arms. We must find the resources to respond to that. We 
need to find the resources to give food to those who are starving and 
to give medicine to those who are sick and to help people in human 
misery.
  Something of enormous proportions is unfolding in front of our eyes 
at this moment--probably one of the largest human tragedies in our 
lifetime right now in Rwanda and Zaire--and it is going to cost money. 
We just had a discussion a moment ago about where that money is going 
to come from. We do not have a lot of money, not discretionary money. 
Here is $35 million of discretionary money that is being wasted.
  The Senator from Arkansas has made the case persuasively. This 
program has spent a quarter of a billion dollars over the past decade. 
God bless the people who volunteer to serve on NED's board. The people 
on that board have called me too. Some are good friends of mine. Some 
have gotten very angry because I do not see the light, I do not 
understand why they should not have this money.
  I suppose if the Senator from Arkansas and I had our own foundation, 
maybe a National Endowment for Freedom--the Congress might fund it. 
That is a pretty persuasive name. It is hard to resist names like that.
  The National Endowment for Democracy. How can you stand up and be 
against democracy? How about a National Endowment for Freedom? Is that 
not as good as democracy? How about a National Endowment for the 
Reduction of Crime in America? How about a National Endowment for the 
Improvement of Education in our country? How about a National Endowment 
to End Hunger in the world?
  Do you want to promote democracy in the world? Then end hunger in the 
world. I guarantee there will be nothing more effective in promoting 
democracy than ending hunger. And $25 million will essentially take the 
first big step to eliminating hunger in our time. But we do not have 
the money.
  Now, opponents of my amendment will say that we do not see over the 
horizon, we do not get it, we do not understand foreign policy. This is 
wonderful spending. God love them, they have every right to make their 
case.
  I just make this case. We have an enormous deficit. We have kids in 
this town cowering in closets, victims of child abuse, being starved, 
as a child testified before a field hearing that I held recently. We 
have plenty of needs.
  But when it comes to NED, they say the sky is the limit. Tighten our 
belt in every other area of the budget, but let us double the amount of 
money that goes into this program.
  I am sorry. I do not get it. This ought to be cut. It ought to be 
eliminated, but at the very least we ought to agree to my amendment 
that cuts it by $10 million this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici].
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, after consultation with the chairman, 
our efforts now would be to try to get a time agreement on the Dorgan 
amendment. I want to list the Senators who have told either the 
chairman or myself they want to speak: Senator McCain wanted 10 
minutes; Senator Brown, 5; Senator John Kerry, 10; Senator Hollings----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Senator Sarbanes, 5; Senator Hollings, 5.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Domenici, 5, and Senator Lugar, 5. Senator 
Dorgan would like some additional time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would say I am sure the Senator from 
Arkansas would feel, as I do, we would want some time to respond. Yes, 
I would like some time. Five minutes will be sufficient.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bumpers, 5.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from North Dakota, 5.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
  Maybe we can just try that right now?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the Dorgan amendment, 
Senator McCain be given 10 minutes; Senator Brown, 5; Senator John 
Kerry, 10; Senator Hollings, 5; Senator Sarbanes, 5; Senator Lugar, 5; 
Senator Dorgan, 5; and Senator Sarbanes, 5; and Senator Domenici, 5; 
and Senator Bumpers, 5.
  I ask unanimous consent that be all the time on the Dorgan amendment 
and it be allotted to the Senators as described in this consent 
agreement, and vote at 12:30.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. How about the vote occurring at 12:45, because the 
leadership is going to be at a meeting here and we want to convenience 
that particular demand?
  So I ask unanimous consent the Dorgan amendment vote be set on an up-
or-down vote at 12:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I need to add Senator Specter for 5.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Add Senator Specter, 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. At 12:45.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we need to ask unanimous consent we 
preclude second-degree amendments or amendments to the language to be 
stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, this issue has been debated over the years to a great 
extent, perhaps far more than other expenditures of money of this 
amount. I rise out of a concern for what I think is some waste in this 
area and in support of the Dorgan amendment. I commend both Senator 
Dorgan and Senator Bumpers for their efforts here to save the 
taxpayers' money.
  There are three points I would like to make.
  One, some Members will believe a subsidy program of this kind is 
going to be effective in promoting democracy. I do not share that 
belief. If travel, if conferences, if jobs for former politicians are 
effective in promoting democracy around the world, Members will want to 
vote for this funding. But if they believe democracy embodies something 
much more deep, much more solid, much more of substance than simply a 
travel budget for retired politicians, then they are going to want to 
be concerned about this kind of spending.
  My own belief is that conferences in Switzerland or in Paris or in 
London or in the Caribbean are not the way to build democracy. I do not 
mean to imply that is the only place where these moneys are spent, and 
I would readily acknowledge that some of the expenditures have been 
good and helpful. But this is an insiders' ball game. It is a mistake 
to think that this is the way to build democracy.
  Point No. 2. Whether you are for NED or you are against it, whether 
you like more money for this or less, one has to acknowledge that this 
is a very expensive and administratively burdensome process. The 
figures on the spending for last year indicate $4.4 million of the $35 
million was spent simply in administrative costs alone, on offices, 
phones, and things that do not have a direct impact on promoting 
democracy. This is a very expensive and, I believe, inefficient way to 
promote the program.
  Third, anyone has to acknowledge it duplicates other efforts. It is 
out of the ball game or out of line with our Secretary of State, and 
the people who advocate this acknowledge it readily. In fact, they 
believe it is one of its strengths. But it provides a duplicative 
effort that is not coordinated with our other efforts, and I think it 
should be.
  Last, let me suggest my primary concern, which has always been the 
case, and that is funds that are administered in a noncompetitive way.
  The conference committee last year on H.R. 2519 included in their 
report specific language that indicated that they expect NED to move 
toward a more competitive process.
  What are the facts? Through the life of NED, only 29 percent of the 
money that they have handed out has been handed out in a competitive 
manner, and that is the problem. This is not a program to promote 
democracy, this is a program to channel money to insiders.
  That is an unpleasant truth. The figures are in. It covers more than 
a decade. Only 29 percent go in competitive bidding.
  The vast majority of the money is handed out to people who have 
either been directly represented on the board of directors or 
indirectly represented on the board of directors. This money has not 
been handed out to the projects that are the most helpful, the most 
effective, the most productive in promoting democracy. It has been a 
travel fund for insiders, and we ought to be ashamed of it.
  Last year was the best year they have had. Thirty-four percent went 
in competitive bidding and the balance to noncompetitive bidding, but 
that is my concern. If people are sincerely concerned about promoting 
democracy, let us give it to the projects that the board determines are 
the best at promoting democracy, but let us not hand it out to 
insiders. Let us not make this a travel fund for political retirees. 
Let us not make this an effort to hand out money to our friends. If we 
are really sincere to make this a project that promotes democracy, then 
let us hand it out in a competitive fashion with proper safeguards.
  Now that is the nub of it. That is the nub of all of this. If you 
want to go with the political insiders, with the Democratic Party, with 
the Republican Party, with the AFL-CIO, with the chamber of commerce, 
if you want a cozy relationship where they do not compete for the 
money, then you are going to want to fully fund this. But if you 
believe that the best way to bring about an effective program is to 
compete for the money and look for the best alternative, then you have 
to be concerned with the way NED operates.
  We have talked for more than a decade about the problem with insider 
funding, the failure to have competitive bidding, the failure to have 
the proper administrative followup, the failure to make sure the funds 
are spent efficiently, the failure to look for other projects by other 
groups that could be more effective, and each year gets lipservice.
  Mr. President, one thing stays the same, and that is every year the 
vast majority of this money ends up getting handed out to the leaders 
of the Republican and Democratic Parties and to the chamber of commerce 
and the AFL-CIO. How long does it take for people to realize that what 
we are doing is not promoting democracy, but promoting those four 
organizations?
  That is wrong. It is wrong for them to take advantage of the enormous 
leverage they have over the political process. It is wrong for them to 
take advantage of their political contacts. It is wrong for them to 
take the public money in the guise of promoting democracy when instead 
what they promote is a travel fund. If we are really serious about 
competitive bidding, if we are really serious about promoting 
democracy, this ought to be changed and ought to be changed so that any 
projects that are awarded are awarded on a competitive basis. That is 
the nub of it. That is the heart and the soul of it.
  Members have to decide whether they want money handed to insiders or 
they want it handed out for purposes of democracy. My belief is that it 
should be competitive.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Senator Sarbanes from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I must say, it is almost like two ships 
passing in the night here. We hear what I regard as outrageous attacks 
on NED and assertions about their program and what they are doing with 
the money, and yet it is directly contradicted by the comments of 
people abroad who are the recipients or beneficiaries of the NED 
programs in what they say about it. Let me just quote from a few of 
them.
  Lech Walesa's advisor and the parliamentary leader in Poland, 
Bronislaw Geremek says:

       During the years of the underground activity when the 
     struggle for Polish freedom was at stake, the National 
     Endowment for Democracy provided the assistance to the free 
     trade union movement, Solidarity, the independent press and 
     underground cultural organizations.

  NED, because it is structured as it is in a private way and because 
it can move quickly as it can, because it is a nongovernmental 
organization, it is able to work with grassroots movements abroad to 
promote democracy, removed from or free of day-to-day foreign policy 
concerns. In fact, it has been able to work in some of the most 
dictatorial countries in the world and is able to do it without, in a 
sense, being an official governmental organ.
  It has been responding to legitimate requests for assistance from 
Democrats all across the political spectrum. It is committed to 
democracy. The substance of the party's position is for them to 
determine within the country. So it does not get involved in internal 
politics of a country. That is prohibited both by its charter and by 
law. Again and again throughout the world, you have people who have, in 
effect, been able to move democracy forward under very difficult and 
trying circumstances.
  I must say, I find it disturbing. We live in a democratic society. We 
have had it for more than two centuries, and we tend to take it for 
granted. I do not think we fully appreciate the pressures and the 
dangers and, indeed, the oppression that committed people to achieving 
democracy in totalitarian or authoritarian societies confront.
  Abdul Oroh, the executive director of the civil liberties 
organization in Nigeria says:

       For us in Nigeria who are struggling to enthrone democracy 
     and permanently end military dictatorship, the National 
     Endowment for Democracy is like oxygen. If it is scrapped, 
     the democratization process in Africa would be seriously in 
     danger.

  This is the lifeline for many of these people struggling against 
incredible odds in order to try to advance democracy in their 
societies. Obviously, we all benefit if they succeed. I do not know 
anyone who would disagree with the proposition that a democratic world 
would be a more peaceful world.
  The Dalai Lama, who has been here on a number of occasions, honored 
by Members of the Senate and Members of the House, says:

       The National Endowment for Democracy furthers the goals of 
     your great nation and has provided moral and substantive 
     support for oppressed peoples everywhere. Its unique 
     independent mission has brought information and hope to 
     people committed to peace and freedom, including the 
     Tibetans.

  The chief of staff of former Chile President Aylwin, who is the one 
who accomplished the transition from the Pinochet dictatorship to a 
democratic society in Chile, says:

       The Chilean people's struggle for democracy was sustained 
     and enhanced by the timely, nonpartisan support of the 
     National Endowment for Democracy. Your contribution was all 
     the more welcome because you never pretended to influence our 
     political decisions in any way.

  All they sought to do was to help them achieve a democratic society. 
Within that context, the decisions on the politics of the day were, of 
course, to be made by the people of the country.
  NED has the flexibility to move quickly, to gain advantage of 
transitional situations. Some say, ``Well, that overlaps the programs 
of AID and USIA.'' I indicated why we needed a nongovernmental 
organization to work. There are many places where, in fact, government 
organizations cannot go in.
  NED's efforts have been strongly supported by both Bryan Atwood, the 
administrator of AID, and Joseph Duffy, the director of USIA. I urge my 
colleagues to continue to support it.
  The President asked for $45 million. The committee gave him $35 
million. And I hope we will stay with the committee mark and allow this 
very important work, which has made a significant difference across the 
face of the world in moving towards democracy, let this important work 
continue.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain, for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 10 
minutes if necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is very interesting to me that we are 
again addressing this issue of the National Endowment for Democracy. In 
little more than a year, we will now have addressed this issue six 
times in both Houses. I guess there will be another amendment from my 
colleague from Colorado which will make it the 4th time in this body 
this year.
  Perhaps the Senator from Arkansas might even have to get some new 
charts. I am always intrigued, of course, by one of his charts which 
shows the people who have served in the National Endowment for 
Democracy. In fact, I do not think there is a better advertisement, a 
better testimonial than the leaders of this country in both parties, 
Republican and Democrat, who have willingly served with no 
compensation, without pay, to further democracy.
  I would like to address, first of all, some claims that are being 
made, although it is certainly not possible to address them all because 
they flew like snowflakes in a blizzard. Some of them I will not 
dignify with responses. Some of the characterizations of the people and 
the aspects of the National Endowment for Democracy I will not dignify 
with a response.
  Claim: National Endowment for Democracy programs are ineffective. On 
one side, of course, is the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from 
North Dakota, and the Senator from Colorado. Disagreeing with them are 
Presidents Reagan, Carter and Clinton, Lech Walesa, former President 
Landsbergis of Lithuania, Vaclav Havel, Benazir Bhutto, Oscar Arias, 
Fang Lizhi, Sein Winn, Sali Berisha, George Will, David Broder, A.M. 
Rosenthal, and others. You can make your own judgment as to who is 
right and who is wrong.
  Claim: NED duplicates AID and USIA democracy programs.
  Fact: According to the leaders of AID and USIA:

       NED fulfills a critical role in promoting Democratic 
     development. NED has a distinctive capability for providing 
     early and critical [aid to] institutions and business and 
     labor groups. There are some nations where assistance is 
     desired, needed, and can have a measurable effect but where 
     restrictions in law bar activities by USAID and USIA. NED is 
     often the only organization that can establish a presence in 
     such countries.
       Given the sudden and dramatic changes of the last five 
     years, it is understandable that there is an appearance of 
     overlap in the work between NED and AID and USIA.
       The NED is required by law to consult executive branch on 
     any NED-funded program prior to its implementation. This 
     procedure ensures that such programs are not duplicative of 
     other efforts and do not contradict U.S. national interests.
       Funding NED is an extremely cost-effective investment for 
     the United States, our allies and the cause of freedom.

  Claim. NED money pays political consultants. False. IRI, for example, 
used over 300 volunteer political trainers in the past year. Not one 
was paid for their services.
  Claim: The foreign operations China provision was an attempt to 
circumvent Congressionally-imposed NED funding limits by earmarking 
money for NED.
  Fact: NED's core institutes for years have been able to bid on 
competitive AID funding. The China provision removed by the Senate 
would allow AID to work in China. No where was the National Endowment 
for Democracy mentioned.
  Claim: NED money goes to the Republican and Democratic Parties.
  Fact: National Endowment for Democracy is prohibited by law from 
giving money to the Republican or Democratic parties.
  Two of NED's core institutes have Republicans and Democrats as 
volunteer board members and trainers but neither gets or gives money or 
direction from either party.
  Claim: NED has its own uncontrolled foreign policy.
  Fact: By law, NED must consult the State Department before beginning 
any program.
  In practice, NED has refused to fund programs unless changes wanted 
by the State Department are made.
  And finally, we have dragged up the old chestnut about NED being used 
to fly first class.
  Fact: NED only allows an upgrade to business class if the flight is 
over 14 hours. At least one of the institutes pays only coach class 
fare for staff, trainers, and board members.
  So much of this is repetitious, Mr. President, that it grows 
tiresome.
  Now, Mr. President, as I said, we can take the word of the Senator 
from Arkansas, who is a renowned expert on foreign policy and national 
security issues, and the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from 
North Dakota, or we can listen to the following from Vytautas 
Landsbergis, former President of the Lithuania:

       National Endowment for Democracy played a critical role in 
     support of Lithuania's drive to reestablish democracy and 
     national independence * * * Lithuania's democratic forces 
     need NED's assistance today as much as they needed its help 
     in 1989 and 1990.

  Yelena Bonner, widow of Andrei Sakharov, that renowned person who, 
according to the sponsors of this amendment, gets into the trough and 
wants to get American money:

       Material support for the new social structures on which 
     civil society will be built is very important. Only a society 
     that is mature, altruistic, and has an understanding of the 
     inevitability of difficulties connected with rebuilding a new 
     type of government on the former structure can render real 
     and serious support for its Democratic leaders.

  Yelena Bonner:

       Practically speaking, the Endowment is the only grant-
     giving organization which focuses its activities in the post-
     totalitarian countries directly on supporting the work of 
     nongovernmental organizations.

  His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, another renowned politician who is 
associated with both the Democrat and Republican Party. The Dalai Lama:

       The National Endowment for Democracy furthers the goals of 
     your great nation and has provided moral and substantive 
     support for oppressed peoples everywhere. Its unique 
     independent mission has brought information and hope to 
     people committed to peace and freedom including the Tibetans.

  That is His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.
  It goes on and on, Mr. President. From Iraq, a letter signed by Kanan 
Makiya, Iraqi author of ``Republic of Fear and Cruelty of Silence'':

       I wish to convey to you my strong and deeply felt support 
     for the work done by NED to promote democracy around the 
     world, and in particular Iraq, the country of my birth.

  Fang Lizhi, who is a Chinese astrophysicist, also one of the leading 
dissidents in China, who, by the way, again, my colleagues know better 
than because they are so intimately familiar with the situation in 
China:

        The pro-democracy movements of many countries, including 
     China, are directly encouraged by NED's efforts. It is true 
     that the Cold War is over, but that does not mean that 
     democracy has been achieved. In fact, many countries in 
     today's world are still ruled by oligarchic dictatorships, 
     still lack freedom of speech, still have no meaningful 
     elections and still hold political prisoners. Therefore, 
     NED's functions are still absolutely necessary.

  President Que Me, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights:

       The NED is unique in recognizing the necessity for 
     democratic political development as a global and long-range 
     project.
       NED supports a wide spectrum of programs, large and small, 
     provided that they are dynamic and original efforts which 
     make a positive advancement toward the democratic progress.

  The President of Albania, the President of that poor country Albania:

       Countries making the transition to a democratic system of 
     government--for many this being undertaken simultaneously 
     with a move toward a market-oriented economy--face numerous 
     obstacles which must be overcome. I have personally been 
     involved in this struggle in Albania, where the National 
     Democratic Institute and the International Republican 
     Institute have been active since 1991. They were in fact the 
     first democrats from outside our long isolated country to 
     arrive to help us. They have proven to be the most reliable 
     friends. Their activities and support have been extremely 
     valuable in Albania's continuing emergence from communism to 
     democratic governance. * * *
       I again urge you to continue support of the National 
     Endowment for Democracy and the extremely important work its 
     resources accomplish around the globe.

  The President of Albania, according to the sponsors of this 
amendment, does not know what he is talking about.
  The Prime Minister of Pakistan:

       The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs 
     (NDI) has become an invaluable political resource in my 
     country, helping us through these very difficult days of our 
     transition from autocracy to democracy. I have spoken to my 
     colleagues in other countries, notably Mrs. Corazon Aquino in 
     the Philippines, and our experiences with NDI track almost 
     perfectly. All around the world, from the emerging 
     democracies of Central and Eastern Europe to the fragile 
     democracies of South and Southeast Asia, NDI has proven to be 
     an invaluable asset.

  That is Benazir Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
  Mr. President, the list goes on and on, from everywhere in the world 
where there have been representatives of the National Endowment for 
Democracy and the International Republican Institute and the other 
three organizations that are associated with the National Endowment for 
Democracy. People like John Brademas and Harry Barnes and Zbigniew 
Brzezinski and Senator Richard Lugar, Lynn Cutler, Malcolm Forbes, Fred 
Ikle, Tom Kean, Congressman Payne, Stephen Solarz, Paul Wolfowitz, and 
others, who have agreed to serve at no compensation on the Board of the 
National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the other boards, are 
obviously, again according to the sponsors of this amendment, in it for 
some kind of personal gain.
  Mr. President, I would hope that we can dispense of this issue this 
year, although I am not that optimistic. But the fact is that this 
organization, the National Endowment for Democracy, conceived in the 
Reagan years, now supported by President Clinton and every credible 
person that I know of in the media, ranging from George Will to David 
Broder, is an important organization and the funding for this 
organization obviously, although significant, is not a gigantic factor 
in a bill that is now going to obligate $27 billion.
  So, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time which I 
probably will not use. If I sound a little weary of debating this 
issue, it is because I am. But I really regret more than anything else 
the impugning of the reputations and the character of the people who 
have been involved in this effort.
  I do not mind if the Senator from Arkansas attacks the program 
itself. I do not mind if the Senator from Colorado on the basis of 
principle and philosophy opposes it. But to make allegations that 
somehow people in both parties are in it for some kind of personal gain 
or some kind of monetary association with people who have been 
associated with it, I resent that strongly. I grow very tired of it. I 
am sure that those people who have devoted so many countless hours on 
behalf of furthering democracy throughout the world resent it as well.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Arizona and others 
in opposing both the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, 
Senator Dorgan, and also the Senator from Arkansas. Senator Sarbanes 
and Senator McCain have both cited some of the important international 
figures, ranging from Oscar Arias, Nobel prize winner, to the Dali 
Lama, Yelena Bonner, to Vaclav Havel, and others, who have each of them 
signaled the importance of need.
  It is interesting that our colleague from North Dakota talks about 
the impression and importance of Dr. Havel and of that effort, and yet 
he ignores the fact that Vaclav Havel supports the National Endowment 
for Democracy, and what it did for their movement for freedom. I would 
like to ask my colleagues to focus on a couple more specific examples 
of how NED works and why it is important so we can really bring this 
down to less than just testimony always from major figures, and think 
about how it really works. But I also ask my colleagues to measure this 
$35 million expenditure against the overall budget reality in this 
area.
  In the State Department authorization and appropriations effort, we 
cut over $500 million. So it is not as if we are looking at the NED 
expenditure in a vacuum of some avoidance of responsibility to deal 
with the deficit. In fact, because the President of the United States 
asked the Congress to put more money into NED, we looked elsewhere in 
the budget to find cuts so that we could turn around and in fact put 
that money in. In the end, we did not put more money into it. Mr. 
President, we flat funded it, we level funded it.
  So the President came to us, and said, ``I believe in NED and believe 
its work is so important to what we are trying to accomplish that I 
would like to put $50 million into it.'' But the committee said, ``No, 
we don't think we can do that this year. We are going to fund it at $35 
million.''
  This year they came to us and asked for $45 million, and again we 
said, ``No, we don't think we can do that. But we are going to fund it 
at $35 million, level funding.'' In order to justify putting the $35 
million into NED, which we made a judgment was an important effort, we 
cut in a host of other areas within our budget for a total of $500 
million.
  So I ask the Members of the Senate, as they are so often asked to do 
when one committee makes judgments about the overall budget in 602(b) 
expenditures that we get, to at least allow some respect for the 
process of the committee that already cut $500 million in order to fund 
this program.
  Why did we want to fund this program? What does this program really 
do? Let us go beyond the testimonials that we heard from the Dali Lama, 
or others, and examine what it does.
  I ask colleagues to remember that while the cold war is over, or in 
some judgment is over, in many ways it is not over as we may determine 
in other regards. In most people's broad, sweeping judgment we are 
certainly not in the same tension and confrontation that we were in, 
but we obviously are living in a world that is a lot more complicated, 
and perhaps equally, if not more, dangerous.
  So democracy building and the kinds of efforts that a nongovernmental 
organization can involve itself in becomes even more important.
  I ask colleagues to really focus on that distinction about NED. We 
are not talking about Government expenditure directly where Congress 
has to specifically appropriate the program per se. We are talking 
about an independent organization that decides quickly and flexibly 
where a particular crisis may need response that the Government cannot 
respond to. So indeed, in NED expenditures there are a series of 
examples of places that NED has been able to respond because it can 
move quickly. Let me give you an example.
  NED was able to get timely support in the long time grantees in 
Russia leading up to the 1993 referendum in April. We all know how 
critical that referendum was. That referendum helped to ensure the 
democratic transition in Russia. In fact, it was the IRI, the 
Republican Institute, that sponsored an observer mission to the Russian 
referendum. The IRI recommended changes in the process. Those changes 
were adopted in the Russia referendum for the 1993 election. And they 
also picked 30,000 Russian poll watchers.
  A lot of colleagues here traveled to the countries for the purpose of 
election observer. I can remember being deeply involved in the 
transition process in the Philippines. I was the only Democrat 
appointed by President Reagan to be part of that observer group that 
went to the Philippines. I remember the questions that were asked us by 
members of the National Movement for Free Election in the Philippines. 
How do you have poll watchers? How do you organize the selection so it 
is beyond reproach? How do we guarantee that we know the people who are 
legitimately voting, and they only vote once? How do we guarantee that 
the polls are manned properly and opened?
  These are fundamental questions, Mr. President. We take them for 
granted. But you cannot just go out and talk about moving democracy to 
countries just like that, and merely by the naming of an election 
anticipate that you are going to have an election that is either 
acceptable or even feasible. It takes an enormous amount of 
instruction.
  I will say to you, Mr. President, that very few events in my life 
have impressed me the way that election day impressed me when the 
Filipino citizens stood in line in the hot tropical Sun for 12 hours, 
as we just saw, in fact, in South Africa where also there was help by 
NED. You understand the joy and the extraordinary commitment of people 
who are voting for the first time and exercising what we try so hard to 
market to other countries in the world. That is what NED does. But that 
is not all that NED does in a very practical and direct way.

  Let me share a couple of other examples with my colleagues. A couple 
of years ago, the total funding that NED was able to allocate to 
programs in Burma--one of the most repressive countries in the world, a 
country where it is in our interest to try to see the government 
change, where we have enormous drug trafficking taking place, 
repression, oppression, one of the world's harshest dictatorships--was 
$225,000. That funding was used to provide the infrastructure to 
support the National League for Democracy, the exiled democracy 
movement headed by Nobel Prize laureate Aung San Sun Kyi. It was also 
able to support human rights transmissions on the radio. It was also 
able to support assistance to help the exiled National Coalition of the 
Union of Burma to inform the international community about conditions 
in the country.
  I cannot believe that the Senator from North Dakota or the Senator 
from Arkansas cannot see, or will not believe, that $225,000 to help 
the exiled community create and foster democracy in Burma is a 
worthwhile expenditure.
  Mr. President, just recently, NED has begun to implement a two-tier 
program to assist in the development of democratic institutions and 
practices among Palestinian residents in the West Bank and the Gaza. 
Are we to believe that a $246,000 investment in helping the 
Palestinians make a transition to democracy and to respect the law and 
to be able to govern themselves is not a worthwhile expenditure, after 
the billions we have been called on to spend to help Israel defend 
itself at war?
  So when my colleagues come to the floor and say $35 million is an 
excess expenditure, and somehow want colleagues to believe that this is 
a travel expenditure, they are misleading the colleagues of the Senate, 
and they are turning their eyes against the reality of what this 
program does. This is not a travel fund for ``x'' diplomats or public 
servants. Most of the money--$19 million or 57 percent of it--goes to 
direct grants to the four core institutions. Another 30 percent of it 
goes into direct grants that are paid out by NED itself. Those are the 
types of grants that I have just cited.
  Here is another example of that kind of grant: NED was able to put 
$484,000 into supporting newspapers and publications in Russia and the 
Ukraine, independent of the old party apparatus. The reason it was so 
important to be independent of the old party apparatus is that the old 
party apparatus had the money, had the ability to control the media, 
television and newspapers, and therefore was able to actually put out 
news that was counter to the very efforts of the revolution and of the 
reform effort. Yelena Bonner, Andre Sakharov's widow, wrote about the 
impact of that money. She said:

       In Russia and the other countries which emerged following 
     the collapse of the Soviet Union, an economic and ideological 
     battle is being fought between the old Communists, or 
     *Nomenclatura, and the newly formed organizations of civil 
     society. In this process, the former group has the advantage 
     of vast experience working in society, as well as financial 
     means accumulated in various ways during the cold war period. 
     In this context, literally within a period of 1\1/2\ to 2 
     years, several publications that had proven to be democratic 
     during the growth of perestroika changed their positions. The 
     most typical example is ``Nez Avisimaya.'' This newspaper 
     began as one of the most democratic publications, but today 
     is barely discernible from reactionary ultranationalist ones. 
     In Russian television, changes are taking place which are not 
     quite so overt but nonetheless definite.

  I will skip through this. She says:

       Under these conditions, support for the new social 
     structures on which civil society will build is very 
     important--possibly even more important than support for 
     democratic leaders or politicians at other levels.

  So I say to my colleagues that there are many examples in the Middle 
East or elsewhere of how NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, and 
the core institutions, serve our interests. So we have a choice. We can 
strip away these grants which our colleagues label as somehow the tools 
of the ex-foreign policy establishment, which has people who, I might 
add, most of us respect enormously, and people who have vast experience 
and who donate their time to this effort. There is nobody on that great 
chart the Senator shows who is being paid. They are not paid for this. 
They volunteer their experience and expertise. And there are countless 
examples of the ways in which they have been able to impact the lives 
of other human beings. There are countless examples in the way these 
programs have been able to enhance elections where they might not have 
otherwise been held.
  It does not behoove us to invest billions of dollars in the defense 
of this Nation, to constantly be out in the world proselytizing about 
democracy, and then quibble about efforts that have been proven as 
viable as these efforts of NED for $35 million, to enhance the very 
democracy that we encourage people to embrace.
  Mr. President, person after person has articulated the importance of 
this program, from Fang Lizhi, who we all know as perhaps the most 
notable dissident in China. He said the following:

       It is true the cold war is over, but that doesn't mean that 
     democracy has been achieved. In fact, many countries in 
     today's world are still ruled by oligarchic dictatorships, 
     still lack freedom of speech, still have no meaningful 
     elections and still hold political prisoners. Therefore, 
     NED's functions are still absolutely necessary for the 
     leadership of the U.S. in international affairs.

  This is a dissident whose life has been on the line, Mr. President. 
Who are we to question when that dissident says this money makes a 
difference to their lives?
  Vytautas Landsbergis said:

       If the U.S. House of Representatives had voted to abolish 
     NED because it is convinced of the triumph of democracy in 
     Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, then it is making 
     a tragic mistake. * * * One need only look at the current 
     situation in Lithuania to understand that the battle for 
     democracy is only half complete.

  I urge my colleagues, as they have in the past, to reject this effort 
to strip back the ability to help those in need for democracy.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is in our national interest to support 
the National Endowment for Democracy. It promotes programs to assist 
democratic development abroad because democracies lead to a safer and 
more secure world for the United States and its friends and allies, a 
world better suited to human rights, to economic development, and to 
better trade relations. A more democratic world is a world in which we 
could devote and redirect more of our own resources and energies away 
from weapons and defense and toward economic growth and social 
programs.
  I make that point, Mr. President, because an impression is given, as 
we have in these debates each year, that somehow the pursuit of 
democracy is a boondoggle, that somehow those who pursue the building 
of democratic institutions must have some nefarious motive for doing 
so. The majority of the Senate has never felt that way, and I find it 
very difficult to understand why this debate persists each year.
  Those of us who promote democracy can never be weary. Let those who 
try to attack the program every year know that a majority of us believe 
in democracy, believe that it is a good thing for Republicans, 
Democrats, business, and labor, to come together in something that we 
find not only a common interest, but a central focus of our being.
  That is the genius of the National Endowment for Democracy, a way to 
bring volunteers to assist in democracy building from all four of these 
groups. This is not a power-sharing group of people dividing money. As 
a matter of fact, as the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
pointed out, all of the members serve on the NED board for no 
compensation and, as a matter of fact, consider it a great honor. I do. 
I have served on the board for the last 2 years. I can testify that a 
very small but talented staff, buttressed by hundreds of volunteers who 
spend their own vacation time and their own money to go to countries in 
behalf of the United States of America and our foreign policy, are 
inspiring.
  This is something to shout and to celebrate about, not to apologize 
about and to suggest cuts.
  Let me just suggest, Mr. President, there must be a critical 
misunderstanding on the part of many of our colleagues about the 
activities that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts described, 
for example, in the Philippines. I was there on that occasion with him. 
I saw the impact that Republicans, Democrats, labor, and business was 
able to make in a transition of government there. That was historically 
very important for all of us.
  There is no way we could have appropriated money to have achieved 
that kind of historic foreign policy result. Other positive results 
have happened again and again in over 75 countries.
  I would just say, let us once again affirm our belief that these four 
core groups can work together as Americans for ideals that we cherish. 
Let us reject the idea of a penny-wise-pound-foolish cut. Let me say 
also, Mr. President, because again in the annual ritual we have on this 
subject, that we have three issues here--the first amendment before the 
Senate is to abolish the whole business, the second is to nibble it 
down in some fashion, and the third will be to try to micromanage the 
process. An amendment may be offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado, as it annually is, to try in some way to get more open 
bidding in the process.
  Mr. President, this is a very competitive process. The board, on 
which I sit, reivews over 100 different proposals each quarter. They 
are reviewed, scrubbed, and changed before we see them by other staffs 
and specialists. We reject many as unworthy of support. We rewrite 
many. We support many. That gives additional impetus and quality to 
whomever brought the grant to the fore, whether it be Democrats, 
Republicans, labor, or business. It is an open process, open to the 
public, open to scrutiny, and fortunately open to the applauds of 
people around the world who have testified through the speeches of 
Senators this morning about the results for them and, more importantly 
for us, our security, our future, and our idealism.
  Mr. President, I hope that Senators will once again reaffirm their 
support for democracy by giving a very strong vote on behalf of the 
National Endowment for Democracy and rejecting the cuts and rejecting 
the micromanagement.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to use the time. Of course, I was 
going to use my 5 minutes in the wrap-up.
  But as chairman of the subcommittee, I enjoyed the luxury of these 
expressions that I have been noting down--money down a rathole, money 
handed out, not competitive.
  You would think this was a bureaucracy. This entity is not bidden. It 
is mostly volunteer. And the criticism that I had in its early stages 
10 years ago was, yes, it was a sort of party luxury, as I saw it. They 
were convening down in the Bahamas and the warm places in the 
wintertime when we had ice and snow. They would get a good meeting.
  Madeleine Albright came in our office about 3 years or 4 years ago. 
We were going to have that election in Budapest. I will never forget 
it. And she was trying to get the money to get 13 printing presses from 
a newspaper that had changed over their equipment from what they 
considered used, old, unuseful and unproductive equipment. She needed 
that to print the fliers to help with that election. They did not have, 
of course, any telephones. They did not have any real radio contact. 
They did not have any way to broadcast and get the word out for a free 
election.
  We worked on that, and I said: You know, I have been very critical of 
Carl Gershman directing this National Endowment for Democracy and Brian 
Atwood, incidentally, the Democratic Institute, who is now the head of 
AID. But it sounds like with the fall of the Wall we have a real role. 
She said we have, and it is working.
  Now, the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Maryland, the Senator 
from Massachusetts, and others, have quoted how useful it has been. I 
saw it again firsthand down in Chile at the beginning of this year and 
the end of last year when I talked to the ones handling that election 
from the changeover from Pinchot, and the head then had gotten their 
moneys, incidentally, from the chamber of commerce and said, as they 
characterize it: ``We were the ones that sort of kept the peace and the 
calm and the stability during that particular changeover. Had it not 
been for NED, we never could have done the job.''
  So it is. They are doing an extremely useful job, and it is not money 
down a rat hole. You can look and debate and talk casually. Let us talk 
about Somalia. I mean, there it is. We went in there for a highly 
motivated initiative--to feed the hungry poor. We found out that the 
hunger was politically caused. We got run out of town. Maybe they 
talked then about billions that went down a rathole.
  But for the present time that initiative has been sound and this 
initiative is becoming more sound every day.
  The President asked for an increase of some $10 million from $35 
million up to $45 million. We could not do it. I had spoken and said 
what we ought to do now with the fall of the Wall is double the budget 
if we possibly can for the effective work. You cannot send in the Peace 
Corps. They have to do it. You cannot send in your State Department. 
This is a unique entity that really does their job.
  And when the criticism comes about the AFL-CIO--look at one time, 
after I talked and watched this 3 years ago, and rather than opposing I 
started supporting. I said I would give all of the money to the AFL-
CIO. And when they talk about Poland, talk to Lech Walesa. The 
international labor organizations of the AFL-CIO have done more to 
produce world peace and democracy than any other individual private 
entity that I know of in American society.
  I come from a right-to-work State, and I voted against cloture on 
striker replacement. So I am not a patsy for labor. But I admire them. 
And I can tell you here and now I would have given double the money and 
everything else for the work they do.
  So they have been out there working for the past 50 or 60 years, and 
it is working now, and we should not come, as the Senator from Arizona 
said, with these wise references about look at who they are, and 
everything else, like since they are public servants they are rag 
babies, or whatever. These are very, very highly motivated people doing 
it free of charge, and it is working. I wish we could give more money 
to it.
  So in my 5 minutes' time, let me say that it is audited. I do not 
have the full GAO report. This is the last result. In brief, this is 
the entire paragraph:

       The Endowment has initiated a number of steps to implement 
     our recommendations to improve planning, evaluation, 
     monitoring and financial controls. It also has plans to 
     initiate others. These actions will take time to fully 
     implement. Therefore, it is too early to evaluate the impact 
     on the management of grants at this time. However, we believe 
     that the Endowment effectively carries out the actions it has 
     begun and plans to begin. Endowment planning, evaluation, 
     monitoring and financial controlling capability should be 
     improved.

  That is January 1992.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from South Carolina if he would like to 
have a couple minutes on my time to finish up. I yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.
  It is accountability to the U.S. taxpayers. We have annual audits by 
the USIA inspector general, periodic audits by the General Accounting 
Office, and an annual audit by a CPA firm published in the annual 
reports; annual budget review by the Office of Management and Budget; 
annual hearings before four congressional subcommittees with the 
frequent consultation with the State Department prior to implementation 
of programs and coverage under the Freedom of Information Act. This is 
not a political lark of a lot of politicians being funded and partying. 
This is the real work with the falling of the Wall and spreading 
democracy.
  And someone said, one of our colleagues, ``But the idea is there.'' 
The idea is there in sum, but there is no way to implement it. There is 
no way to foster that idea except with an entity like our National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  So I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to start out by thanking my 
colleague from South Carolina for a very eloquent statement. I voted as 
he did.
  But I would also make the same argument that the AFL-CIO has played 
an incredible role in the furtherance of democracy and freedom 
throughout the world, ranging in countries from Poland to El Salvador 
to Nicaragua to Hungary, all over the world.
  And I also share his view that one of the ways that they have been 
able to do that is through the National Endowment for Democracy.
  Mr. President, I am not going to go over the arguments again. I would 
just like to use the remainder of my time by telling a story that I 
think best illustrates what the National Endowment for Democracy is all 
about. It concerns this tiny country called Albania.
  Mr. President, I think all of us remember that Albania was such an 
oppressive, repressed country, and that the leader of Albania, whose 
name is Hoxha, broke relations with China after Chairman Mao's death 
because of the evil influence of freedom and westernization that had 
crept into China.
  Perhaps the most isolated country on this planet was Albania under 
the rule of Hoxha, whose statues, not unlike Ho Chi Minh, not unlike 
Kim Il-song, was everywhere throughout that country. This ruler was so 
insane that he spent about one-fourth of the gross national product 
building these concrete pillboxes that looked like rows of mushrooms 
all over that country. There was no concrete in Albania because of the 
fear. And this is the beloved, respected leader Hoxha who warned of an 
imminent United States imperialist invasion of Albania. There was only 
one radio station. Everyone was under the scrutiny of national security 
Gestapo-like forces. It was a terribly repressed country.
  With the end of the cold war, with the tide of freedom and democracy 
that spread throughout the world, the people of Albania, after his 
death, rose up and demanded free and fair elections. The first 
elections were held. And, as happens so many times in these former 
Communist countries, the leadership of the Communist Party was elected 
in a so-called democratic election, which it was not.
  Sali Berisha, then in the opposition party, could not get his message 
out to the countryside in Albania, where 70 percent of the population 
of Albania lives outside of the capital of Tirana. The National 
Endowment for Democracy provided him and his party with six Jeep 
Cherokees, six Jeep Cherokees, with which he and his party were able to 
carry their message to the people of Albania. They won an overwhelming 
victory and they are now on the road to democracy and freedom in still 
one of the most impoverished countries on this planet.
  But there is hope, there is joy, there is optimism, and there is 
freedom in Albania. And it is there, in the words of the President of 
Albania, because of six Jeep Cherokees which he got from the National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  Mr. President, all the stories about what the National Endowment for 
Democracy does is not that gripping or spectacular. But that is, I 
think, a telling and gripping example of what can be done by an 
organization of this sort.
  And it still befuddles me as to why we should continue to have to go 
through this drill year after year. I hope that, after this ends, we 
could put it aside for awhile.
  I note my colleague from North Dakota is here, who said in his 
remarks that the organizations with names that begin with national 
endowment always get votes. I notice that cuts in the National 
Endowment for the Arts, the Senator from North Dakota has consistently 
voted against those cuts. So not every organization that the Senator 
voted against has ``national endowment'' in the first words of it.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. McCAIN. If I have any time remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would observe that my record on voting on the National 
Endowment for the Arts in 14 years would not suggest I voted against 
all cuts. The Senator ought to amend that. I am sure you have votes in 
instances where I have voted against it. But I would expect if you 
looked at my entire record over 14 years in Congress, you would not 
make that statement.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator's record from 1993 and 1994, three different 
votes, most recent votes were opposed to any cuts in the National 
Endowment for the Arts.
  And the Senator is saying, of course, you have to vote for anything 
that says ``national endowment,'' then obviously he would not have 
voted the way he did in the last three votes.
  Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my recollection is that I have 5 
minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. He has 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if anybody watches these debates outside 
of Washington--and I think they do--I am sure they are wondering what 
we are doing this afternoon, because we have debated this endowment 
issue over and over the past few years.
  Last year, we spent a full day debating the National Endowment for 
Democracy when this bill was on the floor. After all that debate, the 
Senator from Arkansas got 23 votes in his effort to eliminate funding 
for the National Endowment.
  Now, perhaps doing it last year justifies doing it again this year on 
the same bill. But I think people are asking: What did we do on the 
State Department authorization bill? We had a full debate just a few 
months ago. We were talking about what should we authorize for 1994 and 
1995. We had a full debate and, indeed, we put a ceiling on this 
program, which is $10 million less than the President asked for. And 
that turns out to be a freeze. So in a sense we have already reduced it 
from what the President asked for, which was a modest increase, and now 
we are saying, even though it is a good program--and, indeed, it is--
let us freeze it at last year's level.
  I do not think we ought to cut NED any more. So I believe the Dorgan 
amendment appears to be less draconian because it is only a $10 million 
cut in place of the total elimination proposed by the gentleman from 
Arkansas. I think a vote for it is a real vote against the endowment. I 
do not think anybody ought to think it is anything different than that.
  Now, essentially, there are no other American programs like this one. 
What the Agency for International Development does is utterly 
different, although they occasionally use the NED to implement AID 
democracy programs. So to anybody that says, ``This is duplication; we 
are doing the same thing in many different programs,'' I would respond 
that we are not.
  I believe that the American people, contrary to what has been said 
here if they are listening, understand that a great nation like the 
United States has reason to spend $35 million to support democracy in 
the world through this unique endowment. After all, our biggest claim 
to fame as a people is the attraction of our representative democracy.
  Freedom is spreading in many parts of the world because of our 
holding to our ideals during the cold war. Capitalism, in its many 
local variations, is spreading, along with democracy, as a competitive 
system to produce wealth. We do not have any vision that the United 
States wants to take over the world with armed might; 49 years ago we 
could have done that for a few years, but we didn't. We just encourage 
others to be free and develop their own democracy like we have.
  Now, why would we not support a program, small as it is--$35 
million--that has been working? There are some who say it is too small 
for the giant job it has. And what is wrong with having the chamber of 
commerce undertake part of this task, and the AFL-CIO to use its 
decades of experience abroad in this endeavor? What is wrong with that? 
Does that mean anybody voting for NED is unequivocally supporting the 
Chamber? No. Does it mean Americans are unequivocally supporting the 
AFL-CIO? No. What it means is they, together with other cooperating 
institutions, have a proven way of getting grassroots programs going to 
support freedom and democracy.
  It is pretty simple, a basic question. If we cannot do this, it seems 
to me, we cannot do anything in terms of helping democracy in an 
organized way and helping freedom abroad in an organized institutional 
way. I believe we can and I believe we should.
  Various successes have been cited and I just want to tell the Senate 
of a success I participated in. Frankly, 5 years ago, the endowment--
and I think it was under the auspices of the Democratic Party's portion 
of this--had an innovative program underway in Poland. The Poles were 
just moving toward democracy. Fritz Mondale went there as the leader of 
a delegation to meet privately for several days with the newly elected 
members of the Polish Parliament, their Senate, and their Sejm or lower 
house.
  The National Democratic Institute, a part of NED, invited Senators 
Howard Baker and Pete Domenici to go. Baker was not a Senator then, but 
he had recently ended a tour as President Reagan's chief of staff. 
Other people from America who are familiar with the role of the 
legislature in a representative democracy went there, including Jim 
Jones, who is now our ambassador in Mexico City. Dick Spring, who is 
now a leader of Ireland was there, as were parliamentarians from 
Germany and France. And the exchange of views and the enthusiasm of 
those new, democratic Polish leaders was incredible.
  As a matter of fact, from that little visit, the first important 
parliamentary exchange with Poland occurred. In fact, we came back to 
America, I say to Senator McCain, and I introduced a resolution: 
America's gift to Poland's democracy. What we did was supply their 
parliament with training and with computers that we were not going to 
use in our offices anymore. Instead of turning them in and throwing 
them away, we started a major program for very little money to put 
computers in their new libraries they were forming, and in their 
parliamentary offices. Joe Stuart, our recently retired Secretary of 
the Senate, and his staff and the Rules Committee staff made it work 
over several years.
  All of this happened because the endowment spent a few thousand 
dollars of this NED money for a small, productive, and timely meeting 
with an inexperienced parliament in a emerging democracy.
  That is going on in dozens of countries. Young men and women are 
representing NED and the institutes in some places with very difficult 
living conditions, at salaries that are a fraction of what our aid 
agency pays its contractors in the same places. David Nummy, a young 
friend and former Treasury official and staffer of mine, is in Ukraine. 
Probably much better examples are available everywhere. But we are not 
talking about a lot of money when the greatest democracy in the world, 
with a budget of $1.5 trillion, says let us allocate $35 million to 
this Endowment for Democracy.
  I think we should defeat the Dorgan amendment. That will pull down 
the Bumpers amendment. And at least for a few months, we will have put 
this matter to rest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe I was to be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Let me first say to my friend from Arizona that I guess he 
misunderstood the point I was making. I was not making a point at all 
about the word ``endowment.'' I talked about the Endowment for 
Democracy, and I talked then about how difficult it is to oppose a 
title that has ``Endowment for Democracy.'' Maybe one could construct 
another endowment, Endowment for Freedom? How would one stand up and 
oppose that? So I think the Senator misunderstood. He thought I was 
using the word ``endowment.'' I was actually using the words 
``democracy'' and ``freedom'' to explain the point.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend for correcting that. I was under a 
misimpression.
  Mr. DORGAN. My voting record on other endowments is something he and 
I could discuss. I have voted to cut other endowments.
  Second, I understand the larger point he has been making. And I 
respect those who disagree strongly with us. I hope they will respect 
our position. I view this as a duplication; you say no.
  I say we spend $2.7 billion through AID, through State, through a 
dozen other agencies, to build democracy around the world. I could 
spend a few minutes going down the list of these programs.
  Some would say the National Endowment for Democracy is more flexible 
than other agencies. Yes, it probably is more flexible. It is smaller; 
it uses many volunteers. I am sure it is more flexible.
  We've heard testimonials for NED from all over the world. NED has all 
kinds of endorsements. I would endorse almost anybody who gave me 
money, I guess. If they spend $35 million this year and cannot get 
endorsements from the people who got the money, these folks do not 
deserve to get any money. I can get endorsements from people I give 
money to.
  Ten million dollars is not much, but the fact is we have an enormous 
Federal deficit. The Senator from Arizona has quite a record on dealing 
with deficit issues. I know he does not believe this is waste so he is 
not going to support this amendment.
  I happen to view it as waste. I happen to view it as a duplication of 
public spending. I think one of the real ways to endow democracy in 
America is to effectively deal with this deficit. We are spending money 
we do not have every day. It used to be $1 billion a day, 7 days a 
week, every week, every month, all year; $1 billion a day we did not 
have. We were borrowing it from somebody else: Our kids and grandkids. 
Now it has been reduced. Now it is only going to be a half a billion 
dollars a day we are going to spend that we do not have. Every little 
opportunity we have, we ought to take a look at what we are spending 
and say, do we need this? Can we afford this? In this instance, I think 
the answer is we already spend this money elsewhere.
  Somebody would say, this does not go to the political parties. This 
does not go to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. That is 
the position that was taken a few minutes ago.
  Literally speaking, no, it does not. The money goes to an institute 
created by the Democratic and the Republican Parties an institute. That 
is like saying if I create some sort of political action committee, the 
Byron Dorgan Leadership PAC--right? Then I give money to somebody from 
this PAC, and they say that is not Byron Dorgan, that is his leadership 
PAC; that is different, that is separate. Well, that's ridiculous.
  Look, this money goes to four sources. It effectively goes to the 
chamber of commerce, to the AFL-CIO, and to the two political parties. 
They have set up institutes and they have spent the money through the 
institutes. The position Senator Bumpers and I take is that it is 
duplication and waste.
  Are there good people, well-intentioned people, doing work they think 
is important? Yes, there are. There are good people, well intentioned, 
using this money in some ways that are effective, I am sure. But an 
enormous amount of this money is being wasted.
  My point is it duplicates what we are doing elsewhere. You know the 
U.S. Information Agency broadcasts more than 1,000 hours a week in more 
than 40 languages? Do my colleagues know that it has a program named 
Democracy In Action, a 173-part series of 5-minute shows carried in all 
languages? That is promoting democracy. I support that. I think that 
makes sense.
  But to hand over $35 million to the Democratic and Republican parties 
and AFL-CIO and the Chamber and say go ahead and travel around the 
world and do your thing--I think that is waste. The fact is, at a time 
when we are tightening our belts on virtually all funding programs, we 
are doubling this one.
  I think it is perfectly fair to look at our needs and our spending in 
various areas. I just held a hearing in North Dakota a few weeks ago on 
the subject of child abuse. There was a young girl on an Indian 
reservation who actually started drinking at age 9 and was a confirmed 
alcoholic at age 14. She was locked in the closet without food, and she 
knew she was going to be beaten when her mother came home.
  Another young woman named Tamara, age 2, was put in a foster home. 
Her foster parents broke her arm, broke her leg, and pulled her hair 
out by the roots. Do you know we do not have enough money to respond to 
that? People beat 2-year-old Tamara because there was only one social 
worker working on 200 cases, and that social worker put this 2-year-old 
girl in a home and had no idea whether this home was safe; and this 
young girl was beaten severely.
  Why do I raise that? Because we do not have enough money in this 
country to protect Indian children on reservations. We do not have 
enough money to do that. And $10 million would go a long way in helping 
those children; $10 million is what I propose we cut out of here.
  And I am not saying we take it and use it for that purpose. I am just 
saying we have enormous needs in this country. We have people in this 
country whose needs are not being met, children whose needs are not 
being met, and we are off here doubling a budget to $35 million for the 
National Endowment for Democracy, which duplicates spending we already 
have in other areas? When NED gives the money in turn to the two 
political parties, the chamber of commerce, and the labor unions?
  We may see it differently. I respect those who do. But to me, this is 
a waste of money. This $10 million ought to be cut. We ought to endow 
democracy in this country by taking a step, every opportunity we get, 
to reduce this Federal deficit and especially to meet critical human 
needs of people here at home.
  Mr. President, I hope Members of the Senate will respond and vote in 
favor of my amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am disappointed to see that we are once 
again debating the merits of NED and that we are undercutting a 
valuable organization whose sole mission is to advance American 
democratic ideals and free enterprise around the world.
  Yet, if we are to debate this issue on the floor, I welcome the 
opportunity to speak on behalf of this important and effective 
organization and urge my colleagues to support full funding for NED.
  I have heard for years Members of this Chamber speak on the need to 
promote democracy overseas. Members on the left and the right of the 
aisle have argued forcefully for human rights, democratic values, and 
market reform in countries around the world.
  No one in this Chamber would dispute the fact that the spread of 
democracy is among the most important foreign policy objectives of the 
United States. Continuing the worldwide spread of democracy is in the 
interest of the United States and will ultimately pay important 
dividends at home.
  To the extent that we foster the establishment of democratic states, 
we promote a more stable international environment. In the process, we 
are able to lower defense spending, reduce regional conflict, and limit 
the need to place American troops in harms way.
  The democratic revolutions in East Europe and the former Soviet Union 
are instructive in this regard. Political reforms in these States 
ushered in a period of lower defense spending at home. By 1995, the 
defense budget adjusted for inflation will be less than half the level 
of the 1985 defense budget. That is a tangible savings that benefits 
all of us and made possible by the democratic revolutions that we 
applauded--and that NED supported.
  While communism lost the cold war, the West has not yet won it. We 
can only claim victory after democracy and free market institutions are 
firmly entrenched around the globe.
  The fundamental issue is that the battleground has shifted away from 
direct superpower confrontation and toward the subtle consolidation of 
democratic institutions in East Europe, Russia, and the Third World. 
The weapons used in this conflict are not tanks, but the free exchange 
of ideas and information.
  The future of East Europe depends less on how many divisions that 
NATO is capable of mobilizing--although that it is vital--and 
increasingly on whether East European political reformers can mobilize 
voters at the ballot box. Only through the establishment of viable 
political parties, free trade unions, and private enterprise will these 
countries flourish. Only through continuing political reform can these 
States move away from a history of internal authoritarianism. The 
democracy movement in East Europe is extremely fragile, and if we do 
not act now, we run the risk of providing revanchist leaders with an 
opportunity to move back into the political fray.

  If we agree on the virtues of advancing democracy--and I do not 
believe that this issue is in dispute--then we have an obligation to 
provide the resources and institutional framework necessary to address 
these problems. NED is the organization tailored to meet this 
challenge.
  I ask my colleagues: ``What government agency has the ability to 
marshal the resources to forcefully advocate democracy around the 
world?'' The answer is none.
  The State Department lacks the independence and autonomy to 
consistently press for democracy around the world. In fact, editorials 
on the Voice of America expressing hope that someday Iraqis would live 
in freedom were shelved after the State Department received complaints 
from Saddam Hussein in 1990.
  USIA is overly bureaucratic and does not have the ability to identify 
pro-democracy groups or finance these groups.
  AID can only operate in countries with permission and it has enough 
problems trying to streamline development assistance.
  Let us face facts: the U.S. Government lacks the experience and 
expertise in the field and there is not a single agency, either public 
or private, that is exclusively devoted to carrying this fight forward. 
The National Endowment for Democracy was created precisely because this 
vacuum existed in private and public sectors.
  NED has a comparative advantage in the fight for democracy. NED can 
operate with freedom and flexibility overseas; and it can do so without 
apology to regimes that have little regard for individual freedom or 
pluralism. NED can also accomplish its mission without risking 
government to government contacts.
  Lech Walesa was among the first to point out that NED was 
instrumental in keeping Solidarity alive during the 1980's, and notes 
that NED enabled him to make a bid for political power when the 
opportunity arose. Walesa told me personally in 1990 that NED played an 
indispensable role in breaking the Communist stranglehold on political 
power in Poland. I ask my colleagues whether it was a bad idea for NED 
to provide material support to Solidarity after the imposition of 
martial law in Poland.
  Prior to the establishment of NED, the U.S. Government had only one 
serious option: to funnel covert assistance to prodemocracy groups. 
Such aid is still important where circumstances warrant. Yet, the goal 
of democracy building is something that the United States should not 
attempt to do in the dark.
  With respect a common criticism of NED, I have listened to my 
colleagues talk about the nefarious collusion of special interests that 
exists allegedly among the grantees that comprise NED, specially labor, 
the political parties, and the chamber of commerce. Critics assert that 
such collusive behavior among these groups is unhealthy. This smacks of 
conspiracy theory and the point is simply wrong. It ignores the fact 
that every single core group associated with NED possesses extensive 
experience in the grassroots institutions that serve as the building 
blocks of the democratic process.
  Each of the core grantees have unique skills to bring to the task. I 
would like to just touch on two of the grantees briefly. All of us 
agree that you need political parties to function in a vibrant 
democracy. There was no dissent and no other party to join. It 
therefore makes eminently good sense to have the Republican--
International Republic Institute--and Democratic parties--International 
Democratic Institute--through their international institutes, train 
groups in the grassroots organizations and other skills.
  Mr. President, if we continue to undermine this organization, we will 
profoundly hurt a unique opportunity to shape the world in which we 
live. The stakes around the world are simply too high. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment and to support full funding 
for NED.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand now, the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas has 5 minutes, if I have checked correctly, and 
the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], has 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, while the Senator from Arkansas is 
momentarily approaching, we do have a time set at 12:45 for an up-or-
down vote on the Dorgan amendment. The Senate voted 74 to 23 last year 
to continue the funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. On 
June 27, just a few weeks ago, the House of Representatives, after full 
debate, similarly voted 317 to 89 to retain the funding.
  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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a resolution that I want to 
attach to this bill that Senator Hollings has agreed to accept. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending matter be set aside temporarily 
while the amendment containing the resolution is presented to the 
Senate for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2360

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that President Clinton 
 should meet with the next President of Mexico to discuss immigration)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2360.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . Sense of Congress--It is the Sense of Congress 
     that the President of the United States and the President-
     elect of Mexico should meet as soon as possible following the 
     August elections in Mexico to discuss bilateral issues of 
     mutual concern with the objective of depending and 
     strengthening the ties between the two neighbors, with 
     emphasis on cooperation to establish equitable and effective 
     regulation of the flow of citizens across the border between 
     Mexico and the United States.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very simple proposition. There 
has been a lot of talk about illegal immigration, and much of it 
centers around Mexico's border with the United States. We have 
considered amendments about incarcerated illegals at the State's 
expense, and we have had amendments for more Border Patrol. We have a 
constant turmoil on the border.
  We have entered into a broadened trade arrangement with Mexico that 
has shown the affirmative side of our relationship. We have a much 
better relationship between our two countries than perhaps we have ever 
had.
  This amendment is a sense of the Congress that urges the President of 
the United States and the President-elect of Mexico, whoever that is, 
to meet as soon as possible following the August elections to discuss 
bilateral issues of mutual concern, with the objective of deepening and 
strengthening the ties between these two neighbors, with a special 
emphasis on cooperation to establish equitable and effective regulation 
of the flow of citizens across the border between Mexico and the United 
States.
  Essentially this says we would hope that our President and the new 
Mexican President will join together in some kind of a summit. We are 
asking them to talk together and see if we can reach an accord on some 
better ways of handling the illegal traffic on our common border.
  There is an editorial in the Los Angeles Times that says: ``Anyone 
for Adult Solutions to the Mexico-U.S. Border Problem?'' A number of 
suggestions are included therein as to what the two countries might do 
to make this control of illegal immigration a much more practical and 
reasonable thing between the two countries.
  I am convinced, until something like this summit occurs, we will 
continue to beef up our borders--and we have done that in this bill--
until we get a better accord as to how we handle some of the underlying 
mutual problems. Both presidents need to do something to reduce the 
financial costs of illegal aliens from Mexico and elsewhere who come 
here through Mexico, who have committed felonies in the United States. 
They might ask, ``is there some better arrangement between the two 
countries to incarcerate them in California's jails or Texas' jails or 
Florida's?'' They might try to reduce the constant, dangerous, illegal 
crisscrossing of our borders by individuals who come back many, many 
times. There must be some way Mexico might be more cooperative and we 
might be more helpful to them and their needs.
  It is not prescriptive. This amendment merely states a sense of 
Congress resolution that our President and the newly elected President 
of Mexico should meet shortly after their next election.
  Mexico/United States border problems did not disappear with the 
passage of NAFTA. In some areas they are worse. In California and other 
States, and here on the Senate floor, the costs of illegal immigration 
have become a major issue. That has already been discussed here.
  A new factor in United States/Mexico relations is the increasing 
number of Chinese and other third-country nationals being smuggled into 
the United States through Mexico. Some Mexican officials work with the 
smugglers. In return for cracking down on third-country illegal 
immigrants, Mexico wants better treatment of Mexican nationals who go 
north from time to time for temporary work; of course, many of our own 
citizens oppose any revival of a legal guest-worker program.
  These immigration issues are real and immediate. We have provided a 
lot of money in this bill already for the Border Patrol. That is not 
enough. President Clinton has a lot of other issues on his place during 
the rest of this year, but illegal immigration is a problem that cannot 
wait. As soon as possible after the August elections in Mexico, our 
President should meet with the new leader of Mexico to discuss the 
issue.
  It is not enough to brag about the NAFTA agreement. While NAFTA was 
under consideration, many of these other problems were put aside. For 
the relationship contemplated by the supporters of NAFTA to work, it is 
time to reduce the tension on both sides of the border as a result of 
border regulations that just are not working.
  This is simple. It is something the President may already want to do. 
I urge Members to support my amendment calling for a United States/
Mexico summit on immigration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Los Angeles Times editorial to which 
I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Anyone for Adult Solutions to Mexico-United States Border Problem?

       Two recent investigations have confirmed fears that corrupt 
     Mexican officials are cooperating with sophisticated 
     smuggling rings that import illegal immigrants into the 
     United States. To their credit, Mexico City authorities have 
     begun a crackdown: But however successful that effort proves 
     to be, it won't address the larger challenge--true and 
     effective regulation of the flow of people across the open 
     border.
       Ominous corruption: According to a recent article by Times 
     staff writer Sebastian Rotella, the regional chief of the 
     Mexican immigration service in Tijuana and two of his 
     deputies have been dismissed and charged with corruption. A 
     dozen other Mexican border officials are also under 
     investigation by the Mexican Interior Ministry, which 
     oversees that country's immigration agency. The government 
     probe grew out of an independent investigation by the 
     respected Tijuana-based Bi-National Center for Human Rights.
       That activist group documented what one of its leaders 
     called a ``scandalous and ominous'' pattern of corruption in 
     which regional immigration officials not only tolerated 
     people smugglers but, in some instances, actively aided them 
     in delivering groups of non-Mexican illegal immigrants across 
     the U.S. border.
       Non-Mexicans account for only about 10% of the illegal 
     immigrants detained by the U.S. Border Patrol in its San 
     Diego sector. But they are the most lucrative clientele for 
     smugglers. Chinese pay up to $30,000 for illegal entry to 
     this country, for example, compared to the $300 or so charged 
     an illegal Mexican immigrant.
       One can only hope that the crackdown by Mexico City will 
     nip this sleazy but profitable enterprise in the bud before 
     it becomes as entrenched as drug smuggling.
       The larger issue: Mexico City and Washington could help 
     enormously by noting that the illegal traffic in non-Mexicans 
     is a problem for both nations--because the despicable 
     activity not only flouts U.S. immigration laws but also 
     undermines President Carlos Salinas de Gortari's effort to 
     end official corruption in Mexico. That understanding should 
     propel them to cooperate more closely on combatting the 
     people smugglers.
       It should, but it might not. Getting any Mexican agency to 
     cooperate with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service these days is highly problematic. The revival of 
     illegal immigration as a political issue in the United States 
     has led some U.S. politicians to be downright demagogic, and 
     that has Mexican nerves raw. Even as popular and progressive 
     a leader as Salinas would risk infuriating Mexicans if 
     cooperation with the INS were seen by his countrymen as an 
     accommodation to the anti-immigrant bandwagon.
       What Washington could do for Salinas is to discuss a 
     complex and admittedly controversial Mexican proposal that 
     has gotten scant attention in the U.S. immigration debate, 
     yet could be a solution to perhaps 50% of the problem: a 
     treaty to legalize and then regulate the flow of Mexican 
     workers into--but also eventually out of--the United States.
       Call it a guest-worker program, a new bracero program--
     whatever. U.S. officials have been reluctant to discuss it in 
     recent years, even as the historic North American Free 
     Trade Agreement was being negotiated with Mexico and 
     Canada, because of political opposition from organized 
     labor and some of our more strident immigration 
     restrictionists.
       The real challenge: Yet experts who have studied the flow 
     of people between Mexico and the United States have long 
     argued that it is largely, if not entirely, an economically 
     motivated migratory flow of workers seeking jobs, not 
     immigrants seeking U.S. residency or angling for social 
     service or health benefits. If some way could be found to 
     regulate that flow--making it aboveboard and legal, 
     eliminating the exploitation that predictably comes with 
     criminality--then it could be as efficient as the cross-
     border flow of goods and capital now regulated by NAFTA.
       Sure, it's a provocative proposal. But certainly it is no 
     more controversial than some of the proposals put forward in 
     this country to ``solve'' the illegal immigration problem, 
     such as ill-conceived notions of denying health care, 
     education and even citizenship to the U.S.-born children of 
     illegal immigrants. Indeed, a bilateral labor pact has a far 
     better chance of working than some of those far-fetched 
     ideas.
       At a minimum a ``North American Free Labor Agreement'' 
     could help the United States control that part of its 
     immigrant flow originating from Mexico--anywhere from 50% to 
     60% of the problem, if INS arrest statistics are accurate. 
     Surely this is a goal well worth pursuing as a start on 
     crafting a rational immigration policy.
       If is not pursued, all we have are divisive anti-immigrant 
     panaceas and periodic crackdowns on officials on both sides 
     of the border who succumb to the temptation of easy profit in 
     the trafficking of desperate human beings. The laws of 
     economics and human nature being what they are, that approach 
     is likely to prove only partially successful at best. And 
     that is just not good enough.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to join in the sense-of-the-
Senate amendment of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. That is, 
after the election in August we should get together and move forward, 
now that NAFTA has been adopted with respect to free trade.
  In fact, I am tempted to try to amend it to say let us get together 
ahead of that particular election because the concern at the moment is 
for a free and open election. We were concerned about this even earlier 
last year when I wrote the President of the United States suggesting 
that former President Carter be appointed as head of a delegation of 
observers to ensure a free election. We have had that work successfully 
in Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Philippines, South Africa, the 
Dominican Republic and other places.
  Mexico, I think, under President Salinas has said they will have free 
and open elections and will have observers.
  I will not amend his amendment. I want to see them get together 
before as well as after the election.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2360) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], 
and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], be added as original 
cosponsors to the amendment on Rwanda offered by the distinguished 
minority leader heretofore.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2358

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the agreement now the vote will occur 
at 12:45 on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there are only 5 minutes left, and I 
probably will not take that. But I listened to various Senators read 
what Yelena Bonner said, what Lech Walesa said, what Oscar Arias said.
  I want to ask the Senators, how many times a week do you get a letter 
from somebody saying, ``Would you be willing to sign a letter 
supporting this?'' Sometimes you do, and sometimes you do not.
  Oscar Arias at one time thought the National Endowment for Democracy 
was the biggest disaster he had ever seen. So they dumped a bunch of 
money on him and, of course, he changed his mind. All of a sudden he 
sends a letter saying the National Endowment is the greatest thing 
since night baseball.
  I do not criticize any of these people. Above all, I do not even 
criticize the board members, above all. They are very prestigious 
people. What I said about the board was not designed to impugn the 
members' integrity. It was simply to demonstrate that when you get 
people of national stature on your board like that, funding comes 
almost automatically. They put those people on their board so they can 
write letters to Senators. Who would not be flattered getting a letter 
from Henry Kissinger?
  The Senator from Arizona has flattered me unnecessarily as being an 
expert on foreign policy. I am not an expert on foreign policy. I 
appreciate the fact that he thinks I am. But I will tell you what I am 
an expert on. I am an expert on Government waste. I can spot a 
Government boondoggle as far as I can see. I spotted this one 5 years 
ago and have been trying to kill it ever since.
  Mr. President, in 1989, the National Endowment made a grant to help 
the Federation of Korean Trade Unions improve their influence on 
government policy in Korea.
  That grant was to help this trade union improve its influence on 
government policy. Now, that grant was probably made with the money 
that the AFL-CIO got from NED. Interestingly, just 1 year prior to that 
the State Department had commended the Government of Korea for breaking 
the monopoly of that same trade union group. Now, you talk about the 
left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
  I think that the National Endowment may be doing a better job of 
whatever it is they do than they did initially. But I am going to make 
two points. No. 1, if you were to debate this issue before the American 
people on national television and everybody in America got a chance to 
vote as to whether they wanted to continue spending 65 percent of this 
$35 million appropriation by doling it out without competition to the 
chamber of commerce, or their subsidiary, the AFL-CIO or their 
subsidiary, or the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, or their 
subsidiaries, if you were to ask the American people how they feel 
about giving those millions to the chamber of commerce, the AFL-CIO, 
the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, 95 
percent of the people would say ``no''.
  Mr. President, unhappily, we do not get a chance to debate issues 
like this on national television. It is one of the reasons we have a $4 
trillion national debt, one of the reasons the people of this country 
are upset. They know something is wrong up here, and they cannot 
pinpoint it. This $35 million may seem like small potatoes, but NED has 
received $250 million since 1983.
  Do you think the political parties in this country and the chamber of 
commerce and AFL-CIO do not know how to lobby this $35 million through 
here? I doubt very seriously if the Senator from North Dakota will 
prevail on his amendment to cut $10 million out of the NED. I know I 
probably would not get 30 votes to kill it. It is one of the most 
unbelievable expenditures the Federal Government makes.
  And finally, the Senator from Colorado is going to offer an 
amendment, which I certainly intend to support, to require at least 50 
percent of this money to be granted out on a competitive basis.
  We have $35 million here, 65 percent of which is going to be handed 
to those 4 core grantees with no questions asked. What other program 
enjoys that luxury? To promote democracy, this bill gives $35 million 
to the National Endowment for Democracy. We spend $13 billion on 
foreign aid to promote democracy, about $700 million of which is in the 
Agency for International Development. We have the U.S. Information 
Agency. We have Radio Marti. We are spending billions and billions 
trying to develop democracy around the world without a lot of success, 
but here we have to come with $35 million more going to labor, the 
Chamber of Commerce and the two political parties. Sheer nonsense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 2359 offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 
Dorgan]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] and 
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] are necessarily absent.
  Mr SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Helms
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mathews
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roth
     Sasser
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wallop
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boren
     Durenberger
     Gramm
     Metzenbaum
  So the amendment (No. 2359) was rejected.
  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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2358) was withdrawn.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are trying to move along. The Senator 
from New Hampshire has a motion to recommit. I think that is next. He 
has been waiting on the floor, but is not here now.
  While the Senator from New Hampshire is coming, we have a long list 
of amendments. I thank the colleagues because we have not really had to 
have any quorum calls. We will have, of course, the Dole-Hutchison 
amendment on incarcerated aliens. We have the Baucus amendment. We have 
the Gregg amendment and, of course, we have the motion to recommit of 
the Senator from New Hampshire. I understand there are also a couple of 
Helms amendments, a Dole amendment on racial justice, and another 
Senator Brown amendment on the National Endowment for Democracy. So we 
are moving them in as best we can. While we await the Senator from New 
Hampshire, 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. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have a statement that I would like to 
make on the bill itself.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we need that 
statement on the bill itself because pending is the motion to recommit. 
Anything the Senator can say in behalf of the measure itself we will 
appreciate.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I 
will speak against the motion to recommit and will speak in favor of 
this bill and hope that my colleagues will join me in committing 
ourselves to this piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, came to me, I believe a couple days ago, 
and said essentially, ``This is the crime bill.'' I mean, this is where 
we have the opportunity to put our money where our mouths are. This is 
an opportunity for us to stand, essentially, and be counted. Are we 
going to fight the war on crime, or are we going to simply talk about 
fighting the war on crime?
  I believe that the chairman and the ranking member have brought 
forward an extraordinary bill that provides law enforcement officers 
not only with the tools to get the job done--that is to say, the tools 
to get the criminals off the streets, the tools to make the 
prosecution, the tools to make the convictions, the tools in fact to 
build the prisons we need in order to put the bad guys away--but this 
bill also provides resources to do the preventive work.
  I will give this statement, Mr. President, but I would like to point 
out something as well.
  There has been a lot of controversy over the Brady bill. I myself 
supported the Brady bill, but I must say I did so saying at the time 
and still today that we have to prove it up. I hope we provide the 
resources so that instant check can be done, because I believe in the 
end it is a lot more cost effective and a lot more reasonable way. We 
want to make sure, in short, that this new law gets to the people who 
are violating the people, not the people who are not violating the 
people. There are a lot of people out there who are concerned that all 
that Brady is going to do is make it a nuisance for law-abiding 
citizens to purchase guns and yet it will not do much in the way of 
getting people who would use those guns in an illegal fashion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a story that appeared in 
this morning's Omaha World Herald be printed in the Record at this 
time.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Brady Bill Indictment State's First--Penalties Stiffened for Firearms 
                                 Theft

                            (By Joy Powell)

       In Nebraska's first prosecution under new federal gun 
     legislation known as the Brady Bill, a federal grand jury 
     indicted six men in connection with stealing guns from 
     federally licensed firearms dealers, U.S. Attorney Tom 
     Monaghan said Thursday.
       Monaghan said he will use a provision in the Brady Bill to 
     help fight the rising rate of violent crime in Nebraska.
       ``The weapons play a significant role in that,'' Monaghan 
     said. ``So we want to take a strong prosecutorial attitude in 
     terms of violent crime, areas that U.S. attorneys have not 
     gotten into much before.''
       The federal prosecution is aimed at people who steal guns 
     intending to sell them to other people. The new statute is 
     one attempt to get guns off the streets, Monaghan said.
       Stealing guns from firearms dealers is now a federal 
     offense under a provision of the 8-month-old Brady Bill. 
     Until these indictments Wednesday, gun shop burglaries were 
     prosecuted under state laws in Nebraska.
       Federal sentencing guidelines and penalties typically are 
     stronger than state sentences, Monaghan said.
       Under the Brady Bill provision, the offense of taking guns 
     from a licensed firearms dealer is punishable by up to 10 
     years in prison, a fine up to $250,000 or both.
       ``There is no parole,'' Monaghan said of federal sentences, 
     ``so whatever time they are going to get, they'll serve.''
       President Clinton signed the law Nov. 30. It institutes a 
     waiting period of five business days for all handgun 
     purchases as well as time to check the buyer's background. 
     Nebraska law already provided a waiting period and background 
     check, so Nebraska was exempt from those provisions.
       The provision making it a federal crime to steal guns from 
     licensed dealers, however, would make a difference in 
     prosecution in Nebraska.
       ``It covers anything from a theft to a flat-out robbery to 
     a night-time burglary,'' said Michael Norris, an assistant 
     U.S. attorney who is prosecuting the gun cases under the new 
     law.
       A grand jury Wednesday indicted four Omaha men in 
     connection with one gun shop burglary and two other men in 
     connection with a separate investigation.
       The Omaha case involved the burglary of P.J.'s Jewelry and 
     Loan Inc., 4860 S. 137th St., on Jan. 26. The Omaha Police 
     Department and Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms investigated the burglary, in which 16 of 23 stolen 
     guns were recovered.
       Four Omahans in their late teens and early 20s were 
     indicted on two counts each of suspicion of taking guns and 
     conspiring to take guns. They are Kerry P. Conner of 13828 W. 
     Circle; Gary T. Hughes of 14121 Margo St.; and Eric R. Cox, 
     and Jamie D. Jones, both of 4873 Marshall Drive.
       In the second, unrelated investigation, the grand jury on 
     Wednesday returned an indictment charging two men with the 
     July 11 burglary of Old West Guns in Kearney.
       Kaneung Southivongnorath, 20, of Fort Smith, Ark., and 
     Singto Poukhouanc, 21, of Nashville, Tenn., were indicted on 
     suspicion of stealing the guns and conspiring to do so.
       Poukhouane also is charged with the May 13 burglary and 
     removal of guns from Wolfe's Cycle, a federally licensed 
     firearms dealer in Hastings.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the story is a story about a Federal grand 
jury bringing an indictment on a number of individuals, and the U.S. 
attorney in this case is using the new law in this case, the so-called 
Brady law, to bring the indictment. These individuals will be 
prosecuted under the new law that we passed.
  This is a situation where individuals have acquired guns illegally. 
These are the criminals, the alleged criminals, the charged criminals. 
It is a case where we are using this new law to make our community 
safer. It is a piece of evidence, Mr. President, that the legislation 
in fact is working.
  For those, and there are many in Nebraska, who asked me, Is this 
thing going to work? Is it going to be effective? Is it just a figleaf 
that you politicians have put over yourselves to provide some cover? Or 
is it in fact something that is going to get the job done? It is a 
piece of evidence, by no means all the evidence, but a piece of 
evidence that we are making progress.
  Mr. President, Nebraskans, like most Americans, are increasingly very 
anxious about crime. A majority of us are old enough to remember when 
the playgrounds were safe for playing, when the schools were safe for 
learning, and when the streets were safe for strolling. Too often today 
that sense of safety in one's own neighborhood is evaporating, and for 
many it is already gone. Our grip on the basic right to feel safe in 
our own home and neighborhood is weakening. Today, with this piece of 
legislation, we are taking action to restore it.
  Because crime is a community problem, I believe we must look for 
solutions in our communities as well. When Congress first began to 
formulate the crime bill, many of whose provisions, as I said, are 
found in the bill before us today, I went to these communities, to 
their citizens, to their leaders and to their law enforcement officials 
simply to ask them what could we do to help. We are taking up a piece 
of legislation. We are going to authorize changes in the law. We 
appropriate the money. But you tell me. I will be the one elected 
politician, elected representative.
  People will ask me: ``Senator, what are you doing?'' I would like to 
be able to say what I am doing is trying to help local communities 
solve their problems on their own.
  Mr. President, our community leaders, as you know well, have 
creative, innovative ideas for fighting crime, but they need our help. 
They need a reliable Federal partner, a partner that helps them 
implement their own plan. This bill, Mr. President, gives them the 
partner they need.
  Because this bill is only an appropriations measure, it solves only 
part of the problem, but a very big part of the problem. While crime is 
not going to be stopped by money alone, at least at some point we have 
to put our money where our mouths are.
  Let me discuss a few ways in which Nebraskans plan to fight crime 
with the help that is contained in this piece of legislation.
  First, Mr. President, the city of Lincoln received a $1.1 million 
Federal grant to put 15 new police officers on the street to extend the 
city's community policing program. Mr. President, it seems like a small 
number, I assume, to many of my colleagues who represent States with 
large metropolitan areas, but 15 new officers in Lincoln, NB, makes a 
big difference. It translates into a lot more safety for each citizen 
of the city of Lincoln.
  While that grant marked important progress, it must also be pointed 
out that another 15 Nebraska communities that applied for community-
policing funding were turned away due to a lack of funds. To those 
individuals, we are not able to provide a Federal partner. To those 
communities this bill falls far short of what they need.
  Many will come to the floor, and, indeed, the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire is asking that money be stripped away. But in this 
particular case for community policing there are 15 communities in 
Nebraska who have plans who are ready to go. I guarantee that all and 
every one of these individuals are conservative, red-blooded Americans 
who are concerned about their tax dollars. They want to make sure their 
tax dollars are being well spent. And their requests for funding are 
being denied.
  This bill provides, as well, the means for us to put another 100,000 
policemen on the beat across our country in communities everywhere.
  At the same time we put more cops on the street, we must give them 
the means to take more criminals off the street. This bill declares 
that our communities need our help to implement the tough anticrime 
measures they have crafted. It contains $175 million to help build and 
expand prisons so that criminals can be put away where they can no 
longer threaten our neighborhoods. It contains $25 million to implement 
a violent crime task force initiative that will see that the FBI, the 
DEA, and the ATF work with local authorities to fight violent crime. 
The bill provides another $171 million above the budget request of the 
President to replenish the ranks of overburdened and overstretched 
Federal law enforcement officials.
  Citizens across Nebraska are also alarmed, and saddened, by the 
shocking rate of increase in juvenile crime in our State. While the 
total numbers of arrests in our State have actually declined in 1993 
and 1994, arrests of juveniles for violent crimes have increased by 10 
percent. Nineteen percent more kids were arrested for robbery, 10 
percent more for weapons violations, and other 21 percent more for drug 
crimes. From 1982 to 1992, arrests of our children for felony assaults 
skyrocketed a staggering 121 percent, while arrests of adults for the 
same crimes increased just 40 percent.
  In Omaha, car thefts have risen from 1,000 in 1988 to 6,000 in 1994.
  Increasingly, our citizens are not only afraid for their children, 
Mr. President; increasingly, we are finding ourselves afraid of them, 
as well.
  Communities across Nebraska have crafted initiatives to help prevent 
violence before it happens and punish it when it does, but they cannot 
implement them without resources. This bill provides much-needed 
funding.
  For example, the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program, which was cut 
in the President's initiative, provides States with formula grants to 
use as they see best to fight crime. The program recognizes that 
citizens at the community level know best how to use Federal resources 
to fight crime. Last year, Byrne program dollars provided Omaha with 
the Bigs in Blue Program, a project that provides youth with mentors 
from law enforcement.
  In Lincoln, it provided the funds for a program under which inmates 
tell kids firsthand the perils of crossing the law. Across Nebraska, it 
funds multijurisdictional task forces that fight drugs. The 
administration budget had targeted the formula grant program for 
elimination, but the committee wisely--and I thank sincerely the 
chairman and the ranking member, the distinguished Senators from South 
Carolina and New Mexico. They recognized the importance of this program 
and restored its funding at $423 million.

  Mr. President, again I point out, I have gone to community leaders 
and to law enforcement leaders in the State of Nebraska and this 
program leads the list. These are conservative individuals. These are 
not individuals that have a desire to waste money. These are 
individuals that know they have to get results. They are willing to 
hold themselves accountable. They are out there on the front lines. 
They not only have ideas, Mr. President, but they have courage to get 
the job done and the Edward Byrne Grant Program gets that done.
  Again I say to the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from South 
Carolina, I appreciate your response essentially to community leaders 
all across this country, to law enforcement officials all across this 
country, to making sure this funding was restored.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERREY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator for the 
analysis he made of the bill and the indication that he has given here 
to the Senate about what this bill really does. I thank you for your 
kind words.
  On the Byrne grants, is it not true, in addition to keeping the 
program, we added $65 million over last year's funding level, which 
sets this up as a very high-priority program, because the local law 
enforcement people really use it. It is their program money. It is that 
kind of thing that is right there at the grassroots.
  So you support the $65 million new funding for this program as we put 
it in this bill?
  Mr. KERREY. I absolutely do, Mr. President, in answering the question 
of the Senator from New Mexico directly.
  I appreciate that budget times are tough. I appreciate that we are 
being squeezed, in my judgment, as a consequence of rapid growth in 
entitlement programs. But this committee was able to provide $65 
million more. And I daresay that I suspect that my friend from New 
Hampshire, even though he is trying to recommit this bill, I suspect 
this is a program that works very well in New Hampshire, as well.
  It is not one that even the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
is likely to be criticizing. It is one that, in fact, has met the tests 
of citizens who are concerned about how their money is being spent, who 
are increasingly being critical of those expenditures, who are asking 
us for results. They want to know not just that we are putting out a 
press release. They want to know, are we putting out the fire of crime 
that is lapping up around almost every single community in our State.
  This year, Nebraska plans to use Byrne funds to fight, in particular, 
juvenile crime. The funding in this bill means that many of Nebraska's 
ideas about youth violence can be converted into Nebraska's initiatives 
against youth violence.
  The bill will help fight youth violence in another critical way. Many 
of the children committing crimes on our streets and threatening our 
neighborhoods--or being threatened themselves, it must be said, in 
fairness--are doing so because they leave school and enter an 
unsupervised world in which they lack controls, role models and 
structure. The Community Schools Program, funded in this bill at $40 
million, helps schools and communities in Nebraska and across the 
Nation provide kids a haven from the streets after schools.
  Rather than let them roam the streets to commit crimes or fall victim 
to them, communities under this bill will be empowered to provide 
supervised academic, sports and other programs for our kids after 
school.
  The problem of youth violence is particularly potent in Omaha. Many 
of the relatively quiet streets that we once knew are now roamed by 
gangs of youth armed to the teeth with weapons and lacking the values 
that prevent the rest of us from using them. One group of dedicated 
citizens is helping to make a difference.
  And I pointed them out, Mr. President. They have recently received 
substantial funding from the private sector. This bill will help them 
more. It is an organization called the North Omaha Bears. It is an 
academic and athletic program that is targeted at youth at risk of 
committing crimes.
  Again, it is the sort of thing that, if you bring a flashlight to it, 
if you drag it out here on the floor of the Senate, every single one of 
us would say we are getting our money's worth.
  Here is something you do not need to hire academics to come in and 
study. You do not need to have people come in and poke around and prod 
around, Mr. President. You can look at it.
  There are 200 children--and I will say with certainty that unless 
this program is operating, were it not for the heroes that are 
extending themselves to these young people, there is no question a very 
high percentage of these kids would end up not only in trouble with the 
law but probably, in fact, indeed likely, causing us a considerable 
amount of money to incarcerate, as well.
  Mr. President, we cannot put a price on the life of a child. But if 
we could, I believe we would find that the investments that we are 
making, the expenditures we are making in this bill, not top down 
expenditures but bottom up expenditures, are expenditures driven by the 
needs, the dreams, the desires, and aspirations of the local community.
  Mr. President, I believe that Members should be proud of this 
appropriations bill. The Senator from South Carolina and the Senator 
from New Mexico have produced a piece of legislation that have 
Republicans and Democrats alike saying, ``Finally, we are able to stand 
with pride and say to community leaders, we are responding to your 
desires. You told us of the problem. You asked us to do something. Now 
we have something more to offer than merely the paper of press 
releases.''
  Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I was given a packet of letters from a 
gentleman who runs a program called the Chicano Awareness Center in 
Omaha.
  These young children had sent letters actually to the President of 
the United States. The individual who ran the program asked me if I 
would read them and respond to the letters. I wrote handwritten notes 
to each of these children that had written in. These are 9-, 10-year-
old children in south Omaha. And I suspect that every single Member of 
this body has a similar kind of event to describe.
  Well, Mr. President, these children would say to me, ``Senator, what 
are you going to do? We are afraid to go out on the street.'' These are 
9-year-olds that say, ``I had a friend that was killed last week.'' 
These are 10-year-olds who say they are afraid to sleep in their bed. 
They prefer to sleep on the floor. These are children that are 
concerned in Omaha, NE, about walking home from school after school is 
out.
  Every single one of these letters said, ``Please do something.''
  I have to tell you that after reading the letters--I put the letters 
down after I had answered them--in my own heart, I said I do not know 
what I can do to help. I have been in elected politics for 9 years now 
and I have heard my own words over and over, talking about the problems 
of crime. And I wonder sometimes whether or not those words have been 
translated into action.
  Mr. President, this bill translates words into action. This bill 
gives every single Member of this body the opportunity to go and talk 
to a 9- or a 10-year-old child in their community and say, ``We have 
given your law enforcement officers the resources to make your streets 
safe.'' We are not going to tolerate violent criminals, drug pushers, 
preying upon you, whether that violent criminal is 16 years old or 36 
years old. We have given your law enforcement officials and we have 
given your U.S. attorney, and we have given your local people the 
resources they need to make your streets safe. In addition, we can say 
with confidence, we are providing community leaders with the resources 
they need to prevent crime from happening in the first place.

  Again, I am proud of the work that has been done by the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Mexico and I urge 
my colleagues, in as expeditious a fashion as possible, to enact this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Motion To Recommit

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Roth, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the motion for the 
information of the Senate.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], on behalf of 
     himself and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], moves to 
     recommit H.R. 4603 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions to report the bill to the Senate, within 3 days 
     (not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session), 
     with an amendment reducing the total appropriation therein to 
     a sum not greater than its Fiscal Year 1994 level; provided, 
     however, that such reduction in the total appropriation shall 
     be achieved only from agencies funded under Titles II through 
     VII of the bill.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. SMITH. Certainly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are trying to get time agreements where we can. I 
have spoken to the two Senators who are cosponsors of this and I 
believe they are agreeable to 20 minutes on a side, with Senator Smith 
being in control of the time of the proponents and Senator Hollings 
being in control of the opposition. I so put that unanimous-consent 
request to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, first of all I thank my colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Roth, who has been such a leader in the fight for 
deficit reduction and debt reduction in the Congress. Unfortunately, we 
lose most of these battles, which is why the debt keeps going up and 
the deficit is not improving very much either. But he has been a leader 
in his advice and counsel, not only on this motion but on other 
matters. He is very much valued and I welcome his support on this 
motion.
  I also say to my friend from Nebraska, who spoke so eloquently a few 
moments ago about the need for some of the crime provisions in this 
bill, I agree with him 100 percent. Which is why Senator Roth and I 
have exempted title I of the bill in the motion to recommit. We are not 
taking any of this money that we are trying to take out of this 
legislation out of that section at all. The crime prevention, 
immigration, the prison construction--it is all there. We do not take a 
nickel of that. We exempt that. So I appreciate the statement of the 
Senator from Nebraska which, frankly, supports what we are trying to do 
rather than opposes it, ironically.
  But what this motion does, very simply, is to send the bill back, to 
recommit it, to come back in at last year's levels. That is all it 
does. And it exempts title I of the bill.
  So I have been down here on the floor now, this is the fourth time on 
the fourth different appropriations bill that has been over budget, 
offering a motion to recommit it back to committee to come out with the 
same amount of money we spent last year. The first three times we have 
done that I have lost. I expect to lose again.
  I feel a bit like the swimmer out in the river who gets in trouble 
and needs help and flails wildly with his arms, trying to get 
somebody's attention on the shore for help before he or she goes under 
the second or third time and then never comes up. That is what we are 
doing now. Swimming in red ink, we flail and make noise and try to get 
somebody's attention but nobody listens. Everybody ignores us. And 
sooner or later America will sink under the water, under the sea of red 
ink, just as that swimmer would if no one could help.
  But I will again make another attempt, along with the support of my 
colleague from Delaware. Let me point out here is the bill. I will not 
take much time.
  Last year it was, fiscal 1994, $23,665,631,000. This year as reported 
out from the Senate, $27,817,141,000, for a net increase of 
$4,161,510,000. Here we go again.
  You will hear all these eloquent reasons why we should not cut a 
nickel of this. It is all needed. It is just what we said on every one 
of these appropriations bills. We cannot possibly cut a dime. We never 
can, which is why the debt keeps growing. It is now $4.5 trillion. We 
are going to add another $4 billion on this vote. And we are not going 
to cripple the crime fighting because Senator Roth and I have exempted 
that.
  But we, again, if we get 30 votes we will be very fortunate. I 
realize that. But somebody has to get the information out there. 
Somebody has to try to get the attention of our colleagues to what we 
are doing to America and what we are doing to the future of our kids.
  Let me give the numbers. I had a motion to recommit on the 
legislative appropriations bill. It was $91 million over last year and 
we lost on a voice vote.
  I came up with the Treasury, Postal bill, that was $1 billion over 
budget, and we lost. I think I got 38 votes on that one.
  We came to the transportation bill, $740 million over budget of last 
year. We lost on that. We got 28 votes yesterday.
  Today, Commerce, Justice, State, $4.1 billion over budget and we will 
lose again today. And when you add it up just on these four 
appropriations bills--four--it is $6 billion over last year.
  We are going to hear all these eloquent statements in the future, 
perhaps from some of the people--definitely from some of the people who 
vote for these--about how we have to reduce the deficits. Reduce the 
debt. We cannot let America continue on this track. But when push comes 
to shove and it comes down to cut, nobody does it. We could not 
possibly do without this $4 billion.
  The interesting thing, I pointed it out on all three of the other 
votes, this is borrowed money. This is not $4 billion sitting up there. 
The whole bill is $27 billion. This is $4 billion over--$4.1. This is 
not sitting up there in a fund somewhere so we just reach out and spend 
it. This is borrowed money. We are borrowing it and we are borrowing at 
approximately 7.5 percent. If we take 7.5 percent of just this $4.1 
billion we are going to add $307 million in interest on the increase--
not on the whole bill. We are borrowing that money, too. Just the 
increase, $307 million.
  Let us do the math a little further. Let us add all those: $91 
million, $1 billion, $740 million, and $4.1 billion and you come up 
with $6 billion; and 7.5 percent of $6 billion is $450 million.
  One of our former colleagues, Everett Dirksen, would say: A million 
here and million there, sooner or later you get real money. We amended 
that to a billion here and a billion there. Now it is a trillion here 
and a trillion there--I do not even know what comes after trillion. 
That is where we are headed. We are headed for economic ruin. That is 
where we are headed and nobody--nobody will come up here. We need 51 
votes to stop this insanity. We do not have them. I know it, but that 
does not mean, as I pointed out yesterday, that we cannot point out it 
is wrong.
  I am going to continue to do it, day in and day out. I am going to 
stand here on the floor of the Senate and tell the American people and 
my colleagues how much we are spending every time we overspend one of 
these appropriations bills. If we cannot stop an appropriations bill 
that is anywhere from $91 million to $4 billion over budget, how are we 
going to reform entitlements? That is the biggest joke I have heard 
around here. ``We are going to do some entitlement reform.'' 
Entitlement reform? You have to be kidding me. Who is going to reform 
entitlements if you cannot even cut $91 million out of the legislative 
appropriations that we use to fund ourselves around here? You must be 
kidding.
  Again, that is the scorecard. That is the bad news. Unfortunately, 
there is not any good news. I hope at some point in time before America 
goes down the economic drain we will find some way to bring ourselves 
to some fiscal sanity in this place. I know when the opposition speaks, 
you will hear it--everything is worthwhile. We are going to ruin 
everything. We would probably decimate the entire U.S. Government if we 
do not pass this bill. I will hear that I am irresponsible.
  Let me tell my colleagues when the clock keeps ticking and those 
people who receive those entitlements in the future, our grandchildren, 
when they do not have anything, somebody is going to stand up and say: 
Where were you guys? Where were you 20, 30, 40 years ago when you 
bankrupted America? I am going to be able to look my grandchildren in 
the eye and tell them where I was. I was on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate trying to exercise some fiscal restraint.

  At this point, I yield whatever time remains of the 20 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire. Just let me say, there is 
one bit of good news, and that good news is that there are leaders like 
Senator Smith, who are willing to take what many consider an unpopular 
position. I thank him for his strong interest and what he is trying to 
do in this area of budget responsibility.
  I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of the amendment to recommit the 
Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill to committee with 
instructions to return all programs to their 1994 enacted levels, 
except for title I, the critical funding contained in the bill for all 
crime programs.
  This pending bill is over 17 percent higher than the fiscal 1994 
levels. All non-crime-related increases are 9 percent higher than the 
1994 levels, or $1.3 billion. These non-crime-related increases are 
unacceptable to this Senator. I agree that it is essential to fully 
fund the Senate-passed crime bill. However, Senators should not be 
forced to accept these dramatic increases in the Commerce Department, 
16.8 percent over this year's level. Let me repeat, it is 16.8 percent 
over this year's level, and that is an increase of $609 million. The 
Federal Judiciary, 8.1 percent over this year's level, or a $222 
million increase. The State Department, 4.6 percent over this year's 
level, or a $185 million increase.
  The amendment recognizes that crime is an area of specific concern 
where increases in funding are, indeed, justified. The American people 
are concerned about crime, and legitimately so. In my home State of 
Delaware, violent crime has increased 55 percent from 1983 to 1992. 
Forceable rape was up 158 percent. Delawareans want tough action, not 
just tough talk, about crime, and the pending legislation does take 
some good steps in that direction.
  The bill includes, for example, $299 million for initiatives to 
protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. I can tell you, 
based on hearings I conducted last year in the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations, the criminal aliens are contributing substantially 
to our overall crime problem. We certainly need to fix the system to 
ensure that criminal aliens are promptly deported and that they do not 
come back.
  My investigation found that only about 4 percent of the deportable 
criminal aliens in this country last year were actually deported. 
Investigating, prosecuting, and incarcerating criminal aliens cost the 
American taxpayers at least $750 million each year. We have enough of 
our own criminals. We do not need to import more.
  It is, of course, true that crime, especially violent crime, is 
primarily the responsibility of State and local officials. But at the 
Federal level, we can and should provide assistance where we can for 
community policing, drug courts and State correctional grants.
  Mr. President, the Smith-Roth amendment allows for the first critical 
funding installment for the crime bill and highlights the need to set 
priorities and restrain funding in other areas.
  I, therefore, urge the adoption of this amendment and yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire, not on his particular amendment but on his 
election. I went up to New Hampshire and talked about a budget freeze. 
That is what the Senator from New Hampshire is talking about. He is 
just saying, take next year what you have this year. I tried that on, 
and roamed up and down at my expense for months on end. I had a 
delightful time, incidentally.
  I talked about a budget freeze, and one of the opponents was talking 
about a nuclear freeze. And he won out. I told him, of course, down 
home they thought a nuclear freeze was a dessert.
  But, in any event, I know the feeling that the distinguished Senator 
has. I have tried various initiatives, in addition to trying to cut, as 
we have to do, and hold up on the space station, and we all know about 
the super collider, the Osprey and all these other particular pieces of 
weaponry. I voted against the National Service Program. Everybody was 
in heat about voluntarism. You cannot start these new super-duper 
spending programs. I helped initiate the Peace Corps. I know about 
voluntarism, but I conscientiously voted against that particular bill 
because I knew this was another unfunded initiative. And, on target, 
here is another unfunded mandate, namely health care.
  I went to the President last February with a value-added tax, and we 
have introduced a value-added tax to pay the bill of health costs, the 
deficit, and the debt.
  I only say that because these statements are not eloquent, they are 
just factual. I feel just as keenly as he does, and I hope that our 
colleagues will realize the sincerity of my comments.
  Listening to him in round figures, of course, he talks about a $4 
billion increase. Three of it is what he has exempted, namely the 
Department of Justice. He did not exempt judiciary. You do not have 
120,000 prisoners tried, probation officers, courts to try them in, and 
everything else of that kind at the judiciary--that is $222 million; $1 
billion left.
  I am certain the Senator does not want to cut that out because he 
felt very sensitive, and I agree with him, on this being a crime bill.
  You can go to the disaster loans and pick up another 500 million of 
that $1 billion and go right on down. Everybody agrees that we cannot 
control disaster--earthquakes on the west coast, floods in the Midwest 
or Southeast. So we have the disaster loans taken care of.
  Yes, there is the Department of State. The Department of State is our 
front line of defense. With the fall of the Wall, we have many programs 
now aimed at democratizing former Communist countries. We are trying to 
get free elections in places around the world.
  Right in the midst of it, my budget, when I look at it, is cut 10 
percent by devaluation of the dollar abroad. I have only been able to 
give an increase--it is an increase--but it does not amount to a net 
increase, it amounts to a net cut. That is when I think of persons like 
the distinguished Barbara Shale, the Foreign Service officer, when she 
was trying to administer the program out there with the Kurds; when I 
think of the Ambassador David Dow, with only 9 people to administer 121 
others that had been superimposed on him to administer from Agriculture 
and the IRS and the Federal Aviation Administration--a veritable 
disease at our foreign Embassies that are trying to get by without 
additional money. It looks like the State Department, and no one wants 
to support it. We have to; we should. Those increases in there are well 
conceived.
  We have new initiatives in there with respect to Radio Free Asia and 
Radio Free Europe. I saw Lech Walesa when he visited the United States 
and he was asked about the value of Radio Free Europe. He said: ``What 
is the world without a Sun?'' It worked. We will get into that with 
respect to Radio and TV Marti later on.
  Now we are trying to communicate in Haiti with a plane flying around 
with a radio broadcast into Haiti.
  Otherwise, we are trying to institute the Radio Free Asia, which has 
been so successful in the fall of the Wall.
  We can go to the defense conversion funds in Commerce, not just the 
weather. They put in Nexrad, a modernized Doppler radar against wind 
shear in Houston yesterday where they are about a month late from my 
particular backyard, Charlotte, NC, where 376 of them got killed from 
one city in South Carolina, Columbia, on account of wind shear. These 
things cost, and we put them in, and they should be financed and they 
should be paid for.
  And, yes, I go along with a lot of these cuts, and I go along with 
withholding. And, yes, I had a conference yesterday with the 
distinguished President. And I said, Mr. President, when you get the 
money, for whatever suggestion, whether it is overall, super-duper 
health reform with 100 percent coverage or portability, previous 
conditions, catastrophic illness and some cost containment, I am going 
to be looking at that bottom line. And if it is paid for, then I am 
going to look at it a second time and may support it. But unless I look 
at the bottom line, the first step, and find out it is paid for, it is 
out of the window, no matter how much--because I am not going to take a 
government that is suffering under the auspices of unfunded mandates 
and say the solution to the problem is another unfunded super-duper 
mandate.
  So that is the way I stand with respect to spending, and I stand with 
the Senator from New Hampshire on that score.
  But this is the wrong approach. We worked on these things. We did not 
come around and just cut and everything else. We denied; we cut. 
Senator Domenici and I worked around the clock. We worked with the 
staff. We had a 602(b) allocation, $1/2 billion less than what the 
President had assigned us. We got a budget with no appropriation for 
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The President had red lined 
Byrne grants.
  We could get into all of those things. The distinguished Senator has 
exempted the Byrne grants, but all these others are in a similar 
situation, and they were not casually included. I can tell you that the 
amendment should be defeated. When you look at the initiatives--defense 
conversion, they had a 14-member Republican task force on defense 
conversion. Now, we have fleshed that out in Appropriations just 
exactly how they said--and under Senator Pryor, the Democratic defense 
conversion task force. I look at my backyard where they have cut out 
some 20,000 jobs; they closed the navy yard; they closed the naval 
base.
  And there are two ways to go at that particular problem, Mr. 
President. You can put them all under welfare and let us pick it up 
under the unfunded mandate, or you can put in some initiatives for 
economic development and conversion so that they can become productive. 
The workers themselves are productive, but the installation has got to 
become productive. And so we put some money in here on defense 
conversion under EDA and some of the other programs. I can go down all 
of these particular programs. It is not the case that since we have 
increased it, we cut out the increase and let them go on welfare and 
let some other committee pick them up. I do not think the Senator from 
New Hampshire wants that done.
  I hope his motion will be defeated. I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and a half minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I do not intend to use all of that time 
unless Senator Roth might be interested.
  I would just say to my friend from South Carolina we have now had 
nine appropriations bills. This is the ninth one, I believe. Some of 
them were under last year or equal to. This is one of those that is 
over.
  The Senator said that my approach is the wrong approach. The national 
debt is now $4.5 trillion. We have added $6 billion with just these 
four bills--$2 billion of it is out of this bill.
  What is the right approach? If we are not willing to look at cutting, 
or at least freezing, the appropriations bills that come down before 
us, that is the only--that is the discretionary spending. We have a 
commission now set up to look at entitlements, as I indicated in my 
remarks. I do not know how anybody would want to deal with that, if 
they are not willing to deal with a very few billion dollars here on 13 
appropriations bills. I just do not know what the right approach is.
  The Senator mentioned walking the streets of New Hampshire, the 
communities of New Hampshire, when he ran for President, and people did 
not know--I think the implication was they did not support the Senator 
because he was talking about a budget freeze. I walked those same 
streets in those same towns and supported a budget freeze and got 65 
percent of the votes. So maybe it was just the communicator. I am not 
sure.
  But I think people in New Hampshire and people across America want 
the budget balanced. And I realize that there are worthwhile programs 
here, which is why Senator Roth and I exempted the crime portion, the 
justice portion. But I think, also, as the Senator well knows better 
than I do, in the Appropriations Committee that is the job, to shift 
moneys around, to prioritize certain things, and if crime becomes a 
priority, then make some adjustments somewhere else. That is the job of 
the appropriators. And, frankly, to the consternation of many of us in 
the authorizing committees, you do it frequently and sometimes we do 
not like the priorities. But somebody has to prioritize.
  My only point is it would be great if we as Senators could sit down 
in a room and make one very basic premise, which we have never done, 
and that is that we are willing to balance the budget. Let us just make 
that decision. Then we will fight about what we do to balance it. And I 
may lose on some things that I would like to see remain, but so be it. 
We will balance the budget.
  But we have not made that decision. We defeated a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget in the Chamber of this Senate earlier 
this year by 3 or 4 votes because, the reason was given, well, we can 
do it; we do not need an amendment to do it. Well, here is an 
opportunity to take $4 billion, and we are not cutting a nickel. We are 
going back to last year's level, that is all. We cannot even do that. 
So I think the point is made.
  Mr. President, I am going to yield back the remainder of my time, but 
before doing that I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire, that is why I congratulated him, because he did get 65 
percent of the vote. I carried Dixville Notch, but I did not carry the 
Manchester Leader. The Senator probably had her support.
  I do admit to a communications difficulty. I remember up there when 
``E.F. Hollings'' spoke, nobody listened. I knocked on a door up in 
Massachusetts--I never will forget it--in Woosta. I kept calling it 
``Warchester.'' And the lady said, ``Who are you?'' I said, ``Fritz 
Hollings.'' She thought it was a German trucking company.
  But in any event, the Senator is probably right; it was a 
communications problem.
  But there is not a right approach or a wrong approach. It is every 
approach. The Senator and I have used freezes. I used Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings until they repealed that here at 1 o'clock in the morning. I 
raised a point of order on it. And that is when we started going up to 
$400 billion. And actually we are now at a $4.7 trillion debt. The 
annual cost is $1 billion a day except Sunday--$311 billion interest 
costs. So I call them ``interest taxes.'' And those people who pride 
themselves on not increasing taxes are doing exactly that. That is 
exactly what we are doing. We are raising $1 billion in taxes that have 
to be paid. We are putting it on future generations. But we are putting 
it on the debt, so that in turn increases again the interest cost on 
that national debt. So we have worked our way into a position of having 
to increase taxes as well as cut spending.
  You can eliminate all nine of these appropriations bills and you 
would still be in a deficit. So let us understand that. Just eliminate 
them, do not just cut them or whatever it is. So with that, you need 
not only spending cuts but you need some revenues. That is what I hope 
to do, is cut the spending and raise some revenues and start us down 
the road toward fiscal responsibility again.
  Let me yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield whatever time necessary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does Senator Hollings have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 44 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 4 minutes of that 8.
  Might I first say to the Senator from New Hampshire, my hat is off to 
the Senator and my good friend, Senator Roth, from Delaware, for all 
you try to do to reduce the deficit around here.
  I can say that the Senator does not appear to me, based on his voting 
record, 1 day to be for a lot of spending and then another day for 
cutting. I think he is very consistent, and I compliment him for that.
  First of all, I regret to tell the Senator that if this was adopted 
and we recommitted this as recommended, let me be sure that everybody 
understands what I am saying. We would not save 1 penny. Let me suggest 
why. Frankly, we saved some money when both Senators voted for the 
Exon-Grassley amendment. I assumed they both did. That took the caps 
that bind us in terms of spending, and it lowered them. The two 
Senators should have taken full credit for all those appropriated 
accounts that could no longer be funded, and I think it was $19 billion 
over 5 years. It went to conference. That was cut in half. So the two 
Senators can take credit for $12 billion in savings. Those are real 
savings because the Senate and the House cannot spend above those caps. 
So that reduced the total amount of money available to be spent, and 
there were real savings.
  But I regret to tell you that if this occurred, the money that was 
purported to be saved was not saved. It goes right back into the large 
chunk of appropriated accounts to be appropriated at a later time.
  So anybody that really thinks you get savings, the only way to do 
that is to add to this amendment caps that reduce by the amount that 
you want to save. I am not being critical. The Senators' intentions are 
absolutely forthright. But essentially it will not save any money. That 
is not all the argument.
  If you want to know how to cut the budget, you have to get started on 
the entitlements, and I think both of my friends who offered this 
amendment know that. The entitlements are still growing at a pace that 
will bankrupt the country. We will be back up to $450 billion in 
deficits, if we freeze all the domestic accounts for the next 4 or 5 
years, we will be up to a $450 billion deficit because of entitlements.
  So your question is, If this is not the right way, what is? Lower the 
caps is the right way, and have an amendment down here and vote on it, 
and lower them. Then you really save money.
  Second, get after the entitlements, and whenever we collectively 
bring some amendments to the floor, if you choose to, obviously reduce 
that entitlement spending.
  Let me make one last point. This is a crime fighting bill, and I have 
to remind Senators that $222 million of the reduction proposed comes 
from the Federal judiciary. It will be $367 million below their 
request. It seems to me that we ought to help our Federal district 
courts and circuit courts who are engaged these days in the heaviest 
dockets of criminal cases that we have ever had, and we would be 
reducing the Federal judiciary over the request by $367 million.
  I also say that, in order to fund crime in this bill, we have already 
reduced the so-called related agencies by $468 million in order to 
spend that money on crime. You will take another chunk out of that 
under this proposal.
  So again, I understand this is a consistency issue with the Senator 
from New Hampshire, and he has been joined by one who takes a back seat 
to no one on deficit cutting. But I do not believe sending it back to 
committee with these kinds of cuts is the right way to do it. I am 
sorry that I cannot be supportive.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, it is true that we 
could make the savings by lowering the caps and addressing 
entitlements; is it not also true that if we were successful in 
reducing this appropriation by $1.6 billion, if we could get those 
votes, then maybe we could keep future appropriations from spending it? 
I realize that there is always the risk that someone else will try to 
spend it. But if this Senate would just show once that it has the 
courage to take these steps, then there is a third approach.
  I ask my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say this knowing full well what the 
Senator has in mind, and the sincerity of his approach. But we have 
already in the past 3 years cut programs on the floor of the Senate 
without reducing the caps, and we have never saved a penny. Some of the 
Bumpers' amendments have passed where we have cut this program or that, 
and if you did not reduce the caps, if you look at the year, we did not 
save any money.
  So I do not believe you will ultimately save money that way.
  Mr. ROTH. Nevertheless, it is a possibility?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course, it is possible. I grant you that.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 28 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH. I yield 3 minutes and 28 seconds to Senator Lott.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Lott], is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire for yielding me this time. I rise in support of his 
amendment. I know that bill managers have a tough job, and I know they 
work hard to do a good job. In fact, they did a good job; however, this 
amendment will make a significant improvement on their efforts. It 
ensures that the reductions are real and that they occur to other than 
the crime fighting provisions of this legislation. This makes sense.
  Specifically, the motion says that any reductions in the total 
appropriation shall be achieved only from agencies funded under titles 
II through VII of the bill. So the way I read that, the Department of 
Justice, and related agencies would be exempted. I want to repeat; it 
would excluded the crime fighting portion of this bill. They would not 
be included under the motion by the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  But, even if that were not true, I mean, how many of you in this room 
think that the American people will shed tears because the bureaucracy 
within the Department of Justice does not get more money? Not very 
many. Granted, the Department of Justice may have a heavy load; 
however, the solution is to work a little harder; not spend more money.
  I know of certain instances where the case backlog could be resolved 
if the Federal judges would just come in and really go to work. Dockets 
could be cleaned up. I am not particularly impressed by the argument 
regarding workload.
  I did not intended to speak on this topic today. However, I read the 
bill and listened to the effort of the Senator from New Hampshire and 
was compelled to participate in the dialog on this bill. In my reading 
of the legislation, I found some interesting things which need to be 
highlighted and challenged. If our Government's budget is tight, why do 
I see an appropriations bill filled with spending increases for a whole 
handful of Federal agencies. For instance, the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, will get an increase of $10 million above last 
year; the National Institute of Standards and Technology will get an 
increase of $358 million over the previous year; the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], an organization that I generally 
like and support, gets a $58 million increase; and $98 million more for 
the Economic Development Administration. How about $42 million more for 
the Bureau of the Census, and we are nearly a half a decade away from 
the next census. The list goes on and on, and it is starting to add up 
to real money. The index of agencies and accounts showed that 22 either 
increased or remained constant while only 7 were reduced. The 
appropriation increased by nearly 18 percent when compared to last 
year--this is not just keeping up with inflation--this is spending 
more.
  One last thought on spending. It is just as interesting to examine 
what agencies were cut and ask why. The Small Business Administration's 
budget went down by $147 million. To me small business is 
entrepreneurial America, and it should not be short changed at the 
expense of an international agenda.
  The American people are not excited about what the State Department 
does. And yet, the State Department got an increase of $185 million 
over last year. This bill recommends $4.2 billion for the Department of 
State. I do not believe, if a vote were taken on this one item, that 
you could get 10 Senators to support this increase for the State 
Department.
  Let us pause and examine one element within the State Department 
account, and ask the simple question--what is that? The Committee for 
International Organizations and Conferences, that is a strange sounding 
name. It gets well over $1.3 billion annually. That is more than this 
administration budgeted for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the 
Small Business Administration put together. Put together. I ask you; 
are the priorities right?
  I would like to conclude on the issue I started with--crime fighting. 
We all know this bill is not about crime fighting it is about spending 
at the Department of Justice. There is no other agency in this city 
that is so over populated with tons of lawyers, who ought to be out 
doing genuine work in the private sector. Do my colleagues think we 
cannot cut its bureaucracy? We are not talking about the Federal 
workers who deal with the criminal element on a day-to-day basis, those 
making our streets and homes safer.
  I know the job of an appropriator is tough. I know the bill managers 
have made an excellent attempt in many respects, but I would like to 
see some priorities challenged and more money invested in real crime 
fighting.
  I urge adoption of the Senator's motion.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the motion 
offered by Senator Smith and others that would recommit the Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill. I must oppose this 
motion for one overriding reason--this motion would be devastating to 
my home State of Delaware. Chairman Hollings and the members of the 
Appropriations Committee have brought to the floor a tough and 
efficient bill, to recommit the bill at this late hour will have one 
result, and one result only--this bill will fall apart. Can we be sure 
that Chairman Hollings and the other members of the Appropriations 
Committee will be able to start anew with a bill that is as complete, 
particularly for my home State of Delaware? Of course not.
  The House of Representatives has already passed this bill, the Senate 
appropriations Justice Subcommittee has already passed this bill, and 
the Senate Appropriations committee has already passed this bill. And, 
I have been working with Chairman Hollings for months throughout this 
process.
  Chairman Hollings and ranking Member Senator Domenici have been most 
responsive to my efforts to fight for the citizens of Delaware. 
Chairman Hollings and Senator Domenici worked with me to adopt an 
amendment I sponsored that continues funding for Delaware's victims of 
crime. All told, I am gratified that our efforts will more than triple 
Federal crime-fighting dollars in Delaware, from $3.5 million today, to 
at least $10.9 million next year. These efforts will serve Delawareans 
who are victims of crime, particularly women victimized at the hands of 
a brutal spouse, Delaware law enforcement, Delaware's judicial system, 
and Delaware children who are at risk of falling prey to drugs and 
crime.
  Make no mistake, adopting the Smith motion will destroy the sound, 
bipartisan efforts of the appropriations committee, And I urge all my 
Senate colleagues to vote against this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire to recommit. 
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], and the Senator from Ohio 
[Mr. Metzenbaum], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Bennett
     Bradley
     Brown
     Coats
     Craig
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Lott
     McCain
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--71

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boren
     Durenberger
     Feinstein
     Gramm
     Metzenbaum
  So, the motion was rejected.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are ready to move to the Dole-
Hutchison amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Before we do that, we have one minor item here with respect to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wofford], and the Senator from Vermont. 
We are ready to accept that.
  So if I could yield the floor and they be recognized, I think we 
could move that one along and then get to the other.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2361

 (Purpose: To restore funding for Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set a side for the purpose of offering an amendment. The 
amendment that I will be offering is the Wofford amendment that is set 
forth in the unanimous-consent request. The amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICE (Mr. Kerrey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] for Mr. Wofford, 
     for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
     Moynihan, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2362.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 64, line 20, after ``realignment,'' insert ``: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated in 
     this paragraph, $10,000,000, shall be available for the trade 
     adjustment assistance program and $174,000,000 shall be 
     available for grants pursuant to Title I of the Public Works 
     and Economic Development Act of 1965 as amended''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor, along with the 
junior Senator from Pennsylvania, an amendment to restore funding for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers [TAAC's]. It is also cosponsored by 
Senators Lautenberg, Specter, Moynihan, Riegle, Danforth, Levin, 
Rockefeller, and Kohl.
  Our amendment shifts $10 million from the title I public works grant 
program under the Economic Development Administration [EDA] to fund the 
12 regional Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers at their fiscal year 
1994 level.
  Even with the shift, title I is funded at $174 million, which is $14 
million more than current funding, and $42 million more than the 
administration's request.
  Trade adjustment assistance is authorized under the Trade Act of 1974 
to help manufacturers who have lost sales and jobs to imports. Affected 
firms undergo a certification process in which they document injury 
from imports. Once certified, they become eligible for cost-shared 
technical assistance to improve their competitive position.
  Mr. President, Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers work. The 12 
regional TAAC's have assisted 454 firms in the past 5 years, helping 
these firms to reverse declining sales and job losses.
  Two years prior to entering the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, 
these firms employed 55,737 people, and had cumulative sales of $4 
billion.
  At the time of certification, their employment levels had dropped by 
14 percent, to 48,070--a loss of 7,667 jobs. Their sales had declined 
by $391 million--a 10-percent decline.
  Since receiving TAAC help, these firms have boosted sales by $804 
million--a 22-percent increase. And they have hired back 3,369 workers.
  Most important, productivity as measured by sales per employee has 
increased significantly, averaging $72,499 prior to certification and 
$86,572 since certification. Profitable firms stay open for business; 
they continue to employ people and hire new people.
  In the last 3 years alone, 59 companies employing 8,930 workers have 
received approval for technical assistance projects totaling nearly $6 
million. The Federal Government will provide 58 percent of that amount; 
the firms themselves will foot the bill for the remainder. The Federal 
Government's cost per employee for this assistance is only $380--an 
amount equal to a few weeks of unemployment compensation.
  The New England TAAC currently is providing assistance totaling 
$205,000 to 6 companies in Vermont that employ 206 workers. One of 
these companies, the Stowe Canoe and Snowshoe Co., has introduced a new 
aluminum snowshoe since receiving NETAAC assistance. It has doubled its 
work force to 30 employees and captured 30 percent of the growing metal 
snowshoe market.

  An article appearing in the February 1994 issue of Nation's Business 
magazine highlight the Stowe turnaround and other TAAC successes. I ask 
unanimous consent that the article, entitled ``Getting Help to Fight 
Back,'' appear following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Other Vermont firms helped include Moot Wood Turnings 
in Northfield Falls, Polymers, Inc. in Middlebury, Pulmac Ventures in 
Montpelier, Ski Tuner in Waitsfield, and Snow River Wood Products, 
Inc., in Brattleboro.
  Mr. President, I will close by making a few observations. First, the 
administration zeroed out funding for the TAAC's because it intends to 
revamp and consolidate all of our adjustment assistance efforts. While 
I am not necessarily adverse to such action, I think it is imperative 
that we continue to fund the TAAC's until a satisfactory replacement is 
up and running.
  Second, many argue that TAAC's only help dying industries. Two points 
there: First, look at the rebound our auto manufacturers have made. 
Trend does not have to be destiny. But also, the argument simply isn't 
true. TAAC's are providing assistance to several high-technology 
industries, including medical equipment and supplies, electronics, and 
communications.
  Third, this program delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Each project 
is heavily cost-shared; each firm has to be viable enough to invest its 
own capital. So federal funds leverage private capital.
  Finally, the program saves money. If firms regain their 
competitiveness, they don't lay off employees. The best social program, 
as we all know, is a good-paying job. And manufacturing jobs are good-
paying.
  One analysis suggests that the federal investment in trade adjustment 
assistance has a return of nearly 700 percent in terms of the Federal 
and State revenue each job saved or created generates.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the analysis appear in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. JEFFORDS. All in all, I think a $10 million Federal investment in 
keeping the 12 TAAC's operating is prudent and fiscally responsible. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to maintain our 
manufacturing base.

                               Exhibit 1

                       Getting Help To Fight Back

                          (By Robert Sullivan)

       Low-cost Canadian snowshoes threatened to drive Ed Kiniry's 
     company, Stowe Canoe and Snowshoe Co., in Stowe, Vt., out of 
     business. ``We were being undercut by inferior-quality 
     imports,'' he says. ``Canadian maple was underselling our ash 
     frames at 60 percent of our lowest price.''
       Rather than give up, Kiniry got help. He turned to a 
     federal program designed to help small manufacturers recover 
     business lost to imports. The Department of Commerce's 
     Economic Development Administration, through 12 regional 
     Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers, pays up to 75 percent of 
     the cost of consulting services needed to turn around small 
     firms adversely affected by foreign competitors. The regional 
     trade centers can deliver help in as little as 60 days after 
     a company applies.
       The New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, in 
     Boston, helped Kiniry get a $40,000 grant from the Commerce 
     Department to hire consultants. Upon their recommendation, 
     Stowe Canoe and Snowshoe developed an aluminum showshoe that 
     became an instant market hit. Since introducing the product 
     last year, the company has doubled its work force to 30 
     employees and has captured 30 percent of the growing metal-
     snowshoe market, which is projected to reach sales of $5 
     million this year.
       ``If the business needs help, we provide it directly or 
     contract with independent consultants for the expertise,'' 
     says Richard McLaughlin, director of the New England Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Center.
       Although the center covers only ``the soft costs,'' such as 
     consultants' fees, and does not pay for equipment or 
     inventory, Kiniry says the $40,000 grant made it easier for 
     his company to spend $110,000 of its own money to sell the 
     showshoe.
       Under the program, participating companies are required to 
     pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the consulting 
     services. McLaughlin says New England area companies that 
     complete the program realize an average 120 percent increase 
     in profitability, a 10 percent increase in sales, and a 5 
     percent increase in employment.
       The centers provide three levels of service: certification 
     of a company's injury from imports, consulting services to 
     prescribe a remedy, and help in implementing consultants' 
     recommendations.
       Certification is free. A company must demonstrate that 
     imports threaten its sales, production, and jobs. The center 
     handles all of the paperwork, and the program is 
     confidential. In 1993, 249 small manufacturers nationwide 
     received Trade Adjustment Assistance Center certification, 
     clearing the way for the next level of assistance.
       Once a company is certified, professionals spend two to 
     four weeks determining the firm's strengths and weaknesses. A 
     result is an ``adjustment proposal,'' which is similar to a 
     business plan. It outlines a strategy for recovery and 
     includes a grant proposal for consulting services submitted 
     to the Department of Commerce for approval. Proposal review 
     takes about two weeks.
       Last year, the Department of Commerce funded 143 adjustment 
     proposals. Congress appropriated $10 million for the program 
     in 1994, down $3.7 million from the previous year.
       Once a grant request is approved, the company and the Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Center select consultants through 
     competitive bidding.
       A $50,000 grant for trade adjustment assistance helped 
     revive Roger Leib's ailing company, Add Interior Systems 
     Inc., a Los Angeles manufacturer of upholstered institutional 
     seating. In 1990, import competition cost Leib's firm more 
     than $750,000 in potential sales, and the company lost money 
     for the first time in its 13-year history.
       With help from the Western Area Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Center, in Los Angeles, Add Interior was able to redesign its 
     production layout, install an incentive-pay system, nearly 
     triple the pace of production, increase overall quality, 
     integrate its management-information system, and enhance 
     customer responsiveness. It also streamlined its product 
     line.
       ``It was amazing how many cost and waste factors were 
     identified and changed,'' Leib says.
       He says sales have climbed 100 percent since he implemented 
     the center's recommendations. Employment has risen to 73 from 
     52.
       ``During the past few years, our return on investment of 
     federal funds has been 320 percent,'' says Dan Jimenez, 
     director of the Western Area center. ``Fiscally, socially, 
     and practically, this program works.''
       For more information or to obtain the address and phone 
     number of the center nearest you, call the Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce in 
     Washington, D.C., at (202) 482-3373.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

       Return on investment--Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers

Investment per job:
    Funding, Federal fiscal year 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, \2\$54,200,000
    Total jobs impacted:\3\......................................51,439
    Investment per job........................................$1,053.67
Economic impact per job:
    Income, average manufacturing job...........................$25,000
    Federal, State revenue on manufacturing job @ 22%.............5,500
    Income, multiplier jobs\4\....................................8,000
    Federal, State revenue on multiplier jobs.....................1,760
    Annual Federal and State Revenue, per manufacturing job\5\....7,260
Return on investment............................................689.02%

\1\Funding covers 60 months of federal fiscal years 1989-1993, and 
includes only federal government expenditures.
\2\Includes the administrative costs of the Department of Commerce, as 
well as the funding for the 12 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers.
\3\Jobs impacted are those jobs retained and generated at firms 
completing at least one assistance project by September 30, 1993. It 
does not include the impact of assistance at firms that entered the 
program since mid-1993.
\4\Multiplier jobs are those generated in providing the goods and 
services required by the employed manufacturing workers. Although often 
estimated at 2 or 2.5 for the purposes of this analysis a very 
conservative multiplier of 0.5 was used. Service job revenue is 
calculated at an average hourly rate of $8, annual income of $16,000, 
multiplier income per manufacturing job is $16,000 x 0.5.
\5\)Annual revenue per job disregards local income or property tax 
revenue.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords and other 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for joining in supporting this 
effort to help our country's small- and medium-sized manufacturers 
compete with increasing imports. And I thank Senator Hollings for his 
help.
  The rules of international trade are changing dramatically. U.S. 
companies face increasing international competition for even their 
traditional markets here at home. Although these changes can lead to 
benefits in the long run, they will only be realized if firms and 
workers have the tools to adjust to a rapidly changing world.
  The trade adjustment assistance centers funded by the Economic 
Development Administration have a record of success in helping these 
firms across the country.
  For example, the center in Pennsylvania has helped companies in a 
variety of industries, including apparel, textiles, wood products, 
metal casting. Since 1988, its estimated that this program has helped 
save 8,000 jobs and helped create 2,000 jobs. And right now, 15 firms 
are currently certified or awaiting certification for assistance. The 
funds made available by this amendment, will make it possible for 24 
additional firms to be helped.
  This success is in large part because the needs of business drive the 
program. Firms have to invest some of their own money in order to get 
the program's benefits. Because of this private match, we have 
assurance that public funds will focus on what the market needs not 
what some bureaucrat decides.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that 
means jobs and opportunity for American workers and American companies. 
If American businesses and their workers have access to the tools to 
compete, they will be able to thrive--rather than fear--an increasingly 
competitive world.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is found in the House 
bill. We have no objection.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the amendment of the 
Senators from Pennsylvania and Vermont to maintain funding for the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance firm program.
  This amendment provides funding for the critical component of the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance program that aids companies by granting 
them technical help to improve their manufacturing, marketing, and 
other capabilities in the face of import competition. This program has 
been with us for more than 30 years.
  First outlined in 1954 by United Steel Workers president David 
MacDonald, Trade Adjustment Assistance was enacted as part of the Trade 
Expansion Act of 1962. As Luther Hodges, President Kennedy's Secretary 
of Commerce, told the Finance Committee during consideration of that 
legislation:

       Both workers and firms may encounter special difficulties 
     when they feel the adverse effects of import competition. 
     This is import competition caused directly by the Federal 
     Government when it lowers tariffs as part of a trade 
     agreement undertaken for the long-term economic good of the 
     country as a whole. The Federal Government has a special 
     responsibility in this case. When the Government has 
     contributed to economic injuries, it should also contribute 
     to the economic adjustments required to repair them.

  The Trade Adjustment Assistance program for firms has done just that. 
In the past 5 years, it has helped more than 450 small- and mid-sized 
manufacturers suffering from layoffs and lost sales due to import 
competition. I have received numerous letters from New York companies 
urging us to continue funding the Trade Adjustment Program for firms. 
My State is home to one of the 12 assistance centers that administer 
this program. That facility, at the State University of New York at 
Binghamton, has helped New York companies increase their sales by more 
than $110 million since 1989. Those added sales are all the more 
impressive considering that the same companies' sales had fallen $8 
million in the 2 years before the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
began.
  Nationwide, the story is the same. The program's administrators 
calculate that it has created at least 3,000 jobs and saved another 
45,000 nationwide since 1989--all at firms that had laid off thousands 
of employees before the aid commenced. It has meant $800 million in 
added sales--a 20-percent increase--for companies that had lost almost 
$400 million in sales in the 2 years before getting the help. Quite a 
record of achievement for a $10 million program.
  In fact, as we face intense and growing economic competition from 
Europe, Asia, and Latin America, the need for a human side to our trade 
policy is even greater than it was 30 years ago.
  For all of the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 
Senators Wofford and Jeffords to introduce an amendment to restore 
funding for trade adjustment assistance for firms.
  Only trade adjustment assistance centers [TAAC] provide manufacturing 
firms with an effective strategy to help them compete with foreign 
companies. The 12 TAAC's located throughout our country provide 
assistance in the form of individualized turnaround strategic plans to 
small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms.
  Over the last decade, my State has lost over 200,000 manufacturing 
jobs. Many of these jobs went overseas to countries that pay their 
workers a fraction of what our workers earn. Because of the lower labor 
costs, many foreign firms are able to import and sell their product at 
price below what a New Jersey company must charge. The New Jersey TAAC 
works with such import-impacted companies to devise effective plans 
under which the companies are able to again compete and thus, survive. 
The Federal Government's return on investment in the New Jersey TAAC is 
almost 400 percent Mr. President.
  TAAC funding for fiscal year 1994 was $10 million--which is the level 
that the House provided TAAC for fiscal year 1995. I know there is 
significant support for the TAAC program in the Senate and I hope that 
our colleagues will see the merit and cost-efficiency of this program 
and vote to restore TAAC's funding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2361) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I now yield to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Texas yield for just a moment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is the regular order. Senator Dole had introduced 
this amendment in your behalf. We had temporarily set it aside. It is 
pending.
  I would ask Senators on our side that have amendments that are listed 
by name if they could bring us the text of some of the amendments so we 
would know whether we can negotiate some of them out or not. There are 
about 15 on our side that still do not have the text accompanying the 
proposal. I wish they would do that. It surely would be helpful to us.
  I thank the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
North Carolina for the purpose of a couple of amendments that I am told 
are acceptable, and he just wants to make a statement.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 2353

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I ask the status of Amendment No. 2353?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2353 was adopted earlier today.
  Mr. HELMS. And the motion to reconsider was tabled, is that so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider was not made.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Is this the Pressler amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The reason, Mr. President--if the Senator would yield--
we kept it open for the Senator from Massachusetts. But I have checked 
with him now and he was trying to get momentarily to the floor.
  So the Senator has moved to reconsider, and I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would suspend. Did the Senator 
from South Carolina ask that the motion to reconsider be tabled?
  Mr. HELMS. He did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 
tabled.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2362

 (Purpose: To prohibit funding for the issuance of visas to aliens who 
        illegally confiscate property of a United States person)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have two amendments which have been 
cleared on both sides.
  I send the first one to the desk and ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2362.

  Mr. HELMS. 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.    . INELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE VISAS AND EXCLUSION FROM 
                   ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.

       None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     issue a visa to any alien who illegally confiscates or has 
     confiscated or has directed or overseen the illegal 
     confiscation of the property of a United States person, or 
     converts or has converted for personal gain property 
     otherwise illegally confiscated from a United States person.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment proposes that if an alien 
illegally confiscates the property of a U.S. citizen in a foreign 
country, that alien should not be given a visa to come to the United 
States. There are scores of cases--more than 1,500 in Latin America 
alone--where foreigners have unlawfully taken property from American 
citizens without compensation. Some of these people are government 
officials, but others are merely petty thieves who bribe local 
officials to oversee the illegal confiscation of Americans' property.
  Mr. President, U.S. officials who are helping Americans to resolve 
property claims have begged for the authority to deny visas to aliens 
who have confiscated property from U.S. citizens. They have told me 
that in many cases they can easily determine who has stolen an 
American's property making them ineligible to receive a visa. And they 
have told me that nothing will get the attention of these foreign 
offenders more than to pass this amendment.
  I offer an example, Mr. President. In 1990, Sherril Haylock, the 
mayor of a small town in Honduras, confiscated without compensation 
land owned by George Drucker of California. Mr. Drucker traveled to 
Honduras on numerous occasions and spent endless hours with United 
States Embassy officials trying to resolve his case. Meanwhile, Mayor 
Haylock, traveled frequently to her vacation home in Tampa, Florida. If 
the U.S. Embassy could have prevented Sherril Haylock from traveling to 
the United States by denying her a visa, Mr. Drucker would have had his 
land returned long ago.
  It is a nightmare for people like Sherril Haylock to be told by the 
U.S. Embassy that there will be no more shopping sprees in the United 
States. If you don't return property confiscated from U.S. citizens, 
you cannot come to the United States. It's that simple and that is 
exactly what this amendment enables State Department officials to do.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. I 
ask that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2362) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. HELMS. 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 Chair will advise that the motion to reconsider the previous 
amendment is still pending.
  Mr. HELMS. I so move.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2363

(Purpose: To state additional conditions for the approval of exports of 
  United States-origin satellites on launch vehicles of the People's 
                      Republic of China or Russia)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the second amendment has been accepted by 
both sides. I send it to the desk and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2363.

  Mr. HELMS. 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, line 3, strike ``and''.
       On page 118, line 9, strike the period and insert ``, 
     and''.
       On page 118, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following 
     new paragraphs:
       (3) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, certifies that none of the entities 
     dealing with the commercial launch service or their 
     subsidiaries have been found by the United States Government 
     to have engaged in any missile-related transfer prohibited by 
     the Arms Export Control Act or the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, and
       (4) the Secretary of State certifies that none of the 
     equipment or technical data acquired by Chinese or Russian 
     entities as a direct result of providing commercial launch 
     services for United States-origin satellites will enhance the 
     military capabilities of the People's Republic of China or 
     Russia.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment proposes to close two 
loopholes in the current United States satellite export policy 
regarding Communist China and Russia. It does not ban the licensing of 
commercial United States-origin satellites for launch on Chinese or 
Russian rockets. Rather, this amendment ensures that the Communist 
Chinese and Russian militaries as well as foreign companies that 
violate missile-proliferation controls are denied benefits from such 
commercial launch services.
  The pending amendment accomplishes this objective by adding two new 
conditions to section 609 of the bill. Section 609, as drafted by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, prohibits any funds in this act to be 
used to approve any export license applications for the launch of 
United States-origin satellites on Communist Chinese or Russian launch 
vehicles unless certain conditions are met. The Helms amendment adds 
two more clarifying conditions.
  Recent events underscore the need for clarifying and strengthening 
the statutory controls governing satellite exports to Communist China 
and Russia.
  A year ago, the Clinton administration determined that Red China had 
sold restricted missile technology to Pakistan in direct violation of 
Beijing's own agreement to abide by MTCR standards. United States law 
required specific sanctions be imposed against both the Communist 
Chinese Government and the individual Chinese entities involved in this 
illegal transfer. As a result, exports to Red China of MTCR-listed 
equipment and technology, including satellite components and 
technology, have been prohibited for 2 years. Or so Congress and the 
American public have been led to believe.
  In reality, United States satellites are being exported to mainland 
China and to the same Communist Chinese Government-owned entities 
sanctioned for violating the missile proliferation agreement. Four 
export licenses have been approved this year alone. Mr. President, how 
can this be?

  The reason is that through a very questionable legal interpretation 
of the MTCR sanctions law, the Clinton administration has determined 
that satellites that are exported through the Commerce Department's 
licensing process are considered not to be MTCR listed items. 
Therefore, the above sanctions do not apply.
  However, satellites that must be exported through the State 
Department's licensing process are considered MTCR listed items and are 
prohibited from transfer to Red China. This is confusing and makes no 
sense.
  The result is that entities in Communist China, like the Great Wall 
Industrial Group, that have been found guilty of violating missile 
proliferation controls are receiving new, lucrative contracts for 
serving and launching United States-origin satellites. Instead of 
paying the price for illegal proliferation activities, these entities 
are laughing all the way to the bank with new contracts for activities 
supposedly banned by the MTCR sanctions imposed against them.
  How can missile proliferation controls be effective if those who 
violate them are rewarded with the very activities they are supposed to 
be denied? If MTCR sanctions are to have any deterrent value and 
meaning, this loophole must be closed.
  Let met be clear, the pending amendment does not prohibit satellite 
exports to China. It does, however, prohibit Communist Chinese entities 
that have violated MTCR controls from importing MTCR-controlled items 
and from receiving profitable contracts to launch American satellites.
  The second part of this amendment requires the Secretary of State to 
certify that none of the technical data or equipment acquired by 
Communist Chinese or Russian entities as a direct result of servicing 
and launching and American-made satellite will enhance the military 
capabilities of Red China or Russia.
  There is concern that some of the technology that might be given to 
Communist China in order to connect the American satellite to the 
Chinese rocket booster has significant military applications. It has 
been reported that some of this kind of satellite integration data may 
provide Beijing with the know-how it very much wants to acquire in 
order to develop highly accurate MIRV--multiple nuclear warhead--
capability for Communist Chinese strategic missiles.
  In no way should the United States help the Communist Chinese 
military modernize and improve its nuclear war-fighting capability. The 
certification contained in the pending amendment ensures that American 
national security interests are protected.
  Clearly, the pending amendment does not impose onerous conditions on 
American satellite exports. And, had the Clinton administration not 
undercut the MTCR law through its questionable interpretation of MTCR 
sanctions, this amendment may not have been necessary. However, since 
the administration is unwilling to support the missile proliferation 
controls that are already on the books, Congress must do so. That is 
all the pending amendment does and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this language is relative to the Chinese 
transfer in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act and the Export 
Administration Act. It clarifies the language in the committee bill. We 
are prepared to accept it. It has been cleared on both sides.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2363) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2357

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Dole-Hutchison 
amendment. What the amendment will do is to provide $350 million from 
the present international peacekeeping operations portions of the 
budget and put it, instead, for the Federal contribution to the States 
for the expenses of incarcerating illegal aliens. This is a problem 
that our border States have been dealing with. It is a Federal issue. 
The Federal Government once again passes mandates to the States but we 
just do not pass the money to pay for these mandates.
  I have a letter from Gov. Pete Wilson in support of this amendment. 
He says, ``The annual cost of incarcerating illegal alien felons in 
California alone is nearly $400 million.'' We are talking about $350 
million to be allocated to the States affected, and California alone is 
spending $400 million.
  I ask unanimous consent the Governor's letter be printed in the 
Record.
  I also have the Budget Resolution of the Governors Association signed 
by two Republican and two Democrat Governors, saying it is time for the 
Federal Government to step up to the line and take over the 
responsibility for payment for incarceration of illegal aliens.
  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                State Capitol,

                                    Sacramento, CA, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for your amendment to H.R. 4603, the Fiscal Year 1995 
     Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill, which would 
     provide at least $350 million to reimburse state and local 
     governments for the costs of incarcerating illegal alien 
     felons.
       As you well know, the states of California, Texas, Florida, 
     New York, Illinois, Arizona and New Jersey have engaged in a 
     bipartisan campaign to get the federal government to take 
     responsibility for the costs of illegal immigration. 
     Immigration is a federal responsibility. Yet, federal policy 
     continues to shift financial responsibility for illegal 
     immigrants from the federal government to the states and 
     localities. As a result, taxpayers in our states have been 
     forced to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of this 
     federal policy.
       A key component of that effort is securing federal 
     responsibility for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens 
     in state and local correctional facilities. Though almost 
     every state prison contains illegal alien felons, 
     California's prisons are home to the vast majority. By the 
     end of my state's current fiscal year, California's illegal 
     immigrant felon population is projected to exceed 18,000 
     inmates--five times more than any other state, and a 
     population that would fill eight state prisons at design 
     capacity.
       The annual cost of incarcerating illegal alien felons in 
     California alone is nearly $400 million. The Congressional 
     Budget Office estimated that the annual cost for all state 
     and local governments is at least $600 million. Clearly, the 
     growing numbers of illegal alien felons in state and local 
     facilities is having a direct and negative impact on state 
     and local law enforcement efforts to put police on our 
     streets and keep violent criminals behind bars.
       This is not a new issue. The Immigration Reform and Control 
     Act of 1986 authorizes reimbursement to the states for these 
     costs. In addition, both the House and Senate crime bills 
     contain language calling for full federal responsibility for 
     the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. In fact, the House 
     bill would make reimbursement mandatory. Even the President 
     recognized the need for federal responsibility when he called 
     on Congress to provide $350 million to state and local 
     governments for the costs of incarcerating illegal alien 
     felons.
       Senator, I appreciate your taking the initiative on this 
     issue of critical importance to the people of Texas, 
     California, New York, Florida and other states impacted by 
     the tremendous fiscal burden of illegal immigration. You 
     clearly understand that unless the federal government assumes 
     responsibility for illegal immigration, affected state and 
     local governments would have to make cuts in much-needed 
     services to legal residents.
       The time has come for the federal government to establish a 
     new illegal immigration policy based on federal 
     responsibility and fairness to state and local governments. 
     Your amendment represents an important step toward that goal.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter of critical 
     importance to our states.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pete Wilson.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1994.
     To Conferees on the Fiscal 1995 Budget Resolution:
       We are writing to express our support for Section 32 of the 
     Senate-passed version of H. Con. Res. 218, the fiscal year 
     1995 budget resolution. Specifically, Section 32 says ``it is 
     the sense of Congress that funding should be provided to 
     reimburse the costs associated with undocumented immigration 
     and refugee policy.''
       The nation's Governors have been in strong agreement that 
     immigration policy must be based on federal responsibility 
     and fairness to state and local governments. As you well 
     know, immigration policy is solely a federal concern. Yet 
     federal law mandates the states to provide emergency health 
     care and education to undocumented immigrants who reside in 
     our states. State governments also are forced to pay for the 
     costs of incarcerating undocumented alien criminals.
       The policy of the National Governors' Association affirmed 
     in February calls for the federal government to assume 
     financial responsibility for the cost of providing health 
     care and public education to undocumented immigrants, and for 
     the costs of incarcerating undocumented immigrants in state 
     prisons. We believe that Section 32 of the Senate-passed 
     budget resolution is consistent with these policies, and we 
     urge you to retain this language in the final version of H. 
     Con. Res. 218.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Carrol A. Campbell, Jr.,
       Chairman,
     Gov. Pete Wilson,
       Chairman, Committee on Human Resources,
     Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.,
       Vice Chairman,
     Gov. David Walters,
       Vice Chairman, Committee on Human Resources.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in my State the cost last year was $56 
million to keep over 2,000 felons who are illegal immigrants. We have a 
problem here. I believe the administration understands that we have a 
problem because they have said that they would agree to $350 million 
that might be taken out from some other portion of the bill. The 
problem here is priorities. I think we really have two issues. We have 
the issue of illegal aliens, which is a Federal issue. Yet the costs 
are borne by the taxpayers of the States that are affected. Those 
States include California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and also 
Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Many States have illegal 
immigration. Much of the time it is because the Federal Government has 
failed in its responsibilities to make sure that only legal immigrants 
come into our country. So it really is a Federal responsibility and we 
have yet to see the Federal Government step up to the line for these 
enormous costs.
  In my State, the overall cost, estimated by a Rice University study, 
is $1.2 billion. That takes into account taxes that are paid by these 
illegal aliens. That is the net, $1.2 billion. That is a lot from a 
State budget.
  The situation in California is even worse. Governor Wilson has asked 
for this amendment. He has asked repeatedly that we look at this 
problem. The State of California and the State of Florida have both 
sued the Federal Government, and rightfully so. I am an amicus curiae 
brief signer for that lawsuit, because the State of Florida is right, 
the State of California is right, as is the State of Texas. These 
taxpayers in our State should not have to bear this Federal burden.
  So I hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to make things 
right. We do tend to step up for people who are in emergencies in other 
States. We have seen the emergencies with the earthquakes in 
California; we have seen the flooding in Georgia; we have seen the 
flooding in Missouri and the Midwest, where the Mississippi river was 
flooded earlier this year. We have seen so many instances--a hurricane 
in Florida. This, too, is an emergency, a crisis. The illegal alien 
costs are burdening not only our States but the cities on the border 
that are educating the children of illegal immigrants. It is a very 
costly burden. I think we need to begin to set a policy here that the 
Federal Government realizes this is their responsibility and the time 
has come to give equity to the taxpayers of the States that have really 
borne this cost for so long. But it has not gotten better, it has in 
fact gotten worse.
  That is one issue. There is another issue here. Of course it is 
always difficult when you are trying to transfer money from one pot to 
another because then, of course, what you have to do is set priorities. 
What is the priority? It is very difficult, sometimes, if two programs 
are very good programs. But I think the priority is clear in this 
instance because we are asking it be taken from U.N. peacekeeping 
funds. I think, frankly, that the U.N. peacekeeping has really gone 
beyond what many of us in the Senate, many of us in Congress have felt 
it should do; just how much we should be putting into the U.N. 
peacekeeping when sometimes it has gone beyond what we thought the 
peacekeeping mission should be.
  I think it really came home to me when I was approached by a man on a 
flight going back to my home of Dallas, as I do every weekend. He came 
up to me and said,
  ``I am Larry Joyce and I used to be from Texas.''
  I said, ``Hi, Larry, how are you doing? What were you doing in 
Washington?''
  He said, ``I was burying my son in Arlington National Cemetery.''
  I said, ``Did he die in Somalia?''
  And he said, ``Yes, he did.''
  And as a tear streamed down his cheek he told me about the fact he 
had been to Vietnam twice and he had come out without a scratch, and 
yet his only son, Casey, had gone to Somalia on his very first mission 
for the United States, his first foreign mission. He was very proud. 
And Casey was killed in his very first mission.
  We talked and it became very clear that Colonel Joyce really did not 
understand why his son died. Had he understood, it would have made it 
so much easier. But in fact we have a situation where our young men and 
our young women were over there, under a mission to feed the starving 
people. That was a U.S. mission. But somewhere along the way the U.S. 
mission changed to U.N. mission, and our young men and women became 
policemen. I think the second issue here is very important. That is, 
just what is our role in the U.N. peacekeeping missions? I think 
everybody wants to understand, before we spend our taxpayer dollars and 
before we spend the precious lives of our young men and women, that we 
know that those precious lives are being spent when we have a mission 
that is a U.S. mission that the people of this country understand and 
have a good feeling about. That is not the case. It was not the case in 
Somalia.
  I have to say that I think the United Nations really does have a 
clear focus on just what is the peacekeeping role. How many times are 
we going to go into foreign civil conflicts and decide that we are the 
peacekeepers?
  I had the experience of seeing the Vice President of Bosnia come and 
beg us to lift the arms embargo so they could fight, fully armed, for 
their country. And yet our peacekeeping mission does not really want 
that to happen.
  So here we are trying to help that country, and yet we are keeping 
the people of that country from fighting with all the equipment that 
they need to fight to save their own country.
  So I think we really do have a question here, and I just come down on 
the side right now of saying that as between an ill-defined 
peacekeeping mission versus a true crisis in this country that our 
taxpayers are living with every day and our States and our local 
governments are living with every day, my priority is with the States 
that are bearing the burden of this high cost of illegal immigration.
  The time has come for us to say, if the peacekeeping mission can be 
clear and if we can understand it, then let us discuss it and let us 
know exactly what we are funding and how our money is going to be used. 
We do not need to keep getting bills in after things have happened, 
after we have gone in without approving a change in mission. I think we 
need a little more clarification for the taxpayers of America.
  So I am offering this amendment with Senator Dole to try to bring 
about equity for the States that are bearing their unfair share of the 
burden and, at the same time, say, ``Look, if we are going to fund the 
peacekeeping operation, let us understand what it is and let us 
understand what our role is and let us make sure that we know what the 
role of our young men and women in the military is before we go forward 
and just give a blank check to the United Nations.''
  So I ask my colleagues to think about this very carefully. It is a 
matter of prioritizing. We have the money and we can take it from many 
different accounts. But I think this should be the priority. I would 
have liked to have it come out in a different way, but that was not 
possible.
  So I hope my colleagues will support me on this. It is a very 
important vote. It is a very important precedent to set that the 
Federal Government will step up to the line, just as they do in 
earthquakes, just as they do in hurricanes. These States that are hard 
hit deserve a break and they deserve the help of the Federal 
Government, which is, in fact, responsible for illegal immigration.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold her request?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to be 
added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as Senator Hutchison said or implied, 
California is very much in a tier by itself when it comes to the 
problems of illegal immigration. The numbers are so much larger. I have 
been working with the committee, with the chairman, Senator Hollings, 
and with others.
  Yesterday, we entered into a colloquy that set us upon a course of 
trying to solve this problem. However, this amendment is here today, 
and as a Senator from California, I feel it is incumbent upon me to 
vote for every way that I possibly can to solve the problem.
  I would like, if I might, to enter into the Record specific 
Department of Finance statistics which show that, according to the 
California Department of Corrections, there is an estimate of 17,900 
illegal immigrants in California's State prison system in fiscal year 
1994-1995, at a total cost of $372 million. We have about 129,000 
felons incarcerated in more than two dozen State prisons across the 
State.
  It also points out that about 20 percent of the parole population is 
illegal immigrants as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Department of Finance, plus the 
California Department of Corrections analyses of INS holds that are 
positive and then potential INS holds be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the California Department of Finance, June 1994]

 Method for Calculating California's Costs of Incarceration and Parole 
                      for Illegal Immigrant Felons

       The State cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons in 
     the California Department of Corrections (CDC) is calculated 
     by multiplying the projected average daily institution 
     population by the percentage of U.S. Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service (USINS) potential and actual holds by 
     the average per capital incarceration costs.
       According to CDC, using Spring 1994 Population Projections, 
     it is estimated that there will be 17,958 illegal immigrant 
     inmates in California's state prison system in FY 1994-95. 
     That number is then multiplied by the average annual per 
     capita cost to incarcerate an inmate in the California prison 
     system, which is $20,761, for an annual total cost of 
     approximately $372.8 million.
       Based on October 31, 1993 data, CDC incarcerated 118,995 
     inmates, and the undocumented population was 16,577. Of this 
     population, 12,435 inmates had actual USINS holds. 
     Additionally, CDC estimated that 65 percent (4,142) of the 
     6,372 inmates identified for potential holds would receive 
     actual USINS holds. The combined potential and actual holds 
     represent approximately 13.90 percent of the average daily 
     population. This is the percentage that is applied to 
     projected inmate populations to estimate the number of 
     illegal immigrant inmates. However, the USINS has indicated 
     informally that 85 percent of CDC's potential holds are 
     likely to become actual USINS holds. CDC potential holds are 
     defined as those inmates who have an indication that they are 
     foreign-born, either by self-statement, the probation report, 
     the Department of Justice's Bureau of Criminal Identification 
     and Information (CI&I), or another source.
       According to the California Youth Authority (CYA), using 
     Spring 1994 Population Projections, it is estimated that 
     there will be 1,079 illegal immigrant wards in CYA facilities 
     in FY 1994-95 with actual or potential USINS holds. The 
     average annual per capita cost to incarcerate a ward in a CYA 
     facility is $32,500, for an annual total cost of 
     approximately $35.1 million.
       According to CDC, over five percent of all parolees in 
     California's adult population are illegal immigrants. Based 
     on a total projected parole population of 92,943, CDC 
     estimates the number who are illegal immigrants to be 4,889. 
     This number is then multiplied by the average annual parole 
     supervision cost ($2,271), for an annual cost of 
     approximately $11.1 million. Next, the annual cost for the 
     projected number of parolees who have been deported and are 
     assigned to a CDC USINS Unit for monitoring (7.01 percent of 
     the total projected population) is calculated by multiplying 
     6,515 by the average cost ($179), for an annual cost of 
     approximately $1.2 million. The total annual cost for parole 
     supervision is $12.3 million.
       According to CYA, approximately 4.4 percent of all parolees 
     in California's ward population are illegal immigrants. Based 
     upon a projected parole population of 6,293, CYA estimates 
     the number who are illegal immigrant wards to be 277. This 
     number multiplied by the average annual parole supervision 
     cost of ($4,041), for an annual cost of $1.1 million for 
     1994-95.
       Using CDC's estimates that 13.9 percent of the prison 
     population are illegal immigrants, we assume that 13.9 
     percent of the cost of 1994-95 facility debt service ($358.5 
     million), or $51.2 million should be included in the annual 
     cost of incarceration. Similarly using CYA's estimate that 
     12.1 percent of the youth authority population are illegal 
     immigrants, the 1994-95 facility debt service ($19.2 million) 
     or $2.3 million should be added to the cost of incarceration.
       CDC's incarceration, parole costs and facility debt 
     service, added to CYA's incarceration, parole and facility 
     debt service costs, equal a 12-month State cost of 
     approximately $474.7 million.
       The following costs are not included in this Reimbursement 
     Request: State and local costs associated with arrest, 
     prosecution, court proceedings and housing in county jails 
     for illegal immigrants convicted of a felony.
                                 ______


  Department of Corrections Fiscal Impact of Incarceration and Parole 
Supervision of Offenders Who Have USINS Holds or Are Illegal Immigrants 
                   (May Revision, With Three Strikes)


                              assumptions

       1. Projected costs include both the cost of housing the 
     institution population with actual or potential USINS holds 
     and the cost of supervising the USINS parole population, 
     based on the latest cost figures available from CDC Office of 
     Budget Management for Fiscal Year 1993-94.
       2. Potential USINS holds are defined as those inmates who 
     have an indication that they are foreign-born; either by 
     self-statement, the probation report, the CI&I, or another 
     source. These inmates are designated potential holds until 
     they are reviewed by USINS agents who then either assign an 
     actual hold or release the potential hold. This estimate 
     assumes that 65 percent of inmates with potential USINS holds 
     will eventually receive a hold.
       3. Currently Eligible:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Institution 
                                              Parole        population, 
                 Factor                     population,     October 31, 
                                           Oct. 31, 1993       1993     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population........................          84,771         118,995
USINS parole population.................           5,296  ..............
USNIS Institution actual holds..........  ..............          12,436
USINS Institution potential holds.......  ..............           4,142
USINS as percent of total...............            6.25           13.93
                                                                        
                                         -------------------------------
                                              FY 1993-94      FY 1994-95
                                         -------------------------------
                ESTIMATE                                                
Institution impact:                                                     
  Institution ADP\1\....................         119,947         129,195
  Percent USIN..........................           13.90           13.90
  Eligible ADP..........................          16,673          17,958
  Costs/inmate year.....................         $20,525         $20,761
                                         -------------------------------
  Total institution costs...............    $342,213,325    $372,826,038
                                                                        
                                         -------------------------------
                                              FY 1993-94      FY 1994-95
                                         -------------------------------
        ESTIMATE OF PAROLE IMPACT                                       
Parole impact:                                                          
  Total parole ADP\2\...................          85,843          92,943
  Percent under active parole                                           
   supervision..........................            5.26            5.26
  Net eligible ADP......................           4,515           4,889
  Costs/parolee year\3\.................          $2,132          $2,271
                                         -------------------------------
  Subtotal..............................      $9,625,980     $11,102,919
  Percent under USINS unit supervision..            7.01            7.01
  Net eligible ADP......................           6,018           6,515
  Costs/parolee year\4\.................            $179            $179
                                         -------------------------------
  Subtotal..............................      $1,077,222      $1,166,185
  Total parole costs....................     $10,703,202     $12,269,104
                                         ===============================
Combined fiscal costs...................    $352,916,527    $385,095,142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Spring 1994 population projections.                                  
\2\Spring 1994 population projection.                                   
\3\Average annual cost of parole supervision in the respective fiscal   
  years.                                                                
\4\Adjusted cost of supervision based on 500:1 supervision ratio.       

       Note: Estimating the number of active parolees who have 
     USINS holds or are undocumented illegal aliens is hindered 
     due to incomplete data regarding this population. In some 
     instances, offenders were not deported even though they may 
     have been released with an active USINS hold. There is no 
     disposition information available as to why they were not 
     deported. Others who would be eligible for deportation were 
     never reviewed by USINS.
       For example, of the offenders released to USINS custody 
     from 1986 through 1993, there are 6,728 who are assigned to 
     regular California parole caseloads. Of these, 1,927 were 
     actually deported and were subsequently returned to a regular 
     parole caseload.
       The process of identifying and tracking undocumented 
     illegal aliens once they are referred to USINS is not well 
     established and lacks a clearly defined communication cycle 
     between state and federal officials.
                                 ______


 Department of the Youth Authority Budget Services Bureau, May 12, 1994


   fiscal impact of incarceration and parole supervision of youthful 
offenders who have usins holds, or have been referred to the usins for 
                               screening

     General Assumptions
       1. Projected costs include both the cost of housing the 
     institution population with actual or potential USINS holds 
     and the cost of supervising the USINS parole population, 
     based on the 1994-95 Governor's Budget (including the May 
     Revision).
       2. Potential USINS holds are defined as those youthful 
     offenders who have an indication that they are foreign born; 
     either by self-statement, the probation report, court 
     documents, or another source. These youthful offenders are 
     designated potential holds until they are reviewed by USINS 
     agents who then either assign an actual hold or release the 
     potential hold. This estimate assumes that 65 percent of 
     youthful offenders with potential USINS holds will eventually 
     receive a hold (estimate based on USINS information).
     Institution Population Assumptions
       1. On April 13, 1994, there were 1,466 foreign born 
     youthful offenders in the institutions (per OBITS data). INS 
     had placed holds on 340 cases. Of the remaining 1,126 cases, 
     it is assumed that 732 (65%) will eventually receive a hold. 
     The total of actual and estimated potential holds is 1,072.
       2. The number of illegal aliens (1,072) as a percentage of 
     the total institution population (8,850) was determined to be 
     12.1 percent.
     Parole Population Assumptions
       1. On April 13, 1994, there were 1,015 foreign born 
     youthful offenders on parole. Through a case file review it 
     was determined that there were 261 parolees with Immigration 
     and Naturalization (INS) numbers under active parole 
     supervision.
       2. The number of parolees with INS numbers under active 
     parole supervision (261) as a percentage of the total parole 
     population (5,952) was determined to be 4.4 percent.
     Calculation of Fiscal Impact

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Institutions                 
                                             and camps        Parole    
                 Factor                     population,     population, 
                                          March 30, 1994  March 30, 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population........................           8,850           5,952
USINS I&C actual holds..................             340                
USINS I&C potential holds...............             732                
USINS parole population.................  ..............             261
USINS as percent of total...............            12.1             4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1993-94 FY      1994-95 FY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutions and camps impact:                                          
  Institutions and camps ADP\1\.........           8,731           8,920
  Percent USINS.........................            12.1            12.1
  Eligible ADP..........................           1,056           1,079
  Cost per year.........................         $31,600         $32,500
  Total I&C costs.......................      33,369,600      35,067,500
Parole impact:                                                          
  Total ADP\1\..........................           6,027           6,293
  Percent eligible......................             4.4             4.4
  Eligible ADP..........................             265             277
  Cost per year.........................          $4,159          $4,041
  Total parole costs....................       1,102,100       1,119,400
Total departmental costs................      34,471,700      36,186,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Spring 1994 population projections.                                  

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, to make a long story short, I will 
continue to work with the chairman of the committee and with the 
Appropriations Committee to try to enable some recompense--I know I am 
joined by my colleague, Senator Boxer, on that--some recompense to the 
State of California. If it has to come from peacekeeping, it has to 
come from peacekeeping. If it has to come from some other account, so 
be it.
  But I think it is clear to most of us that illegal immigration, in 
fact, is a Federal responsibility. It is also clear that this bill is a 
giant step forward in terms of meeting the need of border enforcement. 
If we take last year's addition of 600, plus this year's addition of 
940 net new Border Patrol agents, about a 30-percent increase, and that 
is not too bad over a 2-year period of time, there is no way--and I 
stress no way--outside of voting for this bill that anyone is going to 
put an additional Border Patrol agent on the border.
  So I am happy to support the Dole-Hutchison amendment. I also urge an 
aye vote on this bill and, hopefully, sooner rather than later. I yield 
the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Smith be added as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as an 
original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be 
listed as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this, of course, is not the first time 
that the issue of Federal responsibility for the incarceration of 
criminal aliens has come before the U.S. Senate.
  As we will recall, during the consideration of the crime bill, this 
Senate passed a provision very similar to one which was adopted by the 
House of Representatives stating that it is a Federal responsibility to 
assume jurisdiction for criminal aliens in our State and local 
corrections facilities. The Federal Government can discharge that 
responsibility either by actually accepting custody and responsibility 
for those individuals or reimbursing the States for their cost of 
incarcerating criminal aliens.
  Why did the Senate take this position on the crime bill? It did so, I 
think, primarily in recognition of an issue of constitutional fairness. 
The Constitution of the United States, in article I, section 8, 
outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Government. These are the 
responsibilities which the original 13 States agreed to confer to the 
Federal Government and which the Federal Government accepted and, in 
accepting, accepted the responsibility to see that they would be 
faithfully discharged.
  Two of those responsibilities which the Federal Government accepted 
as part of the United States Constitution were: ``To establish an 
uniform rule of naturalization.''
  Since that time, it has been the total responsibility of the Federal 
Government to establish our naturalization and immigration policy. The 
State of Texas, the State of Nebraska, and the State of Florida do not 
have the equivalent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
because they are constitutionally prohibited from doing so. It is 
totally a Federal responsibility to carry out that function.
  Also, in various sections of section 8 of article I, the Federal 
Government has accepted the responsibility for the protection of our 
borders.
  The Federal Government, for instance, has the responsibility to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, 
and with Indian tribes. The Federal Government has twice accepted the 
key obligations which relate to the control of our borders, 
particularly the control of our borders in terms of the flow of human 
beings. Border protection and immigration are Federal obligations.
  Now, what does a State do when the Federal Government, having 
accepted a responsibility which entails the denial of the individual 
State to protect itself against that particular venal activity or to 
engage affirmatively in a positive activity, then fails to fully carry 
out its obligation?
  What is happening today, Mr. President, as it relates to illegal 
immigration, is that the States, and particularly those such as the 
State of California, the State of Texas, my own State, and others which 
are particularly affected by this, are forced to accept and pay the 
very substantial financial obligation that comes with large numbers of 
undocumented aliens in our population.
  There are many ways in which that reflects itself--in schools, in 
hospitals, in housing, in social services. But one of the most dramatic 
ways is the number of people who are here as illegal aliens who then 
commit crimes, further perpetuating the difficulties which their 
presence entails, and are prosecuted and sentenced to our State and 
local correctional institutions.
  This Senate decided in the crime bill that fundamental fairness was 
that the Federal Government, whose failure to enforce laws had allowed 
this flood of illegal aliens, should then accept the responsibility for 
the financial cost of that portion of illegal aliens who ended up as 
criminals.
  Mr. President, I believe that this is a basic issue of fairness 
between the Nation and communities affected by the Nation's failure to 
enforce the law.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be listed as an original cosponsor of 
this amendment, and I urge its adoption, both because it will carry out 
the commitment which this Senate has already made, and because it will 
represent a statement of fundamental fairness in terms of how we treat 
our States within this Federal unit.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair.
  Much of what has been said today covers the subject sufficiently, but 
I feel compelled to add a few comments of my own in support. First of 
all, I think that President Clinton's initiative earlier this year 
indicated his recognition of the responsibility and the role of the 
Federal Government with respect to reimbursing States for the costs 
related to the incarceration of illegal aliens.
  Second, several months ago, the Governor of the State of Florida 
filed suit against the Federal Government on the entire issue of its 
responsibility to reimburse States for costs related to illegal aliens.
  Just last week, I introduced a brief in support of this suit in the 
southern district Federal court.
  Finally, I would make the comment that Federal law prohibits States 
from being able to control their own borders. The Federal Government 
has assumed this responsibility for itself and has failed to do an 
adequate job. It is then logical to assume that it falls on the Federal 
Government to pick up the expenses related to that failure. So I 
support this amendment. I think it is an important initiative. It will 
only go a portion of the way of reimbursing States for the costs 
related to the incarceration of illegal aliens.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let us walk through this particular 
problem and you will understand the opposition to the amendment.
  The President said all right, as an afterthought in the budget, we 
ought to pay out $350 million for the incarceration of illegal aliens, 
principally in California, Texas, Florida, and otherwise, and suggested 
to the Office of Management and Budget that we take $72 million, raise 
that with fees, spectrum fees of the Federal Communications Commission, 
and some $285 million from the Justice Department.
  We first quickly looked at and understood that that was a nonstarter 
with respect to the FCC. We had great difficulty last year raising 
those fees. We could tell immediately they were beginning to 
characterize fees as taxes, and there is a disciplined opposition 
ready, willing, and able to fight to the death, and Senators viscerally 
opposed to any kind of thing that smells like a tax, like a fee, and it 
was not going to do anything. That was just $70 million.
  We looked at the $285 million that was in the Justice Department and 
we said, well, we made this a crime bill so let us look at the amounts 
that we raise over and above the President and over and above the 
House, which was substantial amounts and intentionally provided for. 
And we said if we got the $350 million by taking back what we had 
given, so to speak, as we worked this appropriation, we asked the staff 
to work it out and see how we best could try to suffer that particular 
cut and not quite raise that much more than the President or quite 
raise that much more than was provided from the House.
  And so they came back with a worksheet, as suggested by the 
administration: Taking it out of the Justice budget, you would have to 
cut $126 million from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that 
hired 550 new Border Patrol agents, 220 new land border inspectors, two 
800-bed detention facilities and $50 million in the new border 
facilities. You would have to cut $79 million from the FBI which hired 
436 new FBI agents and 550 support staff, which was to restore the 
agent strength back to 1992's peak year. You would have to cut $40 
million from the Drug Enforcement Administration, which provided for 
311 new DEA agents, restoring agent strength to the 1992 peak year, and 
it restored a cut in the domestic enforcement and State and local task 
force program. You would have to cut $13 million from the 123 assistant 
U.S. attorneys and support staff. And going right on down, the Bureau 
of the Prisons, $52 million to expand the capacity of the Federal 
prisons, and then for security of the courts, $38 million from the U.S. 
Marshal Service to meet the critical needs there in courthouse 
security.
  Well, when we saw that, we went back to the boards again and said we 
really ought to quit debating; we ought to do it. And so now we are 
doing it. So we were not going to cut it and we looked at the other 
appropriations and said where is the elbow room, flexibility, and what 
have you.
  And with respect to the new programs, we looked at $1.3 billion that 
we had appropriated for community policing, and we know how these 
appropriations go and we would be lucky to get this one all approved 
and to the President's desk by the beginning of the new fiscal year. 
Here we are in August. So put out the guidelines, rules, bids, and 
everything else to be administered by the attorneys general, the 
communities, to qualify for the payout. It is a lot of money, and we 
said maybe that whole $1.3 billion would not necessarily be expended 
during the fiscal year, maybe we had some running room on that 
particular measure. And we otherwise said to ourselves it would not be 
the entire $350 million, because I wished to call the attention to 
everyone to the hearing that the distinguished chairman of our 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, had. I am quoting from the 
testimony of Commissioner Meissner, Chairman of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
  On page 67, she says:

       Well, we are working a very active agenda. We are running 
     on several parallel tracks. So the effort to put forth the 
     proposal where reimbursement for States are concerned in 
     incarceration costs depends also on our being able to take a 
     set of measures within our other criminal alien programs to 
     be able to identify who the prisoners are. As you have 
     pointed out, we do know among the prisoners who are the 
     foreign born, and we then need to determine from the foreign 
     born who actually are illegal aliens and, therefore, subject 
     to deportation.
       We are working with each of the seven large States to 
     develop a mechanism to do that matching, and we have worked 
     out . . .

  Then I asked a question:

       Senator Hollings: I do not mean to be interrupting. But let 
     us assume it has been done. When will that happen, so we will 
     know?

  Answer by Mrs. Meissner:

       We are doing that State by State as we speak. A great deal 
     of our ability to do that quickly depends on the funding 
     package that we have given you for the next year which will 
     automate the data bases that we use to check the States' 
     data. So what we are doing at the present time is a much more 
     labor-intensive process and takes more of our resources to 
     complete. Next year, as we bring our data systems up into a 
     more automated atmosphere, we would be able to be doing that 
     much more efficiently.
       Senator Hollings. And can you give the committee some idea 
     then when the automation will be completed, and when will the 
     . . . Illegal aliens in prisons otherwise be identified?
       Mrs. Meissner: I would have to give that to you State by 
     State. It will be a gradual process, and it will not be a 
     totally automated activity from the INS standpoint until 
     about a year from now.

  Then her deputy seated at the witness table, his answer: ``I would 
say closer to 24 months.''
  We have been saying that necessarily under the inspector general's 
order and the Comptroller's exercise that we just could not put out the 
money because State X said we have so many. We had to identify them. 
Here we had the realistic practical problem of the agency itself 
saying, wait a minute, it is going to be 12 months to 24 months.
  We hope, in the Congress handling this particular emergency, that it 
is going to be much closer. We have the amounts in here for the 
automation. But if you gave them the $350 million this afternoon, it 
will not start paying out tomorrow morning. They still have to go and 
get this automation in. They still have to identify to make the checks 
valid so they can properly reimburse the States for the incarceration 
of illegal aliens.
  There is a little bit of what I call elbowroom or flexibility in the 
INS needs there. There is a little bit. Perhaps the cops on the beat is 
how we solve the problem.
  Now, with respect to the Dole-Hutchison amendment and their solution, 
they go right to what has been most sensitive.
  We have a letter here from the distinguished President. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter, dated July 22, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. George Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to express my strong support 
     for peacekeeping funding in the Fiscal Year 1995 Commerce, 
     Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Bill.
       As you know, this bill contains funds to pay a substantial 
     portion of our peacekeeping arrears to the United Nations 
     along with assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations 
     in Fiscal Year 1995. Without this money, the UN will face a 
     serious cashflow problem and find it increasingly difficult 
     to continue current peacekeeping operations in such places as 
     Bosnia, the Golan Heights, Kuwait, Cyprus, El Salvador and 
     Lebanon.
       UN peacekeeping, as one element of the broader foreign 
     policy, is an important tool to help prevent and resolve 
     conflicts before they directly threaten our national 
     security. UN peacekeeping is also valuable as a means to 
     ensure that the costs and risks of maintaining international 
     order do not fall unfairly upon the United States.
       I am committed to reforming UN peacekeeping so that it is 
     used selectively and more effectively. My administration is 
     working hard to achieve important cost-saving reforms at the 
     UN, including the immediate establishment of an independent 
     UN inspector general and a reduction in the U.S. peacekeeping 
     assessment to 25%. However, it will become considerably more 
     difficult to achieve such reforms if we do not pay our bills. 
     For the UN to function effectively in service of U.S. 
     interests, it must remain solvent.
       The funds for UN peacekeeping in the Commerce, Justice, 
     State bill are essential to that purpose. I ask that you and 
     your colleagues defeat any effort to condition or eliminate 
     peacekeeping funding from this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also have a letter from the Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget, Alice Rivlin, dated also July 
22. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     Chairman, Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary 
         Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Senate considers H.R. 4603, the 
     Commerce, Justice, State, The Judiciary Appropriations Bill, 
     I wanted to provide you with the Administration's views on 
     the Hutchinson-Dole amendment. The Administration strongly 
     opposes the amendment.
       The Hutchinson-Dole amendment would provide $350 million 
     for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. On April 22, 
     1994, President Clinton asked Congress to provide $350 
     million to help States pay for their costs associated with 
     incarcerating illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
       Regretably, the Hutchinson-Dole amendment pays for this 
     amendment by reducing funds for United Nations Peacekeeping. 
     By the end of FY 1994, the United States will have 
     accumulated about $1 billion in unpaid UN peacekeeping 
     assessments. The FY 1994 supplemental of $670 million 
     provided in the Committee bill will pay a significant portion 
     of these arrears.
       Without the $670 million payment, the UN will face a 
     serious cashflow problem and find it increasingly difficult 
     to continue current peacekeeping operations, many of which 
     were initiated by previous administrations, with bi-partisan 
     support. These operations are in such places as Bosnia, the 
     Golan Heights, Kuwait, Cyprus, El Salvador and Lebanon. A 
     $350 million cut to this supplemental could force the UN to 
     begin eliminating or scaling back operations that serve 
     important American interests.
       The Administration remains committed to working with the 
     Congress to identify offsets for funding the State Criminal 
     Alien Assistance Program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The letters will be available.
  So you can see already this morning, Mr. President, with the Senator 
from South Dakota, and the particular concern that we had with 
peacekeeping, we also had the concern with the United Nations and the 
inspector general. So we say to Ambassador Albright, let us get going. 
Let us do a better job. We say to the Secretary of State, let us start 
bringing the pressure. And then with an amendment of this kind in a way 
we just cut the ground from under them because we are trying to get up 
to our arrearages and at the same time pay our dues to the tune of $1.1 
billion. About the time we are ready to do it and get an inspector 
general and start moving down from our 31 percent to about 25 percent 
as committed for our portion of the United Nations funds and everybody 
moving down in the same direction, then we come from behind and with 
this particular amendment take the money away.
  But I think that is significant. We did not just casually say, here 
it is. The majority might feel otherwise disposed to take the money out 
of peacekeeping. But therein I think would really be a bad initiative. 
We have not been able, as chairman of the subcommittee--and I know it 
better than any as the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum was here. 
That is one thing I always feared because I knew I had not given all 
the amounts. And the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, would come 
with an amendment that we live up to our commitments, and there would 
be a modicum of an increase but not quite the full amount. And so we 
are very sensitive about the feelings of leading Senators like Senator 
Kassebaum and others, saying, ``Mr. President, get yourself a foreign 
policy. Lead, lead, get yourself a policy.'' And when the poor 
President tries to get a policy going, we come here and cut the money 
out.

  I do not think we want to do that this afternoon. I want to make it 
clear, pending the attendance of the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, that this is the rationale. We went through and worked, and 
the House, to sum up, took it from Byrne grants. We took it from the 
community policing program. We think that is the better way to approach 
this particular program.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the pending amendment. This 
amendment attempts to reimburse the States for the cost of 
incarcerating illegal criminal aliens by transferring money from the 
account to pay overdue U.S. assessments to the United Nations. The 
President attempted to accomplish the same effect by offering an 
amendment to his proposed budget.
  The Appropriations Committee looked into the President's request very 
carefully. His amendment required offsets to fund the $350 million in 
reimbursement moneys, which the administration suggested come from a 
combination of $73 million to be generated from additional FCC fees and 
from cuts totaling $285 million in the judiciary. The committee 
reviewed that proposal. Senator Hollings, in subcommittee hearings and 
then in full committee hearings, pointed out the problems and the 
unfairness of funding the reimbursement to the States by raising FCC 
fees or by cutting the judiciary.
  Additionally, I chaired a lengthy, day-long, full-committee hearing 
on the costs of illegal immigration to the States and on what steps the 
Federal Government was taking to reduce illegal immigration. That 
hearing was well attended by Senators from both sides of the aisle. In 
that hearing, Miss Doris Meissner, the Commissioner of the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, responded to questions that were posed by 
Senator Hollings and by me concerning the ability of the INS to 
discriminate between the numbers of illegal aliens incarcerated and the 
statistics on those who were simply counted as foreign born 
incarcerated in State prisons. That hearing has been published and is 
available to any Senator who wants a copy. I would like to read from 
that hearing this question and Commissioner Meissner's reply:
  On page 159 my questions begin:

       On April 26, in testimony before our Subcommittee on 
     Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, you indicated 
     that the INS has information on whether or not criminals 
     incarcerated in State prisons are foreign born, but not 
     whether they are illegal aliens. Has that ability changed?

  The Commissioner replied:

       We cannot do the matching yet on an automated basis, but we 
     are, through working with the individual States, developing 
     programs whereby our people are located in the State prisons 
     where the foreign born are incarcerated. And, in turn, the 
     States are agreeing to consolidate their foreign-born 
     prisoners in a few locations so that we can efficiently work 
     there. Our people then go through all of those records with 
     corrections officials, interview when the need be to 
     determine who is illegal, and that really constitutes the 
     front end of what we call the institutional hearing program, 
     because that information that is then developed on who is 
     illegal is the basis for the deportation hearing in the State 
     prison. That is a much more efficient process than has been 
     the case before. Nonetheless, it is, as I say, a labor-
     intensive process, and it can be done on an automated basis 
     in the future as we bring up our automation plan.

  So what this means, Mr. President, is that neither the States nor the 
INS is yet in a position to accurately estimate the numbers of illegal 
criminal aliens in State prisons. Section 501 of title V, State 
Assistance for Incarceration Costs of Illegal Aliens and Certain Cuban 
Nationals, in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 carefully 
defines illegal aliens for the purposes of State reimbursement. This 
definition is as follows:

       Any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States 
     unlawfully and, (1) whose most recent entry into the United 
     States was without inspection, or (2) whose most recent 
     admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and, (3) 
     whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or 
     whose unlawful status was known to the Government before the 
     date of the commission of the crime for which the alien was 
     convicted.

  Legal immigrants--legal immigrants--who are foreign born and who 
commit crimes are not included in this definition; nor are foreign-born 
U.S. citizens who commit crimes. Most States only keep statistics on 
the place of birth of their prisoners, not on their immigrant status. 
This is why the Immigration and Naturalization Service must go through 
the time-consuming process described by Ms. Meissner to discriminate 
between foreign-born criminals at the State level. Ms. Meissner stated 
in the full committee hearing that I referred to earlier, that it might 
take up to 2 years before the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
had statistics that will support any implementation of this 
legislation.

  Thus, just as the President's request was premature, so, I believe, 
is the request embodied in the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Republican leader and the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  In short, the accuracy of these numbers is in dispute. The accuracy 
is in dispute. We should not get into the business of doling out 
Federal dollars on the basis of disputed evidence. If we are going to 
appropriate moneys, we should know what we are talking about here.
  The administration, despite its support for reimbursement to the 
States for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, opposes this 
amendment, as the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Hollings, has stated. I have a letter from Alice Rivlin, the Acting 
Director of OMB, which the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
has already read into the Record.
  Finally, Mr. President, I note that the amendment before us would pay 
for the costs of reimbursement by transferring the money out of the 
amounts allocated to pay the United States' current and past-due 
peacekeeping assessments to the United Nations. This is the wrong way 
to do it. It is the wrong way to do this. If the real intent of the 
sponsors of this amendment is to cut funds from the peacekeeping, they 
should attempt up front to keep the United States or the United Nations 
from getting involved in peacekeeping operations.
  I have been on their side on that. I am sympathetic with such an 
attempt. But once the United States has assumed a debt, I believe that 
we should pay that debt.
  By the end of this fiscal year, the United States will owe the United 
Nations almost $1 billion in overdue peacekeeping assessments.
  I did not sign on to the international adventures, wherever they took 
place. But Uncle Sam's name is signed on--not through my fault, but his 
name is signed on--and we have to honor that commitment.
  This bill appropriates these funds so that we are not faced with 
emergency supplemental requests that add to the deficit in order to pay 
for peacekeeping arrearages.
  I thank Senator Hollings and Senator Domenici for their painstaking 
work. This is not an easy job. It is a tough job. There are plenty of 
ways to spend the money if we had it. But I congratulate them on their 
workmanship, and I congratulate them on the steps that they have taken 
to deal with illegal immigration. They beefed up the Border Patrol, and 
they would put more money, if they had it, where it counts most. I am 
very supportive of that effort. But in this case, Mr. President, I 
think it is premature.
  I can appreciate the problems that the States are having. The 
Governors came before the committee and made their statements. Governor 
Chiles himself spoke of the inaccuracy of data, the lack of certitude 
that he could speak with respect to the data as to this population we 
are talking about. And he was very up front and stated it honestly. His 
State needs the money. He has a real problem. But he said, ``I am not 
sure of the data with respect to the population that we are talking 
about.''
  So there is a real problem. Senator Hollings and Senator Domenici 
have bent over backwards and utilized their best judgment based on 
their long experience in the subcommittee dealing with this problem and 
based on their desire, which is equal to the desire of any of us, to 
deal with this problem, to bring it under control.
  I hope, Mr. President, that the Senate will reject the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
  Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from California, 
who is an original cosponsor of this amendment and a very strong 
supporter, and then I would like to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, on which I am 
proud to serve. I do not believe, and I hope he is not saying, that 
there are no illegal immigrants convicted of felonies serving in State 
prisons, because there are. The documentation that I submitted earlier 
for the Record shows that, if there is a problem it is an INS problem, 
because INS is very spotty in their interviewing. And, as this 
documentation will show, sometimes inmates are released that the INS 
has not even interviewed.
  The fact of the matter is that, according to the California State 
Department of Finance, if you look at actual INS holds in 1993, there 
were 12,436. Now that is when the INS had actually interviewed the 
inmate and made a judgment that the individual was likely to be 
illegally present in the country. There are also what are called 
potential holds. That is another category. And if you take 1993 in 
California, there were 4,142 identified as potential holds.
  If I understand the data correctly, there were 12,435 California 
inmates with actual INS holds on them, which means when they are 
released they will be deported, if the INS, of course, cares to do so.
  So I do not think we are talking about the fact that there are no 
inmates serving time. That is absurd. Everybody knows that there are 
illegal immigrants serving time in State prisons.
  The only issue is how do you precisely define that they are here 
illegally and, therefore, that the State is due to be reimbursed. The 
only way we have to do it at the present time is for INS to come in, 
interview the inmate, make a precise finding, and identify those 
individuals.
  I certainly take Chairman Byrd's point--and agree with it--that 
Congress should not allocate resources to problems that have not been 
shown to exist. That is not, however, an accurate description of 
California's--and I expect a half dozen other States'--situation. The 
real issue here is not--or at least should not be--what size 
California's illegal felon population is.
  The State of California's numbers make that clear. Even if we assume 
that the State's estimated alien felon population is only half of what 
it was estimated to be in 1993, Mr. President, we're still talking 
about almost 8,300 prisoners maintained in State prison at State 
taxpayer expense, more than $172 million. Indeed, going further, even 
if the State's estimate turned out to be off by 90 percent, 
California's cost in 1993 alien felons in State prison would be $34.4 
million.
  Frankly, I don't think the numbers, once refined by the Urban 
Institute and others will go that low, but the point is made. 
California's criminal alien costs at the State level are at least large 
and more likely enormous. That does not, of course, factor in county or 
local costs, which add million and millions more to the total.
  I say with respect and admiration to the Chairman, the real issue in 
this debate, on this amendment, is whether Congress--through the 
appropriations process--will finally honor with actual appropriations 
the commitment made in law in 1986 to reimburse States for the Federal 
Government's failure to control our borders. I believe that the answer 
must, as a matter of law and as a matter of equity, be a resounding yes 
and urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
  I thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California 
has stated that she hopes that I am not saying that there are no 
illegal aliens serving in the State prisons. Of course, I am not saying 
that. She knows I am not saying that.
  What I am saying is we do not have the accurate data on which to base 
this decision at this time. I am saying it is premature to take this 
action.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If we could move to the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand we are in a hurry and I 
will be very brief.
  I really wish I could be supportive of this amendment, I say to my 
good friend, the junior Senator from Texas, and the senior Senator from 
California, but I really cannot.
  I just do not think this is a way to pay for a new program that is 
reoccurring. If we do this once, we have to continue to do it.
  We really are taking a whole different part of our American budget 
and applying it to this activity. Frankly, $947 million of the funds 
that can be used are arrearage payments due by the U.S. Government--
$947 million. $670 million, I say to Senator Byrd, are from 1994 
supplementals for that purpose incorporated in this bill which, if it 
passes before the end of the year, we use the end of 1994 money and 
1994 to catch up.
  There is only $222 million in this bill for future peacekeeping. So 
for those who think we are really putting peacekeeping of the future in 
and shortchanging these border States, $222 million is what is in this 
bill which is surely not a major new commitment on our part.
  So I think the Senators who are seeking this have their States' best 
interests at heart and it is clearly understood by this Senator. But I 
do not believe this is the right way to do it. I hope we do not do it 
this way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say that I listened to the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 
distinguished ranking member from New Mexico, and the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee from South Carolina. And they are right. 
This is not the way to do this.
  I respect the Senator from West Virginia. I ask his advice and 
counsel. I voted with the Senator on all of the Somalia amendments. I 
believe that the Senator from West Virginia and I agree totally on our 
philosophy about our role with the United Nations. I support him on 
that and I respect him greatly, greatly, for the very tough job that 
being chairman of the Appropriations Committee is.
  I also respect the members of the committee, who have always that 
wish of where are we going to get the funds for all of the things that 
we need to do.
  This is not the way to do it, but it is the only way we have.
  We have to pay our bills. There is no question about that. We have 
budgeted, I think, over $400 million. We have supplemental budgets for 
peacekeeping operations. We will put the money in that we owe once it 
is determined that we really do owe it.
  But maybe, just maybe, we will think before we do a supplemental 
appropriations in the future about what our role is with the United 
Nations, and is the United Nations doing what we expect for our very 
substantial contribution. And, you know, there are some disagreements 
about what our contribution should be right now. So I think we have to 
iron that out.
  I do very much respect their position. But the fact of the matter is, 
if you put a priority of paying for the illegal aliens in prison or 
putting police on the streets, I do not know what my priority would be 
there. But putting the $350 million out of police on the streets is not 
going to be an option I am going to be willing to make. That is very 
difficult.
  So I went the route that I thought was an easier route, because I do 
not think we have a clue about the U.N. peacekeeping mission.
  I think it is time for us to say, as between these two priorities, 
the priority should be making it right with the States that have borne 
this Federal burden long enough. I hope that in the future we will not 
have to do it this way, because I do respect the committee process and 
I respect the very difficult job the committee has.
  But when you are backed against the wall and you see your taxpayers, 
year after year after year after year, being saddled with this Federal 
responsibility and not getting the relief for it, you just ask where in 
the budget can I find something that I think is a reasonable place to 
take this money from, and let us do start the policy and make it right 
with our States.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. One?
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I almost hesitate to come to the 
floor in opposition to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
because he has, indeed, as has the Senator from New Mexico, given 
plenty of understanding and concern to the Southwest border, and this 
is the best year we have ever had.
  Quite frankly, the Senator from West Virginia pointed out that our 
Uncle Sam's name is on the line on the U.N. obligation, and I do not 
disagree with that. But Uncle Sam's name is also on the line on our 
borders.
  Whose responsibility is it to stop the flow of undocumented people 
into the United States? Not the State of Arizona; not the State of 
Texas; or the States of West Virginia, or South Carolina. It is the 
Federal Government's obligation, and they have not met this obligation.
  Although States like Arizona may get the brunt of this undocumented 
flow first--we are only the first. Undocumented immigrants come to 
Minnesota; they come to Illinois; they come to West Virginia. Some 
undocumented immigrants take jobs from Americans, some commit crimes, 
and some are incarcerated. And who pays for that? The State of West 
Virginia, the State of Arizona, the State of Texas.
  The Federal Government's name is on the line. That is why we are 
here. We are not here to be critical at all of the Senator from South 
Carolina for his very fine effort. But we are stuck.
  The Senator from West Virginia held hearings on this issue. He heard 
from the Governor of my State and from the Governor of Florida about 
just how costly undocumented immigration is to some States.
  The State of Arizona just does not turn around and sue the U.S. 
Government on a whim. It does it out of desperation. It does not have 
the money. It does not have the space to incarcerate these people. That 
is why I have to rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from 
Kansas and the Senator from Texas.
  I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent 
request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a nondebatable motion.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bryan be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to lay on 
the table the amendment (No. 2357).
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] and 
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boren
     Durenberger
     Gramm
     Metzenbaum
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2357) was 
rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The question recurs on amendment 
No. 2357. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2357.
  The amendment (No. 2357) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment now recurs on the committee 
amendment on page 50, line 6 and 7.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we will momentarily have an amendment of 
the Senator from Delaware, which will be agreed to, and then we are 
going to take up the TV Marti amendment of the Senator from Montana.
  We have amendments that will take us into the evening. The majority 
leader said that is his will. We will move right along to try to 
complete this bill tonight so we can present the Interior 
appropriations on Monday. That is the intent of the managers of the 
bill, and we will continue to move right along.


                           Amendment No. 2364

  (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the case of 
                       United States versus Knox)

  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself, 
Senator Grassley, and Senator Heflin and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is advised there is 
an amendment now pending.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to set aside the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, and Mr. Heflin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2364.

  Mr. ROTH. 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 insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CASE OF UNITED 
                   STATES V. KNOX.

       (a) Declarations.--The Congress declares that--
       (1) the Congress has passed legislation to protect children 
     against the evils of child pornography, including the Child 
     Protection Act of 1984, and provided for the enforcement of 
     those laws;
       (2) on November 4, 1993, the Senate, by a vote of 100-to-0, 
     and on April 20, 1994, the House of Representatives, by a 
     vote of 425-3, rejected the Justice Department's new, narrow 
     interpretation of the Federal child pornography statutes as 
     delineated by the Solicitor General in the case of United 
     States v. Knox and implored the Justice Department to 
     properly enforce the law and protect our Nation's children;
       (3) on June 9, 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Third Circuit in the case of United States v. Knox 
     rejected the Justice Department's narrow interpretation of 
     the Federal child pornography statutes and reaffirmed the 
     conviction of Stephen Knox; and
       (4) the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit properly 
     interpreted the Child Protection Act of 1984.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Justice Department should accept the decision of 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 
     the case of United States v. Knox;
       (2) the Justice Department should vigorously oppose any 
     effort by the defendant in that case, or any other party, to 
     overturn the decision in that case; and
       (3) in the future the Justice Department should exercise 
     its prosecutorial discretion in accord with that decision.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today States the 
sense of the Senate in urging the Department of Justice to accept as 
binding the recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
protecting children and rejecting the administration's attempt to 
weaken Federal child pornography laws.
  Last November, the Senate by a vote 100 to zero passed the Roth-
Grassley amendment to the crime bill. In that amendment, we denounced 
the Justice Department's proposed new narrow interpretation of the 
Federal child pornography statute in the case of United States versus 
Knox. We implored the Justice Department to enforce the law and to 
protect our children. The House of Representatives passed a similar 
amendment by a vote of 425 to 3, but the Justice Department did not 
listen to us. Fortunately, the third circuit has stepped up where the 
Justice Department fell short. In a decision handed down on June 9, 
1994, the third circuit rejected the Justice Department's narrow 
interpretation of the Federal child pornography statute and reaffirmed 
the conviction of Stephen Knox.
  Having now heard from both the court of appeals and the Congress as 
to the proper interpretation of the Federal child pornography laws, I 
sincerely hope the administration gets the message and recognizes that 
we need to protect children, not pedophiles and pornographers.
  To underscore the importance of the third circuit decision in this 
case, the amendment I am introducing today urges the Department of 
Justice to accept as binding the third circuit's persuasive opinion in 
the Knox case and to vigorously oppose all efforts by this convicted 
child pornographer to overturn this decision. Since such an appeal is 
likely, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure 
the administration gets the message when it needs it, which is now.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the Department of Justice, in my judgment, 
has made a mistake and is not carrying out the intent of the Child 
Protection Act that we passed back in 1984. The act is designed to 
protect children from pornography.
  This man Knox was convicted, and then it went up, and there was a 
change of position by the Department of Justice. Then the Third Circuit 
Court of Appeals, however, upheld the decision to convict Stephen A. 
Knox.
  This amendment by Senator Roth seems to me to express the intent that 
we have already expressed back in 1984, and to express the idea that 
children should be protected from pornographers. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware. This amendment follows 
an amendment that he and I offered in November concerning the Justice 
Department's unduly narrow interpretation of the child pornography 
laws.
  That amendment rejected by a 100-0 vote two Justice Department 
arguments regarding those laws. First, we rejected the view that nudity 
was required for depictions of children to be illegal. And, second, we 
repudiated the notion that the child herself must act lasciviously.
  The amendment arose from the Government's changed position in the 
case of United States versus Knox. That case concerned the conviction 
of a repeat child pornography offender for knowing possession and 
receipt of child pornography. The depictions for which he was charged 
showed scantily clad girls as young as 10 in various poses.
  More than 200 members of Congress, including 40 Members of this body, 
filed an amicus brief in the court of appeals where the Knox case was 
pending. We argued that the Government's litigation position ignored 
congressional intent. And the third circuit agreed. It rejected every 
facet of the Government's argument--by a unanimous vote.
  The Knox litigation is not over. Since the Supreme Court agreed to 
hear his appeal before, it can certainly be expected that Knox will 
file for review in the Supreme Court again. That will present the 
Justice Department with a choice. It can continue to argue an 
interpretation of the statute contrary to congressional intent and 
support Knox's petition. or it change back to the original Bush Justice 
Department view that supports the conviction.

  The amendment before us expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
Justice Department should vigorously oppose any effort by Knox to 
overturn his conviction.
  When Knox files his petition in the Supreme Court, the Justice 
Department should oppose it. If that petition is granted, the 
Department should strongly support the conviction and argue for the 
interpretation of the statute that comports with congressional intent.
  Moreover, there will be future cases where the illegal child 
pornography involves children who are not completely naked. The 
amendment of the Senator from Delaware will put the Senate on record--
and the Department of Justice on notice--that we expect that Knox will 
govern the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases 
involving scantily clad children.
  Mr. President, all children deserve protection from exploitation. The 
Department of Justice still has not agreed with that proposition. It 
has not stated that it will accept the ruling of the third circuit in 
the Knox case.
  We should make clear that we expect the department to recognize that 
its change in position was wrong, and that it must act in the future in 
accordance with congressional intent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2364) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2365

          (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for TV Marti)

  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is advised there is 
an amendment pending.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2365.

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 610. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, no funds appropriated in title V of this Act under the 
     heading ``United States Information Agency'' under the 
     subheading ``broadcasting to cuba'' may be used for any 
     activities relating to the provision of the TV Marti program 
     or otherwise to broadcast TV Marti.
       (b) The amount appropriated in title V of this Act the 
     heading ``United States Information Agency'' under the 
     subheading ``broadcasting to cuba'' is hereby reduced by an 
     amount equal to the amount otherwise appropriated under such 
     subheading for activities referred to in subsection (a).

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
this amendment be 25 minutes and equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to object until we determine 
the number of persons who will be interested in speaking on this 
amendment. I know of at least two persons who wish to speak on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me begin by making clear exactly what 
this amendment is and what this amendment is not.
  This is an amendment to eliminate funds for TV Marti--only TV Marti. 
This is not an amendment that in any way touches funds for Radio Marti. 
Radio Marti is entirely distinct and separate from TV Marti.
  Mr. President, to simply get to the point here, I believe that we are 
wasting money today on TV Marti. Why? This bill budgets about $12 
million a year for TV Marti.
  What is TV Marti money spent on? It is spent on a big balloon hanging 
up in the air off the Florida coast to receive signals, TV signals--not 
radio, just TV signals--and then sending them down into Cuba.
  Who benefits from any of these signals? Who watches any television as 
a consequence of this? Mr. President, virtually no one. No one. Why? 
Very simple. What time do you suppose these TV signals are beamed? What 
time of the day do you suppose? Between 3:30 in the morning and 6 
o'clock in the morning.
  That is the only time TV Marti is on the air, 3:30 in the morning and 
6 in the morning. I ask you how many people in the world are up at that 
hour of the day watching television in Cuba between 3:30 in the morning 
and 6 in the morning?
  Second point. What about those few insomniacs who happen to be up 
watching television, trying to watch television, between 3:30 in the 
morning and 6 in the morning? They cannot see anything either. They 
cannot see any TV Marti. Why? Because Cuba jams TV signals.
  Radio Marti is different. Radio Marti is around the clock. There are 
about 10 million people in Cuba. They listen to the radio. They can 
hear Radio Marti. It is more difficult to jam the radio. TV is 
different. We are spending $12 million down a TV rat hole. Nobody is 
watching it between 3:30 and 6 in the morning. It does not take much 
effort to jam TV, and TV Marti is effectively jammed.
  Is that my opinion? Yes. It is my opinion. Is it also the opinion of 
others? Yes. An independent advisory panel appointed by the director of 
USIA studied TV Marti. Let me just read what that panel has concluded:

       The Cuban Government jamming prevents TV Marti broadcasts 
     from being received by any substantial number of Cubans.

  TV Marti cannot now be considered cost effective. That is what the 
panel concluded. An independent panel concluded that it is not received 
by any substantial number of Cubans because of jamming; and, second, it 
is not cost effective.
  Mr. President, you might hear some say, ``Well, gee, the panel made 
another recommendation. The panel recommended moving from VHF, very 
high frequency, to ultrahigh frequency.'' What do you think the 
consequence of that is going to be? More wasted money down a rat hole. 
Why? Let me give you a couple of reasons.
  First, most TV sets in Cuba are Soviet TV sets. They are Soviet-made 
TV sets. Guess how many channels are on Soviet TV sets? They go up to 
channel 13. Guess which channels are very high frequency, and which are 
ultrahigh frequency. Channel 13 is very high frequency. Ultrahigh 
frequency is above channel 13. These are Russian TV sets in Cuba that 
do not have ultrahigh frequency. It will not work.
  Second, the Association for Maximum Service Television, an 
independent group of TV broadcasters, reaches this conclusion:

       Proposed use of ultrahigh frequency channels by TV Marti 
     will cause serious interference to presently received 
     domestic television service.

  So, if Cuba tries to jam, it takes more power to jam ultrahigh 
frequency, according to the independent group of TV broadcasters. It is 
going to start to have an adverse effect on domestic TV. Cuban 
television reception will be very low grade, if received at all. If 
service is available, it would be susceptible to jamming user lower 
power, unsophisticated transmitters, and the ongoing effort to provide 
the U.S. public with superior television service will be adversely 
impacted to a substantial degree.
  That will not work. Why? By and large, what this comes down to is a 
feel-good $12 million annual expenditure. It sort of feels good to beam 
these TV signals up in space, and then hope that somehow they come down 
and somebody in Cuba is watching. Nobody is watching because few people 
are awake in the middle of the night between 3:30 in the morning and 6 
in the morning. They cannot watch anyway because it is jammed.
  Moving to ultrahigh frequency is even more money down a bigger rat 
hole.
  It really galls me, Mr. President, that we are spending this money. I 
know it is kind of an old sort of Communist relic that we are doing 
this. But if we really want to get the American message to Cuba, we 
could still do it with Radio Marti. Radio is effective. TV Marti is not 
effective. It is a waste.
  I can think of a lot of programs in our country for Americans where 
we could spend $12 million. Think of the American programs we have cut. 
I can think of just in my own State, just yesterday or a few days ago, 
an agricultural research station, $750,000 a year for agricultural 
research, was cut, eliminated while we spend $12 million down a TV 
Marti rat hole. It does not make any sense.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to come to its senses. We 
have to tighten our belts where it should be tightened. Let us not 
forget. There are some decisions that are tough to make whether to 
spend money on certain programs or not. We become anxious over them. Is 
this a good use of money? Is it not a good use of money?
  Then there are others which are very simple to make, very simple, 
black and white decisions where it makes no sense. This is one of 
those. There is one of those cases where it makes no sense to spend 
money.
  Again, I remind my colleagues, this is not Radio Marti. There is TV 
Marti. USIA will still beam radio signals to Cuba around the clock to 
10 million Cubans, and probably most of them have radio sets and can 
hear them. TV does not work. It is a waste.
  I submit that Fidel Castro would think that we would be kind of smart 
to stop wasting money. Let us stop wasting $12 million a year. He might 
respect us a little more. I have to think that he does not respect us 
very much now when we are spending money down a rat hole. He knows 
Cubans are not watching it, cannot watch it, and do not watch it.
  I think, therefore, Mr. President, it is just a little bit, this $12 
million, but it is a very proper reduction to make in spending.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me first say to my friend and colleague from Montana that I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue today. I do not 
appreciate his amendment, but I appreciate the opportunity, frankly, to 
be able to focus the Senate once again on the tyranny of Fidel Castro.
  Is it not somewhat ironic that 9 days after a massacre is committed 
at sea by Fidel Castro and his henchmen on a tugboat filled with 72 
refugees seeking freedom in the United States that the Senate is being 
asked to cut off the lifeline of information to the people of Cuba. 
Feel good? Insomniacs? I suggest to my colleague that, if the only 
pipeline to the voice of freedom occurred at 3:30, 4:30, 5:30, or 6:30 
in the morning, he, too, might be awake. He, too, might be trying to 
hear true information about freedom and opportunity in the world.
  Let me address some of my comments first to the issue of TV Marti. I 
think most people around the world have understood that one of the most 
significant things that happened with respect to the former Soviet 
Union is that in an information communications age, the dictators and 
the tyrants of the world no longer can control information. And as that 
information flowed across their borders, they found that their 
foundations were rocked, and it ultimately led to the demise of the 
regime. Information is a dagger to the heart of totalitarian regimes.
  There was a special commission that was referred to a moment ago 
which made recommendations to improve TV Marti, which strongly endorsed 
the concept. But I would say, probably more importantly, is the 
understanding that TV Marti along with Radio Marti is in fact a message 
for hope and that freedom is the message of hope. There were many 
people over the years that indicated the problems that we had with 
Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, the attempts to jam those radios. 
How fortunate it is that the Congress of the United States did not 
listen to those siren sounds that we could save money by eliminating 
those radios and not continue to deliver the message that the message 
of freedom is the message of hope.
  Mr. President, it is my intention, in a few moments, to offer a 
perfecting amendment. But before I do that, I want to return to the 
comment that I made a moment ago with respect to a massacre at sea. I 
would like to read an editorial from the Miami Herald entitled ``Murder 
at Sea.''

       Has our hemisphere grown so used to the Cuban regime's 
     savagery that it cannot summon a cry of outrage for the 
     nearly 40 Cuban refugees sent to their watery deaths by Fidel 
     Castro's government? The ``prudent'' silence over Cuba's 
     murderous sinking of a tugboat loaded with escapees is 
     without justification.
       Would this complicitous silence greet the murder of 
     innocent men, women, and children fleeing other places? The 
     murdered refugees' only crime was to make a desperate attempt 
     to flee Cuba. Soon after the group of 72 began their escape 
     aboard a decrepit tug, Cuban fire fighting boats attacked 
     them. According to eyewitnesses, the refugees signaled their 
     readiness to surrender and to return to port. The escapees 
     even held up some of the small children for the attackers to 
     see, screaming that more than 20 children were on board.
       Such pleas did not deter Castro's men, who turned potent 
     fire hoses on the refugee vessels, sweeping passengers 
     overboard. The pursuit craft then rammed the tugboat 
     repeatedly, capsizing it. Tragically, all of the children 
     hiding in the tug's hold, apparently died. The adult 
     survivors are in jail. Where on Earth is a mute world's 
     conscience?

  Where is the conscience of the U.S. Senate? I think the conscience of 
the U.S. Senate is saying that this kind of action should be condemned.
  I am also going to take a moment to read from the testimony of one of 
the witnesses, an individual, the age of 19, that was on that vessel:

       When we set sail, everything was going very well.
       * * *When we were at 7 miles, we see that they speed up and 
     they pull up alongside of us. And then we could not see the 
     Cuban coast, because we could see nothing; we saw no lights, 
     we were out of sight of shore. They started hitting our boat, 
     the tugboat ``13th of March.'' We were afraid, not for 
     ourselves, but for the children.
       * * *When we lifted the children, they saw them--because 
     they did see them--we started to scream, ``please, please 
     don't do this,'' but they did not listen. Even a young man 
     who was with us, Roman, who was currently in prison, yelled 
     at one of the ones in the other tug boat, ``Chino, don't do 
     that. Look, we have children,'' and he showed his three-year-
     old stepdaughter. If he does not lower the child at that 
     moment, the little girl would have been killed with the 
     cannon of water.

  In referring to when they left the harbor she said:

       They did not fire weapons at us, but they never said 
     ``stop'' with their loud speakers or nothing. They simply let 
     us exit the bay and they attack us at seven miles, where 
     there would be no witnesses. You know that in the open sea 
     there are no witnesses.
       When they continued to hit our boat, a second tugboat comes 
     up from behind. He hits us and breaks half of our boat from 
     behind.
       * * *By then we knew we were going to sink, because it was 
     something I just knew; I had a feeling they were going to 
     kill us.
       * * *The tugboat that breaks our stern comes around the 
     front. In other words, there was no way that the boat was 
     going to stay afloat. It was sinking, with all of its weight 
     in the middle from all of those people who were in the hold. 
     There were around 72 people, most of them women and children. 
     Men made up the least fatalities. But those men, those 
     survivors, did what they could to save us. But the tugboats 
     reversed and moved back some meters. But they did not throw 
     us lifesavers, nor did they offer any type of assistance.
       * * *Then the whirlpool created by the tugboat swallowed 
     them up. My sister-in-law* * *and her son* * *were there. My 
     uncle was in the hold of the boat. Those are three of my 
     family that I lost.
       When my husband saw this, you could imagine, he went mad. 
     My brother in law, too, but he was trying to save the other 
     boy. Then we both tried to reach the other boy. But when I 
     tried to move, I feel that my nephew, the one who drowned, is 
     holding my foot. When I reached out for him, he was clinging 
     to my tennis shoe, and he was swept away. I could not reach 
     him. It was terrible.

  Maybe to some, the expenditure of $12 million is too great an amount 
of money to try to deliver a message to people who have, for 
generations now, been fighting for freedom. Yes, there have been 
problems with TV Marti, but we are working to correct them. As I said 
before, thank goodness we did not give up in the fifties, sixties, and 
seventies with respect to getting our message to the former Soviet 
Union.
  Mr. President, the perfecting amendment that I will be sending to the 
desk in a moment basically is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that 
condemns the Cuban Government for deliberately sinking the 13th of 
March, causing the deaths of about 40 Cuban citizens, including about 
20 children. It also urges the President to direct the United States 
permanent representative to the United Nations to seek a resolution in 
the U.N. Security Council that: First, condemns the sinking of the 13th 
of March, and second, provides for a full internationally supervised 
investigation of the incident, and urges the Cuban Government to 
release from prison and cease intimidation measures against all 
survivors of the sinking of the 13th of March.
  One last comment I want to make with respect to TV Marti--the comment 
that maybe Fidel Castro is laughing at us. Fidel Castro has been quoted 
as saying how difficult radio and TV Marti are making it for him; that 
the amount of money that is being spent on the part of the Government 
to effect this radio and TV Marti is very damaging, and it is using up 
important reserves.


                           Amendment No. 2366

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I send a perfecting 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 Florida [Mr. Mack] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2366.

  Mr. MACK. 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:

       Strike all after the word ``Sec.'' and insert the 
     following:
       (A) Findings.--
       (1) There are credible reports that on July 15, 1994 Cuban 
     government vessels fired high-pressure water hoses, 
     repeatedly rammed and deliberately sunk the ``13th of 
     March'', a tugboat carrying 72 unarmed Cuban citizens.
       (2) About forty of the men, women, and children passengers 
     on the ``13th of March'' drowned as a result of Cuban 
     government actions, including most or all of the twenty 
     children aboard.
       (3) The President of the United States ``deplored'' the 
     sinking of the ``13th of March'' as ``another example of the 
     brutal nature of the Cuban regime.''
       (4) All of the men who survived the sinking of the ``13th 
     of March'' have been imprisoned by the Cuban government.
       (5) The freedom to emigrate is an internationally 
     recognized human right and freedom's fundamental guarantor of 
     last resort.
       (6) The Cuban government, by jamming TV and Radio Marti, 
     denies the Cuban people the right of free access to 
     information, including information about this tragedy.
       (B) It is the Sense of the Senate to--
       (1) condemn the Cuban government for deliberately sinking 
     the ``13th of March'', causing the deaths of about 40 Cuban 
     citizens, including about twenty children;
       (2) urge the President to direct the U.S. Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations to seek a resolution in 
     the United Nations Security Council that--
       (a) condemns the sinking of the ``13th of March'';
       (b) provides for a full internationally supervised 
     investigation of the incident; and,
       (c) urges the Cuban government to release from prison and 
     cease intimidation measures against all survivors of the 
     sinking of the ``13th of March''.

  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. MACK. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which has very strong 
emotions on both sides. I think it would be more appropriate if I were 
not to press the amendment at this time. And at the appropriate time, I 
will ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and that would include the 
perfecting amendment which has been added.
  I respect the views of the Senator from Florida very much. I know how 
deeply he is involved in this subject, as well as the other Senator 
from Florida, and I know, Mr. President, that the Senator from 
Wisconsin would like to speak on this subject.
  I might say to my colleagues from Florida that when the Senator from 
Wisconsin finishes his statement on this subject, at that time I will 
ask consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Montana for bringing up this amendment. Although it will be withdrawn, 
it is something that needs to come up again until we accomplish the 
goal of eliminating TV Marti.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this. I do not think this is a debate 
today, as the Senator from Florida seemed to suggest, about the merits 
of TV Marti, if it were working; if, in fact, it had the impact of 
informing people who are concerned about what is happening in Cuba, 
about what is happening, and allowing the Cuban people to hear the 
broadcast. That is not what is going on.
  The problem is, this is simply a story of a program funded by the 
Federal Government that is not working. It is a story about the waste 
of Federal funds, anywhere from $12 million to $15 million a year.
  I introduced a similar bill as soon as I got here to the Senate that 
would have done the same thing in January 1993: Eliminate this TV 
Marti. It is a very, very good program for people who are concerned 
about the deficit to bring up because it is such an easy case for 
saying that it does not make sense.
  Senator Baucus is right in suggesting that this is really a classic 
case of a boondoggle.
  Last year, Congressman Skaggs had an amendment in the House--and the 
House, by the way, has noted and voted on several occasions that this 
should not be continued--he had an amendment which established an 
independent advisory panel on both Radio and TV Marti to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the services. It seemed like it would be an easy call.
  This is in part because, as the Senator from Montana has suggested, 
the program from a programmatic point of view is a light-weight program 
when it is airing, on air 7 days a week, but, as the Senator from 
Montana pointed out, it is from 3:15 in the morning to 6 o'clock in the 
morning. Occasionally, apparently, it airs from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. as 
well. Even then, of course, they are not really in prime time. But this 
only happens periodically.
  Even if the programming was not jammed, as the Senator from Montana 
points out, all it consists of is a couple of newscasts, when it is 
working, a 30-minute segment and a 15-minute segment. But most of it is 
telecasting baseball which, as we know, is even more popular in Cuba 
than it is here; sitcoms like ``Kate and Allie,'' ``Fame,'' and 
something called ``Cape Hostage-USA,'' a show about Cuban-American 
families adapting to Miami, a source apparently of inspiration, that 
the Senator from Florida is talking about.
  Even more troubling to me than the programming, since presumably the 
programming could be changed, is that this is really a technically 
flawed program. This is not just a minor problem. There have been very, 
very serious problems with the technical workings of TV Marti. It is 
essentially inoperable.
  The chart that we just put together indicates how it is set up. It is 
broadcast outside of Washington. As we found out, it is jammed when the 
signal reaches Cuba. The transmission is faulty most of the time.
  The programs for the broadcast are produced each day by a small 
company in Maryland called Technical Arts, and beamed up by the Voice 
of America in Washington and relayed to an aerosat balloon, indicated 
here, and this balloon actually has a name. It is called, apparently, 
Fat Albert. It hangs on a tether 10,000-feet above Jungle Cay, and from 
there is projected 120 miles to Havana.
  The Miami Herald reported because of inclement weather the film of 
Fat Albert could only be shown half the time in the summer. Often, 
volatile weather conditions broke off the tether and the blimp came 
down in 1992. The blimp was found in the Florida Everglades, and they 
had to do a $35,000 search for it and it had to lay there in a damaged 
condition for many months.
  Again, in January 1993, just after I introduced my bill to eliminate 
this, Fat Albert broke off again from the tether, and TV Marti was 
forced to go off the air again.
  This is not really a boondoggle, this is a balloondoggle that costs 
the U.S. Government about $15 million a year. It has already cost the 
taxpayers $60 million since 1988.
  Yet, disappointedly, the panel that I mentioned with regard to the 
congressional amendment concluded unbelievably that TV Marti is a vital 
service, but that we should pay $1 million to move it up to the UHF ban 
to avoid jamming.
  This seems to be the only study that has really concluded this. The 
other studies, including the President's Advisory Commission on Public 
Diplomacy and the President's Task Force on International Broadcasting 
both recommended it be shut down. Even the Miami Herald has said a 
sign-off time for TV Marti has arrived.
  The GAO has also grilled TV Marti, finding the station had a low 
level of compliance with broadcasting standards and international 
agreements, and the panel this year found that the GAO findings of May 
1992 have not even been fully resolved at this point.
  I want to comment also finally on what the Senator from Montana said 
about the fact this is about TV Marti; it is not about Radio Marti. 
Radio Marti apparently concededly is somewhat more effective. It has a 
significant Cuban audience with some studies suggesting that Radio 
Marti may be the most popular station in Cuba.
  So this amendment does not suggest any lack of concern or sympathy 
for the message getting through. We just want it to get through 
effectively.
  Apparently, the radio station is not jammed. Cubans do rely on it for 
news and analyses that may be otherwise twisted on a Cuban state-
controlled media.
  But TV Marti is a black sheep in relation to Radio Marti, as the 
Commission on Public Diplomacy correctly perceived. They said TV Marti 
is simply not cost effective when compared with other public diplomacy 
programs.
  That is what this is about, not a lack of concern for changing the 
order in Cuba and the fact that people need freedom of information. But 
what this is about is fiscal responsibility.
  During this last year, we did reform overseas broadcasting in Radio 
Free Europe and Radio Liberty and began the process of consolidating.
  This is just another part of that important effort. It is not an act 
of lack of sympathy toward the type of people that the Senator from 
Florida was discussing very eloquently.
  Terminating TV Marti would be consistent with that consolidation. I 
think the goal of opening communication with the people of Cuba is very 
commendable, but let us do it with the program that works, with Radio 
Marti, and let us not waste any more of our precious public tax dollars 
for a program that is functioning very, very poorly.
  I thank the Senator from Montana and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is on the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield to the manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I know I have been yielding all day and 
I am delighted that my colleagues wish to debate, and I will let them 
debate first.
  But I cannot listen any longer to the misinformation. The expression 
was made ``tighten the belt.'' We had better tighten our intellect and 
get the facts, because this has been in debate with not only strong 
feelings but strong facts.
  I never forget, with respect to the statements just made, the 
distinguished Senator from Montana starts off immediately saying nobody 
listens. Well, if nobody listens, then why does the Cuban Government 
jam? That is next.
  Then he goes on to describe how they are jamming; how they are 
jamming. Necessarily, they are jamming because the people are 
listening. And while 3 o'clock in the morning might seem a surprise to 
someone and sounds casual, and not many of us Senators are going to be 
awake at 3 o'clock, I have been on the ``Larry King Show'' at 3 
o'clock. That is how he originally made his fame, right in the middle 
of the night. A lot of people listen to this, particularly in an 
incarcerated entity like Cuba, trying to listen to freedom.
  They came in my office a year ago, or so. I have forgotten the exact 
date. But I can see Mrs. Amos, the widow of John Amos from Columbus, 
GA, of Cuban origin. She said, ``Senator, I understand you are close to 
Ted Turner.''
  Well, not all that close. I admire Ted Turner. I think he has done an 
outstanding job. Yes, he does have a plantation, Hope Plantation right 
near Charleston, SC. We have been there, and I have had the pleasure of 
introducing him at various speeches. He has two or three sons who are 
expert sailors and, incidentally, beat Ted, the cup winner, out in 
front in the Atlantic Ocean, in front of my home. They attended the 
Citadel, the same college.
  To get to the point, she said, ``I want to get an appointment with 
him.'' I got her the appointment, but it was not successful, with 
respect to trying to get freedom for the family of a pilot who had 
escaped with a plane and landed right down there in Florida. But he had 
his wife and two children still in Cuba. She asked Mr. Turner to talk 
to Castro because she realized that Mr. Turner was on good speaking 
terms with Fidel Castro.

  She bought the rescue plane herself. I found that out later. I turned 
on my TV, I guess around Christmastime or something, and the pilot flew 
it and landed on a highway in Cuba and picked up the wife and 2 
children and came on back out.
  He came by my office a few days later and I chatted with him. And 
when they get to talking about jamming, and it did not cost anything, 
he said, it is very costly to jam. And that is one thing Castro is shy 
of--technology, manpower, pilots. And it takes two planes flying back 
and forth, very expensive to do the jamming.
  So we knew that the jamming was working. The hours were not the best.
  We got a study last year. Yes, the distinguished Congressman from 
Colorado, Mr. Skaggs, has been particularly opposed, and opposed with 
some of the misinformation that has been handed out here relative to TV 
Marti.
  He said that, for example, ``Well, they don't have UHF.'' Wrong. I 
will read from the report.

       The most recent estimate from the U.S. Interests Section in 
     Cuba is that 25-35 percent of Havana's residents have TV sets 
     or VCRs with UHF capability.

  Now, let us talk a minute about that report, because that is where we 
got into a dogfight. We have taken this matter back in true 
disagreement. The House has overwhelmingly voted it back in. The Senate 
has overwhelmingly maintained it ever since I have been chairman of 
this subcommittee on the basis of the merit of the program.
  Let us begin. You have Radio Free Europe, and you have Lech Walesa. 
And when he comes and he is asked about it, what is Voice of America 
and Radio Free Europe, he says, ``What is the world without a Sun?'' I 
will never forget that expression when we were having lunch. Lech 
Walesa comes from Poland and he immediately wants to meet the Voice of 
America, Radio Free Europe authorities because he said that is the only 
voice that really gave him sustenance many times in his imprisonment 
and in his work to try to bring freedom to Poland.
  We know not only that the programs work to bring freedom, they bring 
the voice of democracy. And so we are moving that Munich station over 
to Prague. We are embellishing it and working it further.
  And what are we doing in this bill? We say since it works so well, 
let us go to Radio Free Asia. But now when it comes to Cuba, just when 
we are going to suffer success down there in Cuba, they want to pull 
the plug.
  I do not know who was quoted, but I can see Everett Dirksen. He was a 
friend, because when I was a freshman Senator I got two Golden Gavel 
Awards for presiding for 200 hours, and handled all of what we call 
``Dirk's work,'' the minority leader at that particular time.
  He said, ``The sands of history bleach the bones of countless 
thousand, who on the eve of victory hesitated and, having hesitated, 
died.''
  On the eve of victory--that is not me, that is somebody else.
  But here we are on the eve of victory, the rest of the communist 
world is in ruins. We have even been talking to the North Koreans. We 
have extended most-favored-nation status to the Communist Chinese.
  Find me out a country we are not in touch with somehow, somewhere, 
other than the little island of Cuba and Castro.
  And here we are, moving forward there and the plan is working and we 
try to just get the foot in the door, and some Members of Congress want 
to destroy the program because they do not like the Cubans down in 
Florida.
  Now, they do not vote for me down there. I took this up because I 
believe in them, and I believe that the support is strong. I believe 
the Cuban refugees that we have had in this country have made a 
magnificent contribution to American culture and American citizenry in 
the leadership. I have seen slum areas that have been turned into 
gardens down in Miami, FL. So that is the kind of people I am going to 
fight for.
  Politically, they are not necessarily bent my way. They incline 
toward the Republican side. There are some people around that want to 
say they are more Republican than Democrat. But I think you will find 
some Democratic sponsorship, other than the Senators from Florida on 
this particular score.
  Amongst all the wrangling, we finally agreed, let us stop the 
wrangling. And the record has to be made, because they want to continue 
it. I think they are trying to bring it over here. So let us get an 
advisory panel appointed and let them objectively study and report 
back.
  And who was on that particular panel?
  First, Mr. President--and these are distinguished folks that were 
appointed by Dr. Joe Duffey, the head of the United States Information 
Agency, under the particular compromise that we made in this bill. And 
Director Duffey appointed R. Peter Straus, who was a visiting Professor 
at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University; a member of the 
faculty at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, more 
recently the Director of the Voice of America from 1977 and 1980.
  I ask unanimous consent that his biographical sketch be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Biographical Sketch for R. Peter Straus

       R. Peter Straus was Director of the Voice of America from 
     1977-1980. He is currently President of Straus 
     Communications, a media group in the Eastern U.S., which 
     includes weekly newspapers and radio stations. He is the 
     chairman and founder of CONDUCT (The Committee on Decent 
     Unbiased Campaign Tactics).
       Mr. Straus was a charter member of the National News 
     Council on which he served between 1973 and 1977. From 1970-
     1977, Mr. Straus was president of Radio WMCA in New York 
     City. Between 1967-70, Mr. Straus served as Assistant 
     Secretary of State, Administrator, U.S.A.I.D., Africa. Mr. 
     Straus was a Special Consultant on Latin America for the U.S. 
     Information Agency in 1966. Previously Mr. Straus served as 
     Director of the U.S. Office, International Labor 
     Organization, 1955-1958 and as Executive Assistant to 
     Director General, International Labor Organization in Geneva, 
     Switzerland.
       During World War II, Mr. Straus was pilot and flight leader 
     of a B-17 Flying Fortress Squadron, flying 50 missions over 
     Germany between 1943 and 1945 for which he received the Air 
     Medal.
       Mr. Straus has been a Visiting Professor at the Woodrow 
     Wilson School, Princeton University and a member of the 
     faculties of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced 
     International Studies and of the Boston University School of 
     Public Communications. He graduated Cum Laude from Yale 
     University in 1944 and speaks French, Spanish, Russian, 
     German, and Portuguese.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. We had Mr. William C. Doherty, who again was the 
executive director of the American Institute for Free Labor 
Development. He was the United States Labor Delegate to the United 
Nations International Labor Organization; represented the AFL-CIO at 
many international conferences; served on the United States election 
observation missions in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala. He had been 
president of a 1,000-member local union of Government employees; very 
objective, very successful, very highly respected.
  I ask unanimous consent that this biographical sketch be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Biographical Sketch of Mr. William C. Doherty

       William C. Doherty is the Executive Director of the 
     American Institute for Free Labor Development (A.I.F.L.D.). 
     As Executive Director, Mr. Doherty is in charge of all the 
     Institute's programs: trade union education, and social 
     projects such as housing, workers' banks, campesino service 
     center, small ``impact'' projects and community services. 
     Before becoming Executive Director Mr. Doherty served as the 
     Director of the Institute's Social Projects Department.
       Before joining the staff of A.I.F.L.D., Mr. Doherty was 
     Inter-American Representative of the Postal, Telegraph, and 
     Telephone International (PTTI) from 1955 to 1962. During that 
     time he lived in Mexico and in Rio de Janeiro and traveled 
     throughout Latin America. Previously Mr. Doherty had been 
     President of the 1,000 member local Union of Government 
     Employees (AFGE #32)--AFL-CIO.
       During World War II, Mr. Doherty served with the U.S. Air 
     Force in Italy and Germany. He is a native of Cincinnati, 
     Ohio, married, with eight children. He graduated from 
     Catholic University with a B.A. in Philosophy. He also 
     attended the Georgetown School of Law and attended the 
     Georgetown School of Foreign Service. He is fluent in 
     Spanish.
       Mr. Doherty was a member of the President's Labor Advisory 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs and is a member of the Council 
     for Foreign Relations. He has written many articles for labor 
     publications and has lectured at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, 
     and many other universities and institutes.
       He is a member of the U.S. Labor Delegation to the United 
     Nations' International Labor Organization and also has 
     represented the AFL-CIO in many international conferences and 
     meetings. He served on the official U.S. election observation 
     missions to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, in 1987 to 
     Suriname and in 1988 as an AFL-CIO observer to the Chilean 
     Plebiscite.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. They had Mrs. Sydnee Guyer Lipset. Sydnee Guyer Lipset 
has 17 years experience in television and radio production and 
strategic media planning. She is currently a press relations consultant 
at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.
  I ask unanimous consent that her biographic sketch be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Biographical Sketch for Sydnee Guyer Lipset

       Sydnee Guyer Lipset has seventeen years experience in 
     television and radio production and strategic media planning. 
     She has produced programs for KRON-TV and KPIX-TV in San 
     Francisco and for radio stations and universities and has 
     been a radio talk show host.
       Ms. Lipset is currently a press relations consultant at the 
     Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. She has served in a 
     similar position at the Graduate Schools and Research Centers 
     of George Mason University and at the Center for the Study of 
     Families, Children and Youth of Stanford University. Between 
     1976 and 1988 she served as the Director of the Mass Media 
     Project of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San 
     Francisco.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Robert S. Leiken. He is an author and a foreign 
policy analyst, a visiting scholar and research associate with the 
Harvard University Center for International Affairs. From 1981 to 1983, 
he was Director of the Soviet-Latin American Project at the Georgetown 
Center for Strategic and International Studies. And we can go on and on 
with the things he has authored. He graduated in the early days magna 
cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, all from Harvard, and also a Ph.D. from 
Oxford. More than qualified.
  I ask unanimous consent that his full biographical sketch be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Biographical Sketch for Robert S. Leiken

       Robert S. Leiken, an author and foreign policy analyst, has 
     been a Visiting Scholar and a Research Associate at the 
     Harvard University Center for International Affairs. From 
     1981 to 1983 he served as Director of the Soviet-Latin 
     American Project at the Georgetown Center for Strategic and 
     International Studies (CSIS). From 1983-1987 he was a Senior 
     Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
     (CEIP) where he established the Latin American Media Round 
     Table. He has been a member of the faculty at Harvard 
     University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston 
     University and Boston College. Mr. Leiken lived and worked 
     for a decade in Mexico where he was Professor of Economic 
     History at C.I.D.E. (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia 
     Economia) and at the National Agricultural University.
       Mr. Leiken is co-editor of The Central American Crisis 
     Reader (Summit 1987) and the editor of Central America: 
     Anatomy of a Conflict (Pergamon/Carnegie, 1984). He is the 
     author of Soviet Strategy in Latin America (Praeger, 1982) 
     and has published articles in Current History, Foreign 
     Policy, The Washington Quarterly, The Political Science 
     Quarterly, The National Interest, The New York Review of 
     Books, The Times Literary Supplement, Journal of Democracy 
     and The New Republic as well as in major national newspapers. 
     He has appeared on all major television news programs and has 
     testified frequently before House and Senate Committees. He 
     has recently completed a manuscript dealing with the American 
     media and intelligentsia and the Nicaraguan revolution.
       Mr. Leiken graduated Harvard College Magna Cum Laude and 
     earned Phi Beta Kappa. He will receive his Ph.D. from Oxford 
     University in 1994.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. After their study, which was submitted in March, they 
went over the entire issue. And here it is, just by reference to it, a 
very, very thorough study by these experts who went into it objectively 
and not with any heated feelings or constituent feelings about it. And 
they never talked to me. I just never have had contact with them.
  I just refer to the executive summary which refutes the assertions we 
have heard here that it is a boondoggle and a balloon-doggle, all the 
other kind of doggles. It says here on TV Marti, and I quote.

       TV Marti broadly meets the established Government standards 
     for quality and objectivity. However, the problems identified 
     by, among others, the General Accounting Office in May, 1992 
     do not appear to have been fully resolved.

  The report offers further measures for dealing with them.

       2. TV Marti's broadcasts are technically sound and contain 
     essential information not otherwise available to the Cuban 
     people. However, Cuban Government jamming prevents broadcasts 
     from being received by a substantial number of Cubans.

  Hence, 3:

       By the usual economic criteria, TV Marti cannot now be 
     considered cost effective.

  But, No. 4:

       It is clear nonetheless that the Cuban people have an 
     ardent desire and a genuine need to receive the programming 
     produced by TV Marti. Furthermore, such broadcasting could 
     prove vital to the United States interests and to the welfare 
     of the Cuban people now and in the future.

  Next:

       The time has come to convert TV Marti from VLF to UHF 
     transmission. The efforts to probe this new approach will 
     require approximately 1 year and $1 million. Savings 
     elsewhere during the year will more than offset this 
     investment.

  Next:

       TV Marti should use the intervening months to restructure 
     its operation to achieve the objectives described in the 
     report.

  I could go into it more thoroughly. But right now I just have a 
letter dated July 22, from the Director of the United States 
Information Agency, Joseph Duffey.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record in its 
entirety.


                                      U.S. Information Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
         Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Chairman Hollings: As the Senate considers the 
     Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies 1995 
     Appropriation bill, I wanted to convey the Administration's 
     strong support for the continuation of funding for TV Marti 
     as proposed in the Committee bill.
       In accordance with the 1994 Congressional appropriation, a 
     study of radio and TV broadcasting to Cuba was conducted this 
     year by an Advisory Panel on Radio Marti and TV Marti. That 
     panel engaged in a process of wide consultation and 
     deliberation in making recommendations on these issues.
       I have reviewed that study carefully. I have certified to 
     the Congress that the interests of the United States are 
     being served by maintaining TV broadcasting to Cuba. Our TV 
     broadcasts provide news, commentary, and other information 
     about events in Cuba, in accordance with standards of 
     independent broadcast journalism.
       Television broadcasting to Cuba is technically sound and 
     effective. Our engineers have developed and tested a system 
     that allows us to deliver a grade-A signal directly into the 
     City of Havana without violating international 
     telecommunications policies, and without interfering with US 
     domestic broadcasters.
       Though this signal is jammed by the current government of 
     Cuba, TV Marti broadcasting is being received by a sufficient 
     Cuban audience to warrant its continuation. Jamming is a 
     constant reminder to the Cuban people of the nature of 
     dictatorship and of censorship of news and commentary.
       I urge the Senate to continue to support these efforts to 
     provide a source of objective news and commentary through the 
     use of this limited television broadcasting.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Joseph Duffey,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, Mr. President, I have a similar letter, dated July 
22, from the President of the United States, which I will read its 
entirety at this point:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my support for 
     Radio and TV Marti.
       During my campaign for President I actively supported the 
     good work of Radio and TV Marti. And as President, I have 
     made sure that my Administration fully backs the Office of 
     Cuba Broadcasting in its efforts to bring the truth to Cuba.
       I believe that both Radio and TV Marti make genuine 
     contributions to the cause of human rights and democracy in 
     the hemisphere. Both help promote short and long term U.S. 
     foreign policy goals. Supporting both will send important 
     signals to those everywhere who struggle against tyranny.
       I want to thank you for your support in advancing our 
     national interests by insuring that the Cuban people will 
     have free access to unbiased news and information which their 
     own repressive regime tries to deny them. I urge Congress to 
     approve my request for Radio and TV Marti.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Clinton.

  The distinguished Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack], has pointed out 
the repressive nature, as of this week, down there in Cuba, where they 
just swamped a boat and drowned these children unmercifully. It is just 
unheard of. But it continues and this crowd up here that runs around 
thinking they are saving money ought to sober up.
  The truth of the matter is this works. It does not work perfectly. We 
have been on to it. That is why we asked for the GAO study. Senator 
Domenici and I have been working on it. Throughout the years--I worked 
earlier with Senator Laxalt and Senator Rudman. We have urged them to 
improve the balloon he is talking about. We have it working, but we can 
work it better with a UHF signal.
  So while the Senator from Florida has an amendment in the second 
degree, and the Senator from Montana has already ordered a rollcall on 
his particular amendment, and they say they will withdraw it, but they 
say they can come right back--I think the better part of procedure is 
to go ahead and vote on the fundamental amendment.
  Perhaps the Senator from Florida will withdraw his. But I oppose the 
withdrawal of the amendment of the Senator from Montana because I have 
some broadcaster friends who have been cutting up, some shenanigans, I 
can tell you that. We are tired of this intramural fight that I cannot 
catch hold of. You give them GAO studies, you give them special 
committee studies, you give them USIA studies, you bring support in 
from a Republican administration, then the Democratic administration, 
the Democratic President supports it--that still does not satisfy these 
maneuvers. So I am confident the distinguished minority leader will 
have even more to say on this particular point.
  At this time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Republican 
leader, Senator Dole.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just follow on what the Senator from 
South Carolina said.
  There could be no worse time to propose this amendment. Just over 1 
week ago, the Cuban Government brutally murdered up to 40 refugees who 
were trying to flee Castro's tyranny. Innocent men, women, and children 
were forced overborad--after trying to surrender and trying to return 
to port. That act is the just the latest example of Fidel Castro's 
continuing, crushing stranglehold on the Cuban people.
  The amendment before this body would cut off funds for television 
Marti. The subcommittee, under the leadership of Senator Hollings, 
wisely restored funding for TV Marti which was cut by the House. This 
is not a partisan issue. The administration wants money for radio and 
TV Marti. The administration's advisory panel on radio Marti and TV 
Marti concluded:

       The United States interest is served by [radio and TV 
     Marti] continuing to air.

  I want to support the President and support TV Marti.
  Why should we cut off TV Marti? Some say Castro is jamming the 
signal. In my view, the fact Castro is scared enough of TV Marti to 
devote scarce resources to interfere with its signal is important. It 
shows just how much Castro fears objective news and independent 
information.
  Let us not send a signal to Castro that his resistance is reason to 
end our efforts to support freedom. We did not end Radio Free Europe or 
Radio Liberty because the Soviet Union jammed their signals. Radio and 
TV Marti are the only way the Cuban people can hear about how their 
countrymen were killed trying to reach freedom last week. Let us not 
shut the channel down. Let us not hand Castro a victory a week after 
the murder of innocent Cuban women and children.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico, [Mr. Domenici].
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just have a couple of minutes. I do 
not know how many more Senators want to speak. I assume the senior 
Senator from Florida wants to speak. Does he have any idea how much 
time he requires? Senators are calling and wondering when we are going 
to finish.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think I would take approximately 5 
minutes.
  After the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what type 
of Government was created, and he responded: ``A Republic, if we can 
keep it.'' As we remember Hugh Scott, we can also remember that here 
was a man who gave his all to ensure that our Republic remains strong 
and free.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico retains the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously, much has been said already 
about the need for Radio and TV Marti. I am not going to address that. 
I am just going to address the catastrophe that occurred at sea off 
Cuba recently, when more than 40 Cubans were slaughtered. I want to 
speak about the dire impact of that massacre on the State of New 
Mexico, a place far, far away from Florida.


                        Dago Ruiz and His Family

  We have a distinguished Cuban-American group in our State. One of its 
leaders is my long-time friend, Dago Ruiz. He has a very large family. 
He reported to my office, and I discussed it with him on the telephone 
from the Senate Cloakroom earlier today, the terrible reality that 
among those 40 Cubans that were slaughtered at sea, 11 of them were his 
relatives, or relatives of his family. Some of those most closely 
related to the victims now live in California, some live elsewhere, but 
from among his extended network of relationships and relatives, 11 of 
them were slaughtered at sea on Castro's orders. Of those, one was 2\1/
2\ years old and one was 5 years old.
  Frankly, I think it is the worst of times when we tie up the Senate 
over $12 million and an approach to Cuban broadcasting that worked in 
most of the other Communist countries--at least we thought it did.
  During the cold war, we put radio and, rarely, TV wherever we could 
to spread the message of freedom. We tried to get the Voice of America 
and Radio Liberty to transmit where people could hear some reason to 
hope for change. Now we are doing the same in Cuba. Clearly, it is a 
place where the people have not succeeded in breaking the chains, 
leaving Castro as the last of the major Communist dictators.
  I believe we ought to pursue this program and pay for it. There is a 
little work to be done in perfecting it. We ought to do that. Now is 
not the time to take any of the heat off Fidel Castro. All of the Cuban 
broadcasting ought to be kept there, alive and burning and tough in its 
message.
  Sooner or later Fidel is going to have to relinquish his stranglehold 
over these marvelous people in Cuba. We know they are wonderful people 
because look at what happened in the United States when they have 
settled into life in our country. They prospered and contributed to our 
great Nation. Many left right ahead of Castro's takeover or as they 
filtered out little by little over the years and decades since 1960.
  So I say to that family, the Dago Ruiz family in my home town of 
Albuquerque, with 11 of its people slaughtered off the shore of Cuba, I 
do not want to be part today of sending a signal to Fidel Castro that 
we have anything but the most intense indignation for the way he 
governs his people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida, 
[Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not wish to be repetitious of the 
excellent remarks that have been made by my colleagues. I believe that 
there would be some serious adverse consequences to the United States 
of America if we were to adopt this amendment with its proposal to 
terminate Television Marti. This is not a debate about balloons or 
about television frequencies or about the mechanics. It is a debate 
about the American commitment to the restoration of democracy in 
countries which have seen it lost. Cuba and Haiti are the only two 
countries now in the Western Hemisphere which do not operate with a 
government that has its legitimacy drawn from the vote of the citizens 
of those countries.
  I believe that among the adverse consequences of the adoption of this 
amendment would be to terminate an effective national tradition. The 
Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the subcommittee, has 
placed in the Record numerous statements that underscore the 
effectiveness of this initiative.
  I was particularly impressed with the letter of July 22 by the 
Director of the U.S. Information Agency, Mr. Joseph Duffey, in support 
of the recommendations made by the study commission which this very 
Congress authorized to review the operations of Television Marti, a 
study commission which reported favorably for its continuation, making 
a series of recommendations as to how it might be more effective.
  Second, Mr. President, this would be to abandon a strategy which has 
proven to be effective in other regions of the world. We stuck it out 
for 45 years in Central Europe and in the Soviet Union. There were 
times during that 45-year period that I imagine there were colleagues 
in this body who said we have waited too long, our strategy of 
containment has proven to be ineffective; we have not been able to roll 
back communism from nations and regions which it had taken over by 
force. But we stayed the course through Democratic and Republican 
administrations, and we achieved eventual success. The people of those 
former Central European nations, as well as the former Soviet Union 
itself, are now free.
  One of the fundamental parts of that strategy was isolation, 
politically and economically, while information was poured into those 
countries. Talk to the Republics of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. 
They will tell you of the degree to which they received reassurance, 
how their sometimes flagging confidence that they would ever be 
released from the grip of tyranny was reassured by the Voice of Radio 
Free Europe and the other methods of communication which were made 
available.
  That strategy, I think, is particularly appropriate now as we look 
for nonlethal means by which we might accomplish our objectives of the 
promotion of democracy.
  Third, Mr. President, most of the debate is focused on the issue of 
Television Marti today. There is going to be an important period--we 
hope an important period soon--in which Cuba is going to undergo a 
major transition. It is at exactly that time that the opportunity to 
make available to the people of Cuba an independent channel of 
communication and news and information as to what is occurring during 
that time will be especially valuable in advancing the cause of freedom 
and democracy in Cuba.
  To abandon this now and to have it unavailable at that critical time, 
I think, would be a great disservice to United States interests and 
even a greater disservice to the people locked in Cuba.
  Finally, this would be a tremendously negative symbol and statement 
to the people of Cuba as well as to free people around the world. It 
has been argued that the fact that this signal is jammed for many hours 
of the day is a reason to abandon it. I would argue that the fact it is 
being jammed, Mr. President, is a reason to continue.
  First, that jamming is very costly to the Cuban Government. It is 
estimated that the 15 to 20 fixed jammers which are being employed in 
the Havana area, supplemented by 40 full-time soldiers who operate 
helicopter-borne jammers and mobile land jammers represent a 
substantial commitment of Cuban resources to this purpose.
  What greater signal could it be to the people of Cuba to turn on 
their television sets to this channel and to see a faint figure in the 
background with the jamming lines overimposed. If there could ever be a 
statement of a regime which had lost confidence in its ability to lead 
by legitimacy and by convincing the people that it had their interest 
as its primary guiding force, nothing could be more of a statement of 
the authoritarian regime than those wavy lines over the signal of TV 
Marti.
  So, Mr. President, I believe that it would be extremely detrimental 
to U.S. interests, to our pursuit of democracy within this hemisphere 
if we were to take the action suggested today.
  I urge a strong vote ``no'' for the amendment to terminate Television 
Marti, and with it the corollary, a strong vote ``yes" for the earliest 
possible restoration of democracy and freedom to the people of Cuba.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment which would 
eliminate funding for TV Marti.
  This bill includes $24.8 million for both TV and Radio Marti. The 
House version of the bill eliminated funding for TV Marti and reduced 
funding for Radio TV to $8.6 million.
  The $24.8 million is a small investment to make for the people of 
Cuba and the future of democracy in that country.
  I am not alone in this belief. The U.S. Information Agency advisory 
panel recently recommended continued support of TV and Radio Marti. The 
panel concluded that despite the obstacles, interference and 
shortcomings which have hampered the program, the U.S. interest is 
served by their continuing to air. In light of the panel's conclusion 
that both programs are meritorious and deserve support, I hope my 
colleagues will vote against this amendment.
  Both programs provide a credible source of news to the Cuban people. 
They help foster the free flow of information which is critical to 
further democratic ideals in Cuba. Castro's government consistently and 
deliberately hides information from its own people. Radio and TV Marti 
provide valuable and independent sources of information about social, 
economic, and political issues in Cuba and United States policy. For 
the Cuban people, they provide a critical link to the world outside 
Cuba.
  The programs help Cubans to more fully understand the truth about 
events that the Cuban Government tries to hide. We should fully support 
this effort.
  The people of Cuba deserve to have the benefit of the important news 
provided by both Radio and Television Marti. I hope my colleagues will 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with the 
senior Senator from Montana who offered the amendment and with the 
junior Senator from Wisconsin who spoke in behalf of the amendment. 
Senator Baucus announced earlier his intention to withdraw the 
amendment. Both he and Senator Feingold have indicated to me and 
authorized me to represent that if the amendment is withdrawn, they 
will not bring it up again during this session of Congress.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I would hope that we could get consent to 
withdraw the amendment, for which I will shortly make the request, and 
then we can proceed to other matters. So in behalf of Senator Baucus, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2365) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2367

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Republican leader, 
Senator Dole.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. I talked with 
Senator Baucus myself and that was his intent. What I would like to do 
is just offer a sense of the Senate which condemns the Cuban Government 
for deliberately causing the death of 40 people, and also ask the 
United States Permanent Representative to seek a resolution in the 
United Nations condemning the sinking of the 13th of March and provide 
for an investigation.
  I do not think there is any objection to that. It is an amendment 
that had been offered by Senator Mack, and I would offer it on behalf 
of anybody who wants to join me and Senator Mack, Senator Domenici, 
and, I think, Senator Graham, and others, and Senator Hatch. I will 
send it to the desk. I think Senator Hollings has seen that amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I think it likely that almost all 
Senators would wish to associate themselves with the amendment. So we 
could permit a period following its adoption to the close of business 
so Senators could sign on as original cosponsors. I think most Senators 
would like to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings].
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader and 
minority leader for the withdrawal of the amendment.
  As I understand it--I came in the Chamber after trying to do some 
other things--an amendment in the second degree by the Senator from 
Florida was up. I asked that he set his aside so we could get an up and 
down vote on the amendment of Senator Baucus. We were all prepared, and 
the Senator from Montana, I think, informed the desk up here that he 
wanted to withdraw the amendment.
  The Senator from Florida asked, now, wait, if you are withdrawing the 
amendment, does that mean you are going to come back or is it withdrawn 
for this session? He said, I am not making any commitment, as I 
understand it, from the Senator from Florida. I was not party to it. 
But I did hear our distinguished colleague from Wisconsin say we would 
be back if it was withdrawn.
  So that disturbed me, and I was prepared to object to the withdrawal, 
because we are ready for an up or down vote. But the record has been 
made, and I do thank the distinguished majority leader and the minority 
leader for reconciling this, which could have developed into a 
misunderstanding.
  I do not think we ought to be able to put up an amendment, get the 
yeas and nays, and then when you find it is second degreed and the 
second degree might capture the vote and your basic amendment fail, 
then you leave town and say I have withdrawn it but I am coming back.
  I might have misunderstood, but that is the way I understood it, and 
that is the way the other Senators in the Chamber understood it, and 
that is why the slight difference here. I do appreciate all the 
cooperation.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be a cosponsor of Senator Dole's 
amendment, along with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 
Lautenberg]. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader, Senator Mitchell.
  Mr. MITCHELL. May I suggest, if there is no objection, that the clerk 
report the Dole, et al amendment and the Senate proceed to adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. Mack, 
     Mr. Graham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Lautenberg, and others, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2367.

  Mr. DOLE. 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:
       (A) Findings--
       (1) There are credible reports that on July 16, 1994 Cuban 
     government vessels fired high-pressure water hoses, 
     repeatedly rammed and deliberately sunk the ``13th of 
     March'', a tugboat carrying 72 unarmed Cuban citizens.
       (2) About forty of the men, women, and children passengers 
     on the ``13th of March'' drowned as a result of Cuban 
     government actions, including most or all of the twenty 
     children aboard.
       (3) The President of the United States ``deplored'' the 
     sinking of the ``13th of March'' as ``another example of the 
     brutal nature of the Cuban regime.''
       (4) All of the men who survived the sinking of the ``13th 
     of March'' have been imprisoned by the Cuban government.
       (5) The freedom to emigrate is an internationally 
     recognized human right and freedom's fundamental guarantor of 
     last resort.
       (6) The Cuban Government, by jamming TV and Radio Marti, 
     denies the Cuban people the right of free access to 
     information, including information about this tragedy.
       (B) It is the Sense of the Senate to--
       (1) condemn the Cuban government for deliberately sinking 
     the ``13th of March'', causing the deaths of about 40 Cuban 
     citizens, including about twenty children;
       (2) urge the President to direct the U.S. Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations to seek a resolution in 
     the United Nations Security Council that--
       (a) condemns the sinking of the ``13th of March'';
       (b) provides for a full internationally supervised 
     investigation of the incident; and,
       (c) urges the Cuban government to release from prison and 
     cease intimidation measures against all survivors of the 
     sinking of the ``13th of March''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
occurs on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Republican leader 
and others.
  The amendment (No. 2367) 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. 2368

 (Purpose: To prevent appropriated funds from being used to implement 
      the objectives of the so-called Racial Justice legislation)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader,
  Mr. DOLE. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending committee 
amendment is set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. 
     D'Amato, Mr. Hatch, and others, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2368.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``No funds appropriated under the Act to the Department of 
     Justice shall be used to implement any policy, regulation, 
     guideline, or executive order with respect to the death 
     penalty which permits the consideration of evidence that race 
     was a statistically significant factor in the decision to 
     seek or impose the sentence of death in any capital case.''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Hatch, Senator D'Amato, and others.
  I would just say that we have seen the crime bill has been stalled in 
the conference for a number of weeks. It may have been worked out 
since. I am not certain what has happened because I am not certain 
Republicans have been invited.
  The Racial Justice Act mocks our system of individual justice by 
allowing capital defendants to challenge their sentences using 
statistics alone--if the numbers do not add up, then the sentence 
should be overturned. The Supreme Court of the United States has 
properly rejected this fuzzy-headed reliance on statistics. And the 
Senate, to its credit, has voted thumbs-down on the Racial Justice Act 
every time we have considered it.
  Not surprisingly, prominent law enforcement agencies like the 
National Association of Attorneys General, the National District 
Attorneys Association, and the National Troopers Coalition have all 
publicly opposed the act.
  As a compromise solution to the conference logjam, the administration 
is apparently willing to drop the racial justice provisions and, as a 
substitute, adopt a different approach--perhaps even a Presidential 
directive instructing the Justice Department to develop procedures to 
prevent discrimination in Federal death penalty cases.

  Of course, Mr. President, I abhor racial discrimination in all its 
forms, whether it be in employment or in education or in criminal 
sentencing. Unfortunately, our system of criminal justice is not 
perfect. Mistakes are made. Racial Factors may come into play in 
individual situations.
  Nevertheless, I am concerned that a Presidential directive could be 
used as a back-door way of introducing into Federal capital decisions 
the statistical evidence approach that is the hallmark of the Racial 
Justice Act.
  Under the Racial Justice Act, a convicted murderer sentenced to death 
can challenge the capital sentence simply by offering evidence that 
``at the time the death sentence was imposed, race was a statistically 
significant factor in decisions to seek or to impose the sentence of 
death in the jurisdiction in question.'' This includes ``evidence that 
death sentences were being imposed significantly more frequently * * * 
upon persons of one race than upon persons of another race.''
  The practical effect of all this is to prohibit the death penalty 
unless it is carrier out strictly by the numbers, according to rigid 
death-penalty quotas. Under the Racial Justice Act, all a death row 
inmate must do is show a statistical disparity based on his or her own 
race or the race of the victim, regardless of the specific facts of the 
specific case. One the presumption of racial discrimination is raised 
through statistics, the Government must rebut the presumption that 
race was a factor in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. The 
bottom line is that the Government would then have the burden of 
proving a negative--that racial factors had nothing to do with the 
capital sentence.

  This amendment would not prohibit the Justice Department from 
implementing a policy that seeks to prevent racial discrimination in 
Federal capital cases. However, it would bar the Department from 
promoting a policy that encourages the use of statistical evidence to 
show racial bias. The bottom line is that each capital case should be 
judged on the merits, on the specific facts of the specific case.
  The amendment reads:

       No funds appropriated under this act to the Department of 
     Justice shall be used to implement any policy, regulation, 
     guideline, or Executive order with respect to the death 
     penalty which permits the consideration of evidence that a 
     race was a statistically significant factor in the decision 
     to seek or impose the sentence of death on any capital case.

  So, Mr. President, this amendment is simply an insurance policy. If 
the conferees drop the racial justice provisions, the Justice 
Department should not seek to resurrect these provisions under the 
guise of implementing a Presidential directive.
  That is the sole purpose of the amendment. I do not know any reason 
it should not be adopted. We have had this debate before on the Senate 
floor. I yield to my colleague from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah, 
Mr. [Mr. Hatch].
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished minority 
leader for sending this amendment to the desk on his behalf, myself, 
Senator D'Amato, and others. This is an amendment to the pending bill 
that would bar the use of appropriated funds for any policy that adopts 
the racial quota approach taken by the so-called racial justice 
legislation.
  For months now, the crime bill has been blocked by the gridlock on 
the other side of the aisle over the so-called Racial Justice Act which 
would permit convicted murderers to manipulate racial statistics from 
unrelated cases to bring an end to the death penalty nationwide. 
Because the legislation would permit death penalty statistics to be 
selected, and, of course, manipulated across an endless number of 
variables, it is inevitable that in virtually every case a supposed 
``expert'' could concoct a statistical disparity from a numerical 
quota.
  Prosecutors from around the country have vigorously opposed this 
death penalty abolition act. The National Association of Attorneys 
General, the National District Attorneys Association, and countless 
groups of State and local prosecutors have strongly condemned 
permitting convicted murderers to make claims based on manipulated 
statistics from unrelated cases.
  Let us just be honest about it. This is a serious, serious matter. 
This Senate with bipartisan majorities has repeatedly rejected the so-
called Racial Justice Act, including just 2 months ago, when we voted 
by a 58 to 41 margin in favor of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
that the crime conferees ``should totally reject the so-called Racial 
Justice Act provisions.'' Now it appears that the Clinton 
administration is trying to do through the back door what it dares not 
do through the front door.
  According to news reports, the Clinton administration will rely on 
Executive orders or Department of Justice regulations to appease 
supporters of the so-called Racial Justice Act. The Dole-Hatch-D'Amato 
amendment would shut this back door and lock it firmly. This amendment 
would bar the use of appropriated funds to implement any policy that 
uses racial statistics from unrelated cases to block the death penalty. 
Every Senator who voted for the sense-of-the-Senate resolution last 
month should support this amendment.
  Let me emphasize that the fact that an Executive order or Department 
of Justice regulation providing for the use of statistics from 
unrelated cases might be limited to the Federal death penalty does not 
lessen the concern that this racial quota approach raises. Rather, this 
is a false compromise under which the death penalty would ultimately be 
abolished in several steps rather than one. Several questions demand 
answers.
  Why is the Clinton administration working to undermine the Federal 
death penalty at the very time that it is purported that it is trying 
to support it? Does anyone here believe that Attorney General Reno has 
been motivated by race discrimination in making decisions on the death 
penalty? Of course not. I certainly do not. But according to a recent 
article, Attorney General Reno has approved seeking the Federal death 
penalty against nine defendants, all of whom are black. Again, I do not 
believe for a second that Attorney General Reno has been acting in a 
racially discriminatory manner.
  But the statistical approach that the Clinton administration is being 
urged to adopt would compel this faulty inference as a matter of law. 
Does anyone believe that the States can take any comfort in the 
statistical quota system that would apply for the time being only to 
the Federal Government? This unstable accommodation should give States 
no more comfort than the German invasion of Belgium gave the French. It 
simply sets the stage for a later full-scale assault on the death 
penalty in the States. We must oppose the back-door repeal of the death 
penalty.


                Amendment No. 2369 to Amendment No. 2368

 (Purpose: To prevent appropriated funds from being used to implement 
      the objectives of the so-called Racial Justice legislation)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. 
     Thurmond, and Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 2369 
     to amendment No. 2368.

  Mr. HATCH. 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:

       Strike all after the first word and add the following:
       ``No funds appropriated under the Act to the Department of 
     Justice, or any other agency shall be used to implement any 
     policy, regulation, guideline, or executive order with 
     respect to the death penalty which permits the consideration 
     of evidence that race was a statistically significant factor 
     in the decision to seek or impose the sentence of death in 
     any capital case.''

  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment is a second-degree amendment 
that is basically the same as what I have been talking about except for 
some changes.
  We have tried to accommodate those who feel strongly on this issue. 
But we simply cannot allow this type of statistical disparity to really 
make the determination whether or not the death penalty is carried out 
in those cases where it is very clear that it must be carried out.
  Mr. President, we should be concerned about the type of crime that is 
involved, rather than the statistical aspects of the death penalty. We 
are for language in the bill that upholds the 14th amendment to the 
Constitution, and the 5th amendment to the Constitution, as well. We do 
not believe there is any reason for anybody to discriminate on the 
basis of race with regard to the death penalty.
  Mr. President, in all honesty, this is not the way to do it. We know 
that if the Racial Justice Act in any form, even applied only to the 
Federal Government, is put into law either through regulations or 
Executive order or, as it should not be, because of the votes of the 
Senators on this floor through legislative enactment, that it would 
result in such a quagmire of appeals and cross appeals and cross 
litigation that it would cost the American people billions of 
unnecessary dollars.
  It is an ingenious approach, I have to admit, for those who hate the 
death penalty, for those who are totally opposed to the death penalty, 
because it would ultimately lead to such a quagmire and such cost and 
such stultification of the implementation of the policy that people in 
this country probably would throw their hands in the air and say, 
``Well, we will never be able to implement the death penalty. We might 
as well give up rather than keep throwing billions of dollars into the 
frivolous lawsuits that are brought one right after the other.''
  If you think the Federal habeas corpus proceedings in this country 
are out of whack and that these repetitive appeals by these death-row 
inmates and others--which I might add are just never ending--then wait 
until you see this thing in action.
  That is why it is defeated constantly in the U.S. Senate, because we 
all understand it. We know that it is an ingenious liberal approach to 
do away with the death penalty. I have to give my colleagues credit for 
that who support it. It is ingenious. But that is not what the American 
people want; it is not what good criminal law should be; and it is 
certainly not what we ought to have on the floor at this time.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be added as a cosponsor 
to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have no real desire to prolong the debate 
on this. This amendment should be adopted because the Senate has voted 
on it repetitively. There is no question but that a majority of 
Senators do not believe that it should be implemented either by 
legislation, regulation, Executive order, or otherwise. I personally am 
happy to end the debate by having it accepted, or we can vote on it, 
whichever is the case.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the ingenuity of my Republican friends 
never fails to amaze me. They will do anything at all to keep the 
President of the United States from getting credit for passing the 
crime bill. They have spent the last 3 weeks talking about this red 
herring, about if the racial justice provision as passed by the House 
or offered in the Senate became part of the crime bill, it would bring 
down the Nation; it would eliminate the death penalty; it would go on 
and on and on and on. Although I am a supporter of the Racial Justice 
Act, they won that debate in the court of public opinion and on this 
floor.
  So it was my dubious task to spend the last 3 weeks, as my friend 
from Utah knows, trying to talk the House of Representatives out of 
insisting it be part of the crime bill. Just when I succeeded, and 
maybe had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, from our Republican 
friends who do not want a crime bill, they came up with a new ingenious 
idea. How do we keep this racial justice thing alive? And I know what 
they did. They decided to do something that would prevent the Attorney 
General of the United States from in any way assuring everyone that 
there was no racial discrepancy in the application of the death penalty 
and put, for the first time that I know of in the history of the United 
States, a prohibition on the Attorney General of the United States from 
being able to exercise discretion.
  It says:

       No funds appropriated under the * * * act shall be used to 
     implement any policy, regulation, guideline, or Executive 
     order--

  And I might add, there are none now--

     which permits the consideration of evidence that race was a 
     statistically significant factor * * *.

  They play their little games. They second degree this amendment. I do 
not know what the second degree of this amendment says.
  They probably changed a period or a comma, I am not sure, to make 
sure that we could not do anything. Gamesmanship is something I believe 
the Republicans are much better at than we are. It is clear to me that 
they are. The one thing, if you read today's paper, Mr. Barbour, the 
chairman of the Republican Party, is talking about unity in the 
Republican Party, and the gains in the meeting they had, and the gains 
they are going to make. They acknowledged that the one thing that might 
change that around is if the crime bill passes. They have blocked the 
crime bill for 6 years. Now we are about to pass the most comprehensive 
crime bill in the history of the United States of America--one the 
American people are desperately waiting for--and this is designed to 
put not only a spike and a spur in the saddle of the folks on the House 
side, but this is designed, very effectively, to confuse the living 
devil out of the situation.
  The one thing I say to my colleagues on the Democratic side who would 
be inclined to vote for this mischievous amendment, if they vote for 
this amendment, the likelihood is that you will have racial justice in 
the crime bill. It will be back here in a crime bill, because 
essentially what we have is a tentative agreement on now to take racial 
justice out of the crime bill completely. But this takes away the 
discretion of the Attorney General even to look at whether or not a 
rogue prosecutor working for her is misapplying the death penalty. 
Think of that for a minute. When have we eliminated prosecutorial 
discretion ahead of time on a matter that my Republican friends feign 
an interest in--and that is, that they do not want the death penalty 
applied on a racist basis.
  Who is talking about statistics? I am surprised they did not mention 
quotas. That is usually a buzzword they like to bring up. I imagine 
they will mention that next. Nobody has mentioned this. It is not going 
to be in the crime bill. It is not in any legislation now. I support 
the Racial Justice Act. But I want to make it clear to my friends who 
oppose the legislation that the amendment offered by Senators Dole and 
Hatch goes far, far beyond rejecting the Racial Justice Act. Indeed, it 
sets a dangerous precedent. Let me take a moment to explain how the 
Racial Justice Act and Senator Hatch's amendment are different. The 
Racial Justice Act would permit a capital defendant--that is somebody 
accused of murder, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death--to 
present a claim to a court challenging his or her death sentence on the 
grounds that the sentence was sought or imposed because of the 
defendant's race.
  This amendment would have a very different and quite radical effect. 
It would preclude the U.S. Justice Department from performing a 
prosecutorial function, the prosecutor's most basic obligation--making 
sure that the law is upheld consistently, so that like defendants are 
treated alike.
  In this particular case, it would prevent the Department from even 
looking at its own track record in Federal death penalty cases. 
Consider what that means. It does not go to whether the defendant could 
use statistical evidence to challenge his or her own sentencing court. 
Any Attorney General guidelines they put down would not give a cause of 
action to the defendant in court. It only goes to whether or not the 
prosecutor says, ``I am going to ask for the death penalty'' or ``I am 
not going to ask for the death penalty.'' They want to know all of the 
relevant facts.
  Consider what it means. It does not go to whether the defendant could 
use statistical evidence to challenge his or her own sentence in court. 
It does not go to whether lawyers would battle over the meaning of 
statistics in court. It does not go to whether the court could use such 
evidence to reject the death sentence in a particular case.
  What it would do is prohibit the Attorney General--our Federal chief 
prosecutor--and those prosecuting who work for her, from reviewing 
death penalty cases to ensure the consistent application of the law.
  For example, under the drug kingpin legislation, if I am black and 
the other defendant is white, and the prosecutor in a particular 
jurisdiction gets a conviction and asks for the death penalty for the 
black man and not the white man, in the same exact case, in the same 
exact situation, why should the Attorney General of the United States, 
who is required to sign off on that, not know that? But this would 
prevent the Attorney General of the United States from being able to do 
that.
  As racist as some in our past history have been, I refuse to believe 
that anybody in this Chamber would not want the Attorney General being 
able to determine whether or not a prosecutor was doing that. The same 
facts, same case, two defendants, one black, one white. But even there, 
it would not require the Attorney General to do anything. It would just 
allow her the facts. It may be that the prosecutor in that case says, 
``the reason I asked for the death penalty for the black defendant is 
because he committed murder on two other occasions, and the reason I 
did not ask for the death penalty for the white defendant is because of 
these mitigating circumstances. He led an exemplary life up to now,'' 
in which case the death penalty would go forward for the black and not 
for the white. But, my Lord, to deny the Attorney General the ability 
to look at whether or not a prosecutor in a particular jurisdiction was 
asking for the death penalty only when the person is white as opposed 
to when they are black, or vice versa, I cannot believe they really 
mean this. This is a political sham.
  Assume for a moment that a particular jurisdiction had a rogue 
prosecutor, who bases his or her decision on whether to seek the death 
penalty based upon the race of the defendant. As a result, in that 
jurisdiction, as I said, a white drug kingpin gets a life sentence, and 
a black drug kingpin gets the death penalty. Under this amendment, the 
Attorney General could not even consider evidence of the rogue 
prosecutor's track record. She could not even investigate to find out 
whether the Federal prosecutor was discriminating on the basis of race 
in that jurisdiction.
  This is not the court, this is the Attorney General, the one who 
decides whether or not to ask for the death penalty. If she were 
confronted with the clear evidence that the prosecutor was 
discriminating on the basis of race, she could not do anything under 
this amendment.
  The laws of our Nation condemn racial discrimination in all contexts. 
But with this amendment, we are tying the hands of the Attorney General 
and telling her she cannot make sure that race does not determine who 
gets the death sentence and who does not. Do we not want the Attorney 
General to have the ability to see that Federal prosecutors are acting 
consistent with the law? Will we tell the Attorney General that she 
cannot look into the charges that a particular U.S. atorney was 
investigating or bringing public corruption charges only against 
Republicans and never against Democrats?
  It seems to me that I remember in this body similar charges being 
made. So we passed a piece of legislation here. The Attorney General 
cannot look into whether or not local U.S. attorneys are bringing 
criminal charges based upon political party. What would you do if she 
said that? The American public would rise and say what in the devil are 
you doing? Should the Attorney General not be able to say, look, you 
are not allowed to go out and use an indictment for political purposes. 
Well, that is what we are doing here.
  Think about it for a minute. Those of you who vote against the Racial 
Justice Act for your own good reasons, this has nothing to do with the 
Racial Justice Act. This is a political ploy designed to do something 
that, to the best of my knowledge, we have never done in our history: 
tie the prosecutorial hands of the chief prosecutor to even determine 
whether or not the law is being applied fairly.
  By the way, there is no such Executive order out there. Even if there 
were--the Senator made his own case--you were tying the hands of the 
Attorney General in this administration, who is against the death 
penalty but kept her commitment, and thus far has signed off on the 
death penalty of nine people, and they have all been black.
  What a bunch of political chicanery.
  Like I said, when we tell the Attorney General she cannot look into 
charges that a particular U.S. attorney was investigating and bringing 
public corruption charges only against Republicans and never against 
Democrats or she could not do anything about it if there was evidence 
that such a practice was underway--what is the difference?
  I believe it is terribly bad precedent to say that our Nation's chief 
prosecutor cannot learn about and consider all relevant evidence in 
making decisions of who to charge, what to charge, and what penalty to 
seek.
  It is also a key part of a prosecutor's duty to apply the law 
consistently so that the defendants who commit like crimes receive like 
treatment.
  This amendment prevents the Attorney General from ensuring fairness 
and consistency in Federal death penalty cases.
  I received a letter from the Attorney General addressed to the 
majority leader, Senator Mitchell. It says:

       Dear Senator Mitchell:
       I understand that Senator Dole and Senator Hatch may offer 
     an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
     appropriations bill which would prohibit the Department of 
     Justice from reviewing its own decisions.

  This is not prohibiting the court from reviewing anybody's decision. 
This is not prohibiting the Attorney General from reviewing someone's 
decisions. This is the Attorney General reviewing their own decisions.

       * * * would prohibit the Department of Justice from 
     reviewing its own decisions to seek the death penalty to 
     ensure that those decisions were free of racial bias.
       I strongly urge that such amendment be defeated. If 
     adopted, such an amendment would ensure that there would be a 
     continuing claim that the Justice Department is applying 
     capital punishment in a racially discriminatory manner. Such 
     criticism could seriously undermine the confidence of the 
     Department's fairness, which is essential to maintaining 
     confidence and support for capital punishment.
       The Dole amendment should not be confused with the issue 
     prevented in the Racial Justice Act, as originally drafted. 
     That act creates a judicial proceeding subsequent to trial, 
     conviction, and appeal where statistical evidence could be a 
     dispositive factor in determining whether or not a defendant 
     gets the death penalty. Even opponents of that act should not 
     embrace the Dole amendment, which forbids me in our already 
     existing and internal review proceedings from ever 
     considering as probably one of many factors that a particular 
     Federal prosecutor may not have treated all defendants who 
     have committed the same offense the same.
       As the official in the Federal Government personally 
     responsible for the final decision to seek the death penalty 
     in all cases, I am confident the racial basis has played no 
     role in those decisions. Nevertheless, I believe that it is 
     imperative that I have available all possible means to review 
     those decisions to ensure continuing nondiscrimination and to 
     make the absence of discrimination clear to all Americans. 
     The Department of Justice has nothing to hide. However, 
     adoption of this amendment would ensure that no one would 
     believe that what I have just said is true.
       Again, I urge the proposed amendment be defeated.
                                                       Janet Reno.

  Let me point out. If we go on record as saying the Attorney General 
of the United States does not have the authority and is prohibited from 
implementing any policy, any regulation, any guideline, any Executive 
order, to determine whether or not race is influencing the outcome of 
the request for death, what do you think that does for credibility of 
an Attorney General and the Justice Department and, more importantly, 
the U.S. Government and the court system, when in fact you have nine of 
the nine death penalties this administration has sought against black 
people, not one against white?
  If they really care about making sure that race does not play a role 
and also that phony statistics do not play a role, for Lord's sake what 
are we doing, to tell the Attorney General that the Attorney General 
cannot even check her own prosecutors? Do you think that emboldens 
people to believe that any one out of nine black defendants for whom 
the death penalty was asked and no white that it was not based on race?
  This is chicanery. This is a political ploy, the last desperate one--
I guess not the last desperate one. I predict there will be another 
desperate one. We will get through this. The next desperate one will be 
guns again, guns again.
  We have a $30 billion crime bill, 100,000 police, and they are so 
fearful that we are going to pass it and that this President who 
strongly supports it will get some credit for it, that they will stop 
at close to nothing here on a bill. If they are wondering whether I got 
the message about racial justice, we got the message. The message is it 
is not going to be in the crime bill. It should be in the crime bill. 
But it is not going to be. They win.
  In 22 years I have learned how to count. But in 22 years I have never 
gotten used to this kind of malarkey.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, to deny the Attorney General 
of the United States the right to set out guidelines or an Executive 
order telling her prosecutors what they must consider to make sure 
they, in fact, apply the death penalty fairly--and you would think, I 
might note parenthetically, that my colleagues would understand that 
black Americans are somewhat suspect about the system. If they do not 
want to read our history as a Nation as to why black Americans should 
be suspect about the system, just let them take a look at the news 
every night. Just ask them, why do you think black Americans are 
prepared in the polling data you read to distrust the system so much? 
Are they going to convince you that 90 percent of all black Americans 
or 60 percent are all procriminal? The reason they distrust the system 
is because of this kind of stuff.
  We are not creating, and the Attorney General has done nothing but 
what she is being prohibited here from doing. She is not being 
prohibited here from creating a cause of action in the court. She has 
no authority to do that. She and future Attorneys General are being 
prohibited from exercising their responsibility of determining that the 
law is applied equally.
  I am ashamed that we are having this stupid debate and so many red 
herrings raised here, so let me conclude by making three things, as one 
famous American used to say, perfectly clear.
  No. 1, what is attempting to be prohibited here has nothing to do 
with the Racial Justice Act, which was designed to create a cause of 
action that the defendant could go before a Federal court and say, ``Do 
not put me to death, judge, for the following reasons,'' and the judge 
be required to look at that and say, well, yes or no. This has nothing 
to do with that.
  What this is designed to stop is the Attorney General of the United 
States, like past Attorneys General, when a local prosecutor in 
Delaware or North Dakota or Louisiana or Utah says ``I want the death 
penalty for this defendant''--right now the procedure is that local 
prosecutor, that local U.S. attorney, sends a note to the Attorney 
General of the United States of America and says, ``I want to ask for 
the death penalty,'' and the Attorney General says: ``Are you meeting 
the guidelines here? Are you applying it fairly? Why are you asking for 
it in this case? Tell me.''
  And then the Attorney General signs off, as she has done nine times. 
If this were designed, as my friends I guess are really worried about, 
to give black defendants life instead of death, why would she have 
signed it nine times so far for black Americans?
  What this prevents is the Attorney General from looking at the 
prosecutor from Illinois and saying:

       Now, wait a minute. You had four drug kingpin cases. On 
     three of them you wrote me a note saying you want life and 
     one of them you wrote me a note and you said you want death. 
     Three of them were white where you wanted life. The one you 
     wanted death for was the black man. Tell me why.

  Why should she not be able to ask that question? This is 
preposterous. Now, because I refuse to believe that my colleagues who 
are raising this amendment are doing so based on race, I can only 
conclude they are doing it based on politics. It is a more generous 
interpretation and one I choose to believe.

  But how, how are we benefiting justice by suggesting the Attorney 
General of the United States cannot review whether her own prosecutors 
or his own prosecutors are asking for the death penalty in a fair and 
equitable manner?
  And the third point I will make perfectly clear: If this amendment 
prevails, I predict to you that the racial justice provision passed by 
the U.S. House of Representatives, which is going into conference with 
us, some version of that will become part of the crime bill. And then 
all of you who are opposed to racial justice for good and sound reasons 
will be faced with the dilemma of having to vote with the Republicans 
on a filibuster, which they have announced they will do; they will 
filibuster the crime bill.
  They are very good at that. They have done that for 4 years. They are 
very adept at that. That is one thing I know they do much better than 
we do. They will filibuster and all of those who want a crime bill will 
be faced with the dilemma of having to vote with the Republicans to 
sustain their filibuster, killing the crime bill, or voting for the 
crime bill with a racial justice piece of legislation in it that you do 
not support.
  That is what they are hoping. That is what this is designed to do. 
That is what this is all about.
  So, please, I say to the staff who is listening of the 21 Democratic 
Senators who have a different view than I do on racial justice and who 
voted against racial justice as a piece of legislation, please, listen 
to what I am saying. This is not a piece of legislation designed to 
defeat a piece of legislation called the Racial Justice Act. That is a 
red herring.
  This is a piece of legislation to take away the discretion, for the 
first time, to the best of my knowledge, of the Attorney General of the 
United States to be able to set up a formula by which she looks or he 
looks at whether or not the death penalty--which the President of the 
United States supports and is adding 50-some additional death 
penalties--whether or not it is being done fairly.
  And the last point I will make at this point is the following: One of 
the reasons the Supreme Court in the past concluded that the death 
penalty was unconstitutional was not that it was per se a violation of 
the eighth amendment, the cruel and unusual clause of the eighth 
amendment. It was where they concluded the State laws were 
unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional because it was misapplied, 
because it was not applied fairly to blacks and whites.
  Now, it is true that later cases, when they came back, concluded that 
that determination cannot rest solely upon statistical data. But it is 
an ever-present concern of the Supreme Court whether or not it is being 
applied fairly.
  I am a death penalty supporter. I am the guy who wrote this bill, a 
presumptuous thing to say. But I wrote this bill with my own little 
hands. And I added into the bill more than 50 death penalties. I 
support the death penalty. This President supports the death penalty.
  Now, if we want the death penalty applied where it is warranted, are 
we going to embolden a Court that may change to continue to apply the 
death penalty by saying to them, ``By the way, we are not going to let 
the Attorney General determine whether or not her prosecutors are doing 
it fairly?'' Does that help us?
  There is no logic here. There are scare tactics here. I have been 
around long enough to know that when someone includes the words 
``statistically significant factors,'' everybody here goes, ``Wow, I 
ain't for statistically significant factors. That means I'm a liberal. 
That means I'm bad.''
  Or, the better one is, they kind of miss. You know, their ingenuity 
is not quite as good as it was, because they would have put in quotas. 
As soon as you say ``quotas,'' you go, ``Quotas? Wow.''
  There are not any quotas. But it is like that old thing: ``Are you 
still beating your wife?'' ``Oh, yeah--no.''
  I mean, are you for quotas? No one is for quotas. And no one is 
suggesting that. The Attorney General is not suggesting that she is 
going to employ the death penalty based upon whether or not there is a 
statistic. For if that is their worry, I ask them the rhetorical 
question: Why has she signed off on nine deaths, all black?
  This is bizarre, with all due respect to my learned colleagues, but 
it is politically brilliant. And for that, I compliment them. I just 
hope my colleagues in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle are not 
taken in. I have gotten the Racial Justice Act, which I support, out of 
the crime bill. This is not about the Racial Justice Act. This is about 
politics.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SIMON. You mentioned during your remarks that you have served 
here 22 years. Counting my time in the House, I have been up here 19 
years.
  One other phrase that is very interesting here is it ``prohibits''--
and I am quoting--``the consideration of evidence.''
  Have you, in your 22 years here, ever seen an amendment that 
prohibits the Justice Department from looking at evidence?
  Mr. BIDEN. If I may, to answer my friend's question, the only time I 
have ever observed people on this floor not wanting to consider 
evidence is because they do not want to be confused with the facts. And 
I occasionally find Democrats and Republicans who do not want to be 
confused with the facts.
  But I have never in my life found anyone that is going to tell a 
prosecutor that they do not want the prosecutor to consider evidence. 
No, I never have.
  Mr. SIMON. I think it is unprecedented, and obviously unwarranted.
  I thank my colleague for standing up.
  Mr. BIDEN. But it is ingenious.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Specter].
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened to the argument by the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware. I take exception to his 
characterization of the political motivation. He and I agree a bit more 
than we disagree. It is pretty hard to be disagreeable on a ride on 
Amtrak from here to Wilmington, where he lives, and I go on to 
Philadelphia.
  I hope he has some time to stay for a bit to perhaps discuss some of 
the points of the amendment.
  I start with an analysis of the language of the amendment, Mr. 
President, as I think that it does not prohibit the Department of 
Justice from compiling statistics for what internal use they may 
choose. But it does prohibit the Department of Justice from using the 
statistics to implement any policy, regulation, guideline, or Executive 
order with respect to the death penalty.
  The actual language of the amendment is brief. It is worth reading. 
``No funds appropriated under the act to the Department of Justice, or 
any other agency''--in the second degree--``shall be used to implement 
any policy, regulation, guideline, or Executive order with respect to 
the death penalty which permits the consideration of evidence that race 
was a statistically significant factor in the decision to seek or to 
impose the sentence of death in any capital case.''
  As I read that language, it prohibits statistics from being the basis 
of a policy or regulation or a guideline or an Executive order. If the 
Attorney General wants to take a look at the statistics and raise a 
question with what an individual prosecutor has done, I think the 
Attorney General is free to do that.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER assumed the chair.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield at that point? It is very 
important. Just yield at this point?
  Mr. SPECTER. I have never seen a brief yielding to you, Senator 
Biden, but I shall.
  Mr. BIDEN. Ten seconds. If they will stipulate that is what it means, 
I will be for the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do not know what they will stipulate to. I do not 
think they have to stipulate to anything. I think the amendment stands 
on its face.
  The amendment on its face precludes the use of statistics for a 
policy--for ``any policy, regulation, guideline or Executive order with 
respect to the death penalty.''
  I believe that it is sound to say that there will not be any 
determination of the application of the death penalty based on 
statistics. Because in my view the death penalty ought to be imposed 
where it is warranted under the facts of a given case and the 
background of the defendant, so that there is individualized justice, 
which is the essence of the American judicial system.
  What did the defendant do? What is the nature of the act? The death 
penalty ought to be reserved for the really heinous, outrageous kinds 
of murder--not barroom killings, not hot blood. And, what is the 
background of the defendant? What has the defendant done in the balance 
of his life? What other crimes, if any, has the defendant been 
convicted of? That is the way the death penalty ought to be imposed, or 
any punishment ought to be imposed.
  I think the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 
McCleskey versus Kemp, which precluded the use of a statistical 
analysis to invalidate the death penalty, was correct. And there is a 
lengthy, erudite opinion by Justice Powell in the case. The essence of 
it appears on page 1,764, of 107 Supreme Court Reporter, where Justice 
Powell notes:

       The Baldus study is actually two sophisticated statistical 
     studies that examine over 2,000 murder cases that occurred in 
     Georgia during the 1970's.

  I think it is unsound as a matter of constitutional law or as a 
matter of public policy to take a look at 2,000 collateral cases and 
decide what ought to be done in an individual case. As is well known, I 
had the job of district attorney of Philadelphia for 8 years, 500 
homicides a year, and I made the determination that it would be my 
responsibility to decide before any death penalty would be requested. 
That decision was based on what the defendant did and what the 
background of the defendant was.
  When Senator Biden says--and I wrote down his statement--that if a 
white man and a black man under the same circumstances committed the 
same offense--same facts, same case--there ought not to be the death 
penalty for the black man and not for the white man, I agree with 
Senator Biden on that. I agree with him on that because it is an 
analysis of the facts of the case. He did not mention the background of 
the defendant, but I think that is implicit in what he says.
  Mr. BIDEN. It is.
  Mr. SPECTER. If they are the same--nothing is exactly the same--but 
if they are substantially the same there ought not to be the death 
penalty for a black man, an African-American, and none for the white 
man. I agree. I agree with that totally. But I think that is determined 
on what happened, on the facts of the case.
  There has been recently a very significant opinion handed down by 
Judge Rambo, in the middle district of Pennsylvania in a case captioned 
United States versus Bradley. In this opinion, Judge Rambo ordered the 
Department of Justice to articulate objective standards for when the 
death penalty was sought. And I believe that is a sound proposition.
  I have written to the Attorney General about that case and I have 
drafted legislation. I think there ought to be a requirement that the 
Department of Justice have objective standards. They ought to write 
them out in advance as to when they are going to ask for the death 
penalty. It is not easy to do because the facts of individual murders 
are very different. But I think there can be a factual analysis and 
standards articulated as to when the Department of Justice is going to 
look for the death penalty--in advance. And those standards ought to 
take into account the issue of background of the defendant.
  But where you have an analysis of 2,000 cases, as they did in 
Georgia, and seek to extract statistics as to how the death penalty was 
imposed, that moves away, in my opinion, from individualized justice 
which we need to have.
  The record of the United States has not been good--I say this as 
emphatically as I can--on the way African-Americans have been treated 
in the criminal justice system. Or the way African-Americans have been 
treated generally. There is a lot of racism in our country and we know 
it exists. And there is a very heavy burden on the criminal justice 
system to correct that.
  I believe we have some very important provisions in the crime bill on 
providing counsel in capital cases, and a requirement finally to do 
that. We had a little argument on the floor yesterday about whether 
there could be representation by the Legal Services Corporation in 
cases arising out of welfare reform. That led me to make a few comments 
about the history of the right to counsel generally.
  I think people would be surprised to know that it was not until 
Powell versus Alabama, the Scottsboro boys case, in 1932 that there was 
a constitutional requirement that a defendant had to have a lawyer 
where he faced the death penalty, but in 1942 in Betts versus Brady the 
Supreme Court refused to extend that right to other criminal cases. But 
that happens to be the fact. And it was not until Powell versus Alabama 
and 1936, in a case captioned Brown versus Mississippi, that the 
Supreme Court of the United States took supervisory jurisdiction over 
the States and what they did in their criminal proceedings. In that 
case a man named Brown in Mississippi was taken across the State line 
to Alabama, a rope was placed around his neck, and they went through a 
simulated lynching. Finally Brown confessed. And the United States 
Supreme Court said in that case, that States did not have total control 
over their own criminal process and that the due process clause of the 
14th amendment was violated on a coerced confession, which is a blood-
curdling decision to see what the law enforcement officers of 
Mississippi did to Brown.
  When I started to practice law, one of my first assignments was to 
spend a month in the voluntary defender's office. This was in 1958. It 
is shocking in 1994 to think that as late as 1958, defendants in 
criminal cases did not have counsel. It was not until 1963, in Gideon 
versus Wainwright that Justice Black articulated the standard that you 
got counsel when you were hauled into court on a felony charge. So we 
have a very bad record in America as to what we have done.
  I was very concerned yesterday that we would pass an amendment which 
would leave out poor people from challenging welfare reform by denying 
them lawyers. The Congress articulates public policy, but a 
constitutional right does not exist in midair. A constitutional right 
exists when someone goes to court and says, ``I have suffered a 
constitutional wrong,'' and it takes a judicial determination that 
there is a constitutional right. You do not get that unless there is a 
lawyer in the case.
  I think we need welfare reform and need it badly in this country. But 
it is not a matter which will be resolved with total clarity by the 
Congress. There may be a necessity for interpretation, statutory 
interpretation. Or there may be a constitutional issue. It is not 
unknown to have the Congress ride a little roughshod over the 
constitutional questions, saying we will leave it up to the court.
  So we do have a great deal to make up for in America in terms of 
justice, in terms of adequate representation, in terms of racism, in 
terms of fair treatment for minorities, including African-Americans. 
But I do not think you get there--and I am putting politics aside, and 
the distinguished Senator from Delaware has done extraordinary work in 
the 14 years I have been here, and the last 8 years he has been 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have a crime bill. I hope it 
passes. And it ought to pass regardless of who gets the credit for it.
  That is not what we are really up to around here. But when we are 
going to look to 2,000 cases, as they wanted to, in this Supreme Court 
decision, McCleskey, I think that is wrong. I think it is also 
inappropriate--this is not an easy matter, because when you seek to 
limit the discretion of a prosecutor, you are on pretty tough ground. 
There may be a separation of powers issue as to whether we can really 
do this, even in an appropriations bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. You are going to do that anyway.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, we are not the final word on it. The courts may 
say we do not have the authority to do this on the ground of separation 
of powers.
  But as I look at this amendment, I do not want a policy, a 
regulation, a guideline, or an Executive order with respect to the 
death penalty which comes out of any statistical analysis. I do not 
think this amendment bars the Attorney General from using statistics as 
a red flag, but it does bar the Attorney General from using statistics 
to do something in a formal sense, like a policy, like a regulation, 
like a guideline, or like an Executive order. Maybe not like those 
things specifically. The prosecutor could do other things.
  I think we are making some progress. I think Judge Rambo in the 
middle district made progress in articulating standards in discovery in 
a capital case to require the Justice Department to produce objective 
standards. I think that is the way to go about it, to have objective 
standards.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have not finished my statement, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor, there is no 
question about that.
  The Chair does not have the right to cause a yielding, so the Senator 
from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator how he 
reconciles, one, that the Attorney General could combine statistics; 
two, should set out guidelines as to what conditions the death penalty 
would be sought under; and three, be able to vote for this amendment? 
How would that be allowed through this amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to respond to that question, Mr. 
President. And the answer is that the Attorney General does not use 
statistics to determine any policy or any standards. The statistics are 
not relevant to the standards.
  The Attorney General establishes standards defining the nature of the 
act without a reference to statistics. What do statistics have to do 
with it?
  You look at a lot of murder cases and you see what men and women do 
to each other and you articulate a standard. You try to define what a 
heinous act means, like a contract killing, which would be a standard, 
or an assassination of an American President, which is a grotesque act 
having far-reaching implications, or the murder of a prison guard by 
someone serving a life sentence where there is no way to contain 
someone with a life sentence if you are going to give that person 
another life sentence. You can define conduct in an objective way which 
warrants consideration for the death penalty.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. BIDEN. Does the Senator have any evidence that the Attorney 
General is suggesting that they use 2,000 cases in Georgia--he keeps 
bringing it up--2,000 cases in Georgia where the death penalty has been 
applied? Does any part of setting up guidelines to determine whether or 
not there is a misapplication of the death penalty?
  Mr. SPECTER. No, I do not have any such evidence.
  Mr. BIDEN. May I ask----
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may finish the answer. You and I know what evidence 
means, and that is if I have seen something which is competent in a 
court of law to be introduced, and the answer is ``No.'' But I make the 
reference to the 2,000 cases because that is the basis of this Baldus 
study which was at the core of the Supreme Court challenge. I note that 
the Attorney General said that the administration was neutral on the 
so-called Racial Justice Act. I do not like that name any more than I 
like the quota name. I like to call it a statistical analysis issue.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. BIDEN. If this Attorney General is opposed to the death penalty 
but has been asking for it where it is appropriate, if the Senator had 
evidence that there were 40 or 50 cases where U.S. attorneys had 
requested of main Justice the authority to ask for the death penalty 
and in all 30 or 40 cases the Justice Department refused to allow the 
U.S. attorneys to seek the death penalty, would that be enough evidence 
to allow us or an impartial body to look at those cases to determine 
whether or not the Attorney General was just thwarting the law or, in 
fact, whether those 40 decisions in a row were based upon lack of 
sufficient evidence to ask for the death penalty?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my response is, if those statistics would 
be appropriate to look behind the facts of the cases.
  Mr. BIDEN. So, my last question--and I appreciate the Senator being 
so forthcoming--would the Senator be willing to talk to his 
distinguished friends on the Republican side and have them amend their 
language to say something to the effect--the way this reads:

       No funds appropriated under this act shall be used to 
     implement any policy, regulation, guideline, or Executive 
     order which permits the consideration of evidence----

  Would they be willing to talk my learned friend from the State of 
Utah into using language which says:

       No funds appropriated in this act shall be used to 
     implement any policy, regulation, guideline, or Executive 
     order which requires that decisions to seek or impose the 
     sentence of death in any Federal capital case shall be based 
     solely upon consideration of evidence that race is 
     statistically significant.

  Would that not be totally consistent with the way in which the 
Senator from Pennsylvania now reads the legislation and the way in 
which I do not because it says ``which permits''--the present language 
says permits, does not even permit the Attorney General to have 
guidelines which would allow her, based upon overwhelming statistical 
evidence, to look behind that evidence to determine whether or not it 
was applied.
  If I can make an analogy, just like if there were 50 cases in a row 
and the Attorney General of the United States said, ``I refuse to 
accede to the request of my prosecutors who are seeking the death 
penalty,'' the Senator from Pennsylvania would say, and I would concur, 
that we should be able to look behind that and say that at least raises 
an issue of whether or not she is employing her bias and not applying 
the law. So let us take a look and be able to look behind those 50 
cases to determine on an individual basis whether or not she was being 
capricious in refusing to employ the law.
  So if we change from ``permits'' to ``requires,'' what you all seem 
to be worried about is the Attorney General, who has not written 
anything along these lines and has asked the death penalty of 50 black 
people in a row, that same Attorney General is going to require that 
U.S. attorneys not be able to employ the death sentence unless for 
every one black there is a white and for every one white there is a 
black. That is not what anybody is saying. That seems to be your 
concern.
  So why do we not change it, if this is being done in good faith and I 
always assume things are being done in good faith around here, to say 
``guideline or Executive order which requires that the decision to seek 
or impose the sentence of death in any Federal capital case shall be 
based solely upon consideration of evidence that race was a 
statistically significant factor''? Because I for one do not want us to 
be able to have the Attorney General essentially obviate the death 
penalty by saying that she is requiring her U.S. attorneys to only ask 
for death for a black person if they can go out and find a white person 
to ask it for. That I do not want to have happen.
  So my question is, will the Senator be willing to support our effort 
to convince our learned colleague from Utah to change the language from 
``permits'' the consideration of to ``requires'' that the decision to 
seek or impose the sentence of death in any Federal capital case shall 
be based solely on consideration of evidence?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have to think about it just a little. I 
would like to look at the language.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will send it over, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Our distinguished colleague from Utah has been listening 
closely, and I think that what the distinguished Senator from Delaware 
suggests is a good idea, to see if we can find a combination which does 
not allow a policy to be based on statistics but gives as much latitude 
as we can to an indicator for follow-up investigation by the Attorney 
General to see what the facts are, and I think the facts have to govern 
rather than have the statistics govern.
  So, after yielding the floor, I will take a look at the language and 
see if that can be done.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. If we put the word ``requires'' in there, that would give 
the Attorney General total discretion to do whatever she wants to do, 
statistically or otherwise.
  But let me ask unanimous consent, without losing my right to the 
floor because I would like to answer the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware, I be permitted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia and the distinguished Senator from Idaho for a 
special presentation and then get the floor back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and others for being 
willing to yield. This is an important matter; otherwise, I would not 
interrupt this debate.
  On July 21 our Armed Services Committee had a hearing on Somalia. We 
have a number of marines left in Somalia as well as diplomatic 
personnel. We came to the conclusion that the security situation has 
deteriorated there, and the United States personnel are increasingly in 
danger. And we believe that the closure of the liaison office and the 
withdrawal of all U.S. military and diplomatic personnel is time urgent 
and essential.
  We have written a letter to the President to that effect. A majority 
of the committee has signed it. I think most Members will sign it. It 
is I think an urgent matter. I know the Senator from Idaho has strong 
feelings on it.
  The bottom line is we are not able to accomplish anything now, but 
the security situation is deteriorating, and the danger to our 
personnel is increasing. That danger can be accepted when 
accomplishments are being undertaken or are on the horizon, but I think 
that danger at this stage is not a danger that should be accepted, 
because there is nothing that is being done or no likelihood that 
anything being done in terms of our presence is going to make a 
significant difference there on the ground.
  So I do thank the Senator for being willing to yield. I know the 
Senator from Idaho would like to make a brief statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter that has been transmitted to 
the White House today be part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to you to express our 
     concern over the threat to U.S. diplomatic and military 
     personnel in Mogadishu, Somalia.
       The Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing on July 
     21, 1994, most of which was open to the public, to receive 
     testimony from senior representatives of the Department of 
     State and Department of Defense on the security situation in 
     Somalia, the prospects for national reconciliation, the 
     rationale and justification for the continued presence of the 
     United States Liaison Office in Mogadishu and the Marine 
     Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) temporarily 
     providing security for that office, and the targeting of 
     United States and United Nations personnel by the warring 
     factions.
       In the course of the hearing, we learned the following:
       The process of political reconciliation is moving at a 
     glacially slow pace and prospects of reconciliation are 
     bleak;
       The security situation, particularly in Mogadishu, has 
     continued to deteriorate, and large scale interclan fighting 
     is expected in that city;
       United States and United Nations personnel are increasingly 
     in danger and are apparently being targeted; and
       United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) forces are not 
     providing the necessary perimeter security at the United 
     States Liaison Office compound.
       The primary function of the United States Liaison Office 
     (USLO) is to support the United Nations in its efforts to 
     promote political reconciliation in Somalia. The Marine FAST 
     team deployed to provide security for USLO is scheduled to 
     depart August 14, and no substitute force has been arranged. 
     The fact that political reconciliation is not advancing and 
     the prospects for future progress are bleak would, standing 
     alone, recommend the closure of the Liaison Office. When 
     coupled with the fact that the security situation has 
     deteriorated and United States personnel are increasingly in 
     danger, we believe that the closure of the Liaison Office and 
     the withdrawal of all United States diplomatic and military 
     personnel from Mogadishu is essential.
       Accordingly, we urge you to direct the withdrawal of all 
     United States Government personnel from Somalia by August 14 
     or sooner, if possible.
           Sincerely,
         Strom Thurmond; Daniel Coats; Dirk Kempthorne; Trent 
           Lott; Kay Bailey Hutchison; Sam Nunn; Richard Shelby; 
           Carl Levin; Bob Smith; Bob Graham; Bill Cohen; and John 
           McCain.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Utah, and I thank Chairman 
Nunn for scheduling a meeting. I had requested that briefing because I 
had been following what has taken place in Somalia.
  If anyone doubts that we should totally withdraw all U.S. diplomats 
and marines, I would encourage them to have a briefing from the State 
Department and the Department of Defense. The conclusion is very clear. 
And I would like to just briefly give you the assessment of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff of the current situation in Somalia: high threat of 
attacks; banditry and looting of all unsecured movements and 
facilities; no political settlement in sight; large-scale interclan 
fighting expected; high threat of spillover violence against U.S. and 
U.N. troops; United Nations and United States selectively targeted.
  That is the situation. Right now Somalia is not on the front pages, 
but if we do not pull all of our personnel out of there now, I think 
there is a tragedy waiting to happen where we will be back on the front 
pages.
  So I appreciate so much the leadership that Senator Nunn and Senator 
Strom Thurmond have taken in urging the President to withdraw our 
troops and our diplomats immediately.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just say that I do not want to 
prolong this this evening. Basically, all this amendment says is, ``No 
funds appropriated under the act to the Department of Justice or any 
other agency shall be used to implement any policy, regulation, 
guideline, or Executive order with respect to the death penalty which 
permits the consideration of evidence that race was a statistically 
significant factor in the decision to seek or impose the sentence of 
death in any capital case.''
  Now, I wish to answer the distinguished Senator from Delaware, 
because he is my friend and we have worked hard together on these crime 
bills. And I intend to continue to work hard on it side by side with 
him. And I call to his attention that the bill which passed the Senate 
is called the Biden-Hatch bill. I have not been part of any effort to 
filibuster or stop the bill or of gridlock. In fact, the gridlock has 
come from the other side, and it has come over this racial justice 
provision.
  We have been sitting here pleasantly waiting now for months to get 
this bill up here, and it has been stopped because Members of the House 
and Black Caucus want the racial justice provision in. The Senate wants 
it out. And I am following the lead of the Senate.
  But what we do not want is a secret, back-room, back-door deal as 
reported in the newspapers and the other media. And that is what gets 
us worked up on this, because we have been directed by the Senate to 
not allow racial justice to be in the crime bill. I honor that 
direction. Frankly, we now hear that there is a way around it. The 
media that I have read says that they are going to either have a 
commission to study this matter and either have regulations or 
guidelines or a Presidential Executive order to do exactly what the 
Senate has said we should not do. And there is good reason for that. 
The gamesmanship is not on this side. It is on the other side.
  I felt a little bit badly that my colleague from Delaware called this 
legitimate amendment political chicanery. I do not agree with him on 
that. We are not playing games on this. We are trying to keep a 
provision out that will absolutely nullify the death penalty in this 
country.
  Now, you are looking at a Senator who does not want the death penalty 
issued very often, or implemented for that matter very often. I think 
it is essential we have it. Most Americans do. We are tired of the 
crime that is going on, and there are certain people who deserve the 
death penalty--but very few. And I would be very loathe to use it 
except in the most heinous cases where there is no question of guilt 
and where there is no racial discrimination.
  I can speak for the Members on this side. We do not want racial 
discrimination in sentencing, but we know that if you use a statistical 
analysis as a sole reason to determine whether or not, or there is a 
reason at all to determine whether or not there will be a death 
penalty, there will never be the implementation of the death penalty.
  Now, I give credit to the ingenuity of the more liberal thinkers on 
this subject who have come up with this. They do not like the death 
penalty; they do not want it, and if the Racial Justice Act--or this 
statistical analysis act, which is what it really is--passes, there 
will not be any more death penalty, but there will be a number of years 
and billions of dollars of unnecessary costs through frivolous lawsuits 
and all kinds of requisites of proof that make it tougher on the whole 
of society.
  Now, let me just answer a few of the questions that the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware mentioned. He is concerned that this amendment 
will block the Attorney General from looking into misconduct by 
prosecutors. Nothing in this amendment blocks the Attorney General of 
the United States from looking into the misconduct of prosecutors. It 
simply does not allow the Attorney General to implement a policy that 
relies on statistics. It does not stop the Attorney General from 
considering any facts in the matter. And if there is any indication 
that there has been racial discrimination in that determination to go 
forward in a prosecution for the death penalty, that Attorney General 
can say, no, you are not going to do it. We would be the first to stand 
up for that Attorney General in that regard.
  We do not stop the Attorney General from reviewing any policy. We 
simply stop the implementation of such policy, regulation, guideline, 
or Executive order that we have read about in the newspapers as an 
ingenious way around this and around the direction that we in the 
Senate have given.
  Now, I have to say this. There is nothing confusing about this. This 
is not a political decision. This is a legal decision trying to 
implement what the majority in the Senate have said we should do. This 
does not eliminate prosecutorial discretion. You will just have to look 
at the language.
  If there are not going to be any regulations--and the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware indicates that there are not going to be--then 
why would he not agree with this, since this implements what the Senate 
has asked us to do?
  This does not waive any rights of defense lawyers to make any claims 
they want to make, including statistical claims, which the Supreme 
Court says they are not going to listen to, but they can make them if 
they want. But any other claims that they can make based upon the 
facts, they have every right to do so. This does not stop them. This 
just stops the Justice Department from backdooring the process which a 
majority of the Congress has repeatedly upheld, and that is do not pass 
this statistical analysis act.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Sure. I am happy to. I want to say in yielding that I have 
appreciated the lucid comments of my friend from Pennsylvania who, of 
course, has been a prosecutor and understands these matters as well as, 
if not better than, anybody here. I myself agree with most all of the 
comments that he has made.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
those very generous remarks.
  I have taken a look at the language suggested by the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware. I do not think that it answers the basic issue, 
because if you essentially substitute language of requiring the 
``consideration of evidence that race was a statistically significant 
factor in the conditions to seek or impose a sentence of death in any 
Federal capital case,'' you are saying that the Attorney General does 
not have to, but you are saying that she could.
  I do not think the Attorney General ought to be able to establish any 
policy, regulation, guideline, or an Executive order which is based on 
statistics, because it contradicts individualized justice, which I 
commented about before of.
  My question to the distinguished Senator from Utah is, would he agree 
with my analysis that this language would permit the Attorney General 
to have statistics which would leave a yellow line, a cautionary line, 
or a red flag, and that based on these statistics the Attorney General 
could then approach an individual prosecutor to look at the facts of 
the case so long as the statistical basis cannot be the way to 
establish a policy, a regulation, a guideline, or Executive order as to 
whether you are going to have the death penalty?
  Mr. HATCH. That is not the language in my amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator agree that they collect statistics as 
long as it does not lead to a policy regulation, guideline, or 
Executive order which is what the amendment says, but the statistics 
could be a red flag to bring the prosecutor to say, ``Are you using 
objective standards?''
  Mr. HATCH. Yes. The Attorney General can make sure that the 
prosecutors are acting in an appropriate manner. She just cannot use 
statistics to do it. But she does not have to ignore statistics if they 
do bear on the facts of the matter.
  Mr. SPECTER. She can use statistics. Senator Biden says if there are 
50 cases in a row, and they are African-Americans and no whites, she 
can use the statistics to say what is going on behind it, and look to 
the facts of the individual cases to see whether or not the facts 
warrant the death penalty?
  Mr. HATCH. I do not think the statistics make a difference. She can 
say, ``Here are 50 cases. I am concerned. Do the facts justify the 
death penalty in these cases?'' Certainly she can use statistics to 
ascertain the 50 straight black cases. She can say, ``I am concerned 
about it. So I am going to look at the underlying facts to see if there 
is discrimination or prosecutorial indiscretion.''
  Sure she can do that.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for the answer.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me say this. I do not see any reason for the big fight 
over this. We have been directed by the Senate to resolve this problem. 
We just do not want any back-door approach to it by the President, the 
Justice Department, or anybody else for that matter.
  This is the reason why the National District Attorneys Association, 
the National Association of Attorneys General, the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Law Enforcement Council, 
and the victims groups all in this country all oppose the so-called 
``statistical analysis bill,'' or the use of statistics in death 
penalty determinations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Sure.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is not suggesting that any of those groups 
endorse this piece of legislation.
  Mr. HATCH. No. But I am suggesting that all of these groups support 
what we are trying to do in stopping the use of statistical analysis in 
determining whether the death penalty will be implemented. That is what 
our amendment does.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Is it not correct 
that what they did do is said they were against the Racial Justice Act? 
They did not say anything about what the good Senator from Utah is 
attempting to do. You can infer or imply. But they did not say anything 
about the statistics.
  Mr. HATCH. They are against the Racial Justice Act, and therefore, I 
think by implication would probably support this amendment because this 
prevents the implementation by any kind of policy or guideline or 
regulation or rule or Executive order.
  Look, all we are saying--let me make one comment--is that you cannot 
rely on aggregate statistics. But you can red flag matters to look at 
individual facts of the case. You can use statistics to red flag 
things. But you just cannot use statistics to stop the implementation--
--
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Could I make one more point, and I would be happy to yield 
for a question.
  If you look at this carefully, we are talking about if you actually 
use the Racial Justice Act. We are talking about Robert Altman Harris, 
the white murderer who was executed recently who killed white people. 
We are talking about John Wayne Gacy, who killed white people. We are 
talking about people like Gary Gilmore out in Utah, a white person who 
killed white people. You are talking about Ted Bundy, a white man who 
killed white people. Every one of those people, had the Racial Justice 
Act been in effect, could have prevented the death penalty being 
implemented, and everybody knows they did what they did--heinous 
murders.
  There were no racial problems involved, there was no discrimination 
in any sense of that term. And, yet every one of those, if the Racial 
Justice Act had been passed, would be able to use that act to prevent 
the implementation of the death penalty in every one of those cases. 
That is what it comes down to.
  I know that my colleague from Delaware is very sincere in trying to 
get a crime bill. I am very sincere in trying to help him. I intend to 
try to help him. There are things that I will just not do. There are 
things, if they are in the bill, I just will not accept. The fact is, 
this is one of them. But I accepted the Senate bill as it was passed.
  All I can say is, if we passed that, it would become law tomorrow. I 
am hopeful that we can. I intend to help the distinguished Senator 
fight for it. But I think to say that this side is playing political 
games or political chicanery is an excessive statement. I do not think 
it should have been made.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun]. She was on her feet, and sought recognition first.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I say to the 
Senator from South Carolina that I will only take a minute. I am going 
to actually reference the Senator in my remarks. Again, thank you, Mr. 
President for recognizing me.
  I would like to start by noting for everyone who may be listening, 
the bill we are considering right now. This is an appropriations bill. 
This bill is not a crime bill. This bill is not the Racial Justice Act. 
This is the Department of Commerce, Justice, State, the judiciary, and 
related agencies appropriations bill for 1995, and the supplemental 
appropriations bill for 1994.
  I want also to bring this debate back into reality, and read the 
pending amendment, because I know there are a lot of people in the 
gallery, people watching television, the pages sitting here listening 
to this debate, who want to focus in on what we are really talking 
about here. The amendment says:

       No funds appropriated shall be used to implement any 
     policy, regulation, guideline, or Executive order which 
     permits the consideration of evidence that race was a 
     statistically significant factor in the decisions to seek or 
     impose the sentence of death in any Federal capital case.

  That is what the amendment says. My distinguished colleague from 
Delaware referred to this amendment as an ingenious attempt to raise a 
political issue. I think he is right, but I have to defer and disagree 
with his characterization of it as being ingenious. I think, if 
anything, it is embarrassing and the sponsors--or rather the spin 
doctors--that came up with this ought to be ashamed of themselves. It 
is in my opinion--and I am not being personal, and I would not say 
anything personal about my friend Orrin Hatch, because we have worked 
closely together on the Judiciary Committee on many issues, and on this 
we simply disagree. But the amendment is a cynical and misleading and 
outright inflammatory amendment. Why? Because it is politics and not 
policy. It has nothing to do with the Racial Justice Act.
  The Racial Justice Act is out of the crime bill, gone, zippo, it does 
not exist anymore. The Racial Justice Act has been a subject of great 
controversy. It has been cut back, watered down, piecemealed, and taken 
out. It is no more. The opponents of the Racial Justice Act won. I 
supported the crime bill as it passed the Senate without a Racial 
Justice Act, and I also supported the Racial Justice Act. Supporters of 
the Racial Justice Act lost. It will not be a part of the crime bill, a 
bill which we hope will make a real difference in America, which we 
would like to get passed, Mr. President.
  But removing the Racial Justice Act from the crime bill apparently 
was not enough. It was not enough to get the credit on the talk shows, 
to get righteous indignation and to push the hot buttons. Here you have 
the ultimate hot button issue. The ultimate in the politics of 
division, Mr. President, is embodied in the pending amendment. Why do I 
call it the ``politics of division?'' Any time you put together a stew 
that combines race, crime, the death penalty--and I heard one of my 
colleagues even referencing welfare--when you put all of those issues 
together, you will come up with a formula that will divide even 
families, not to mention our Nation; and people will argue and fuss 
about it and passions will be inflamed until the cows come home. That 
is why this amendment was offered today. It was not enough for 
opponents of the Racial Justice Act to simply remove the provision on 
the crime bill. They want to keep stoking that flame, keep pushing 
those buttons and keep passions inflamed about that.
  I say to you, Mr. President, that I want to pose a hypothetical, 
since we are talking about the politics of this issue. Suppose for a 
minute that this was South Africa, and suppose that in South Africa a 
white person was 80 percent more likely to be sentenced to death than a 
black person. Everybody in this room would want to say, ``What is wrong 
with this picture? What is going on here?'' Possibly, we might want to 
consider evidence and examine what is going on with our imposition of 
the sentence of death in capital cases.
  Well, I do not want to talk about hypotheticals. Let us talk about 
facts for a moment. This amendment says the Attorney General--in 
Federal cases only--cannot ever consider evidence showing that race was 
a factor in the decision to charge a defendant with a capital crime. 
That is not even reasonable, Mr. President. That takes away 
prosecutorial discretion. It seems to me that, as legislators, we have 
an obligation to search for that which is reasonable, and to say that 
the Attorney General of the United States cannot even consider evidence 
on an issue defies reasonableness--or actually, if anything, it pulls 
the cover off and exposes the cynical nature of this amendment.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that if we talk about fairness and 
about the facts, we cannot ignore the evidence of discrimination in the 
Federal death penalty. You cannot get around the facts. The facts are 
what they are. So let us examine the facts in Federal cases, because we 
are only talking about Federal cases; the President's Executive order 
would not affect State cases. We are not talking about Georgia, 
Illinois, or Utah; we are talking national. Nationally, this Congress 
in 1988 passed a Drug Kingpin Act, which included a Federal death 
penalty. Seventy-five percent of the people convicted under the Drug 
Kingpin Act have been white people. However, out of the people who have 
been charged with death under that same act, 90 percent have been black 
and Hispanic. It does not take a rocket scientist to say, wait a 
minute, what is wrong with this picture? What is going on here? When 
out of 37 people charged with death, 33 are black and Hispanic, 
something is not right here.
  That is not to deny individual responsibility. I am a former Federal 
prosecutor. Certainly, individuals should be responsible for what they 
do. An ax murderer, whether black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever, 
is still an ax murderer. But if you look up and out of all the people 
who have been ax murderers, only Asians get the death penalty, you have 
to say: What is wrong with this picture?
  The supporters of this amendment state that the Senate is on record 
in opposition to the Racial Justice Act, to giving criminal defendants 
the right to go into court and use statistics to challenge death 
sentences imposed in a discriminatory manner. They say the crime bill 
is going to come out of conference, and the Racial Justice Act, which 
said statistics could be used, and which I supported--will not be a 
part of that bill. It is out of the conference, out of the bill.
  So we are going to come around now through the back door and use an 
appropriations bill to say, well, you know, it was not enough that we 
got it out of the crime bill; let us go a step further and say the 
Attorney General cannot ever consider whether or not racial 
discrimination was involved, or at least we are going to deny you any 
money if you consider it. I guess that is the point. That is what this 
amendment says. This is legislating on an appropriations bill, but more 
to the point, it says we are going to use the lever--the back door--of 
your money. And if in sitting in her office the Attorney General even 
considers the issue of discrimination, we will cut off her funding. 
This does not make sense. This is not reasonable. This amendment is bad 
policy and bad law.
  We are legislators. I think we have an obligation to look at what 
this does legislatively. We have established that it does not amend the 
Racial Justice Act, and we have established that it is offered to an 
appropriations bill, not the crime bill. I voted for the crime bill 
before, as I said. We know when the crime bill comes back, it will not 
have the Racial Justice Act in it. So the question becomes: Should this 
appropriations bill prohibit the Attorney General from doing anything 
to consider evidence of racial discrimination in capital cases? Well, 
Mr. President, I have to believe that the reasonable response from any 
person would be that, yes, the Attorney General should consider a whole 
host of things. That is what prosecutorial discretion is about. We 
should not limit the attorneys general's consideration of a whole host 
of factors in making a critical decision about whether somebody is 
going to live or die, even if that person is a criminal. That is up to 
the prosecutor, and we are not going to use an appropriations bill to 
create brand new law and say we support prosecutorial discretion, 
except in these cases.
  That is what this amendment seeks to do. I think it is inappropriate. 
Merely because an individual rejects the Racial Justice Act, Mr. 
President, does not mean he or she should reject reason or simple 
common sense. Reason suggests that we do not legislate in this way on 
an appropriations bill with regard to a matter that has already been 
concluded, already been decided. Reason suggests, Mr. President, that 
we allow the Attorney General the ability to consider all the evidence 
before her. The issue of the Racial Justice Act having been won, should 
the Attorney General decide to take numbers and statistics into 
account, she should have that right. How do you get around numbers in 
this world? We use them in housing discrimination cases and in 
employment cases. A whole host of factors, in addition to statistics. I 
do not know. But whatever goes into her prosecutorial discretion, it 
seems to me, should not be limited on Senator Hollings' bill.
  I will conclude my remarks, Mr. President, on this cynical 
amendment--and I do call it cynical, and I do not mean to question the 
motivation of the sponsors in any personal way, but rather to say that 
the language of the amendment really misses the point altogether and 
pushes hot buttons unnecessarily, and divides us unnecessarily--by 
saying that all of us, everyone of us, no matter what our race, have an 
obligation to support our criminal justice system, to inspire 
confidence in our criminal justice system, because when people feel 
that the rules work fairly for everybody, then there is really no 
excuse for disobeying those rules.
  But we have a problem, Mr. President, when a whole sector of our 
community thinks criminal justice is for just us. We have a problem 
when people look at the fact that 90 percent of the people given the 
death penalty under the Drug Kingpin Act have been black or Hispanic. 
All nine of the ones where the Attorney General sought the death 
penalty already have been black. People look at that and say, wait a 
minute, that is not fair.
  I will digress for a minute before I conclude and call on my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment. I saw a cute cartoon today in the 
newspaper about the case of the century that everybody has been talking 
about--the O.J. Simpson case--and why black people look at the case and 
come to different conclusions than whites do. It was a cartoon that 
juxtaposed the opinion about the case. One of the reasons that blacks 
and whites come to different opinions about the O.J. Simpson case, Mr. 
President, is cynical debates like this. We feed into a lack of 
confidence in our system when we say the Attorney General cannot even 
consider evidence of racial discrimination when the facts stare us in 
the face and suggest maybe, possibly, there is something wrong in the 
way that the death penalty is administered.
  So, for those people who support the death penalty, I would strongly 
suggest the best thing you can do if you supported the death penalty to 
have universal confidence that the laws of these United States were 
executed fairly and that the death penalty was imposed fairly and that 
everybody could stand up and cheer together when axe murders of like 
kind got like sentences.
  That is what we should be doing, inspiring confidence in our system 
and not playing cynical political jokes to manipulate symbols, push hot 
buttons, inflame people's passion and make them think for a moment on 
the appropriations bill we are debating the Racial Justice Act. That is 
not the case.
  I hope Senator Hollings will get the bill out of here before the year 
2000.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I listened attentively to the 
distinguished Senator from Utah, and the others, debating this 
particular measure. I do not wish to engage in the politics or the 
maneuvers that have been ongoing relative to the crime bill.
  However, I was asked just 2 days ago, the day before yesterday, I 
guess it was, by the distinguished Attorney General and the 
distinguished Congressman Don Edwards of California who came to my 
office and wanted to know how I would vote with respect to a provision 
for racial justice in the crime bill.
  I said it had no place in the crime bill, whatever. We already have 
equal justice under law, not unequal justice under law. And the law is 
required to be impartial with respect to race, religion, sex, previous 
condition of servitude, 14th amendment.
  I had learned firsthand that the law is color blind. I was admitted 
to practice, Madam President, some 42 years ago, in 1952 when the case 
of Brown versus the Board of Education was argued before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. The lead case was really Briggs versus Elliott. Thurgood 
Marshall did not argue the Brown case. He argued the Briggs case, the 
South Carolina case.
  It was incidentally, by the way, maneuvered to happen in these 
situations. The NAACP was close to the solicitor general, and just 
before we got to town on the weekend before arguments they moved the 
Brown case ahead of the Briggs versus Elliott case because the State of 
Kansas had local option. It was some 21 counties that were integrated 
and 17 counties that were segregated--it might have been vice versa, as 
I remember it.
  The Governor of Kansas had not even sent a lawyer to argue the 
particular Kansas case. It was at the pleading of the former Senator 
from South Carolina, and former associate justice of the Supreme Court, 
then-Governor Jimmy Byrnes of South Carolina, who got on the telephone 
and got the Governor to Kansas to send a lawyer. We met him and brought 
him down to the old Wardman Park Hotel and briefed him all the night, 
that Sunday afternoon, and into the wee hours of Monday morning before 
we appeared at 10 o'clock on the particular case when I was admitted.
  Madam President, I can see Associate Justice Frankfurter leaning 
across the bar, and he said, ``Mr. Marshall, Mr. Marshall, assuming you 
win. Now what happens?''
  And Marshall said, ``Well, if your Honor pleases, if the State-
imposed policy of separation by race is removed, the children of 
America would be free to choose whatever school they wanted to attend, 
they could associate with each other, and the only reason they did not 
associate with any particular school was the State-imposed policy of 
separation by race, and we would have freedom of choice.''
  He went on to argue that the law should be color blind.
  So I have learned at the feet of the best of the best, so to speak, 
Thurgood Marshall himself. The law is color blind. And the motto on the 
building itself of the Supreme Court structure across the park says 
``equal justice'' not ``unequal justice,'' and we are not about to 
write laws around here to establish a so-called racial justice test. 
That would be totally out of order.
  And I admonished the Attorney General. I said, ``Heaven's above,'' 
when I looked at Congressman Edwards' amendment. I said: ``Wait a 
minute. You folks have gone from the frying pan of habeas corpus into 
the fire of racial justice. And they had a 5 or 6 page agreement that 
would only apply the test to Federal cases. So, I feel very strongly 
that there not be included any kind of so-called racial justice 
provision; it will lead to unequal justice under law.
  But I feel just as strongly, Madam President, that this particular 
amendment is really overstepping the bounds with respect to policy, and 
I can understand the policy in an advised fashion.
  It so happened that Councilman E.W. Cromartie, a black councilman 
from the city of Columbia, was in my office this week, and we were 
talking. I referred to the space program and how we were celebrating 
the 25th anniversary, and I told a story about Chuck Bolden.
  In fact, if this particular amendment were adopted for me in my 
office I could not carry forward the policy I have had for several 
years now.
  I was the speaker in 1968, shortly after the assassination of Martin 
Luther King, at C.A. Johnson High School, a predominately black high 
school. Necessarily the air was tense, and I was determined to make a 
good talk. I thought I did, but even a better talk was made by a young 
midshipman, a black midshipman from Annapolis, a senior there at the 
U.S. Naval Academy, Chuck Bolden.
  I turned to the principal as we were seated on the stage. I said, 
``Who appointed this young midshipman to Annapolis?'' He did not 
answer. Walking down past the seats on the side, I thought he did not 
hear, and I asked him, tapped him on the shoulder, and I said, ``Who 
appointed Bolden to the Naval Academy?'' He just walked along. I got 
outside the high school. I never forget it.
  I said: ``Mr. Bolden, you are the principal and the coach. That was 
your son, who I know you are proud about. Maybe you do not understand 
Charleston geechee up here in Columbia, SC. Who appointed Bolden to the 
Naval Academy?''
  He was embarrassed. He said: ``Well, Senator, I did not want to 
answer. But we could not get any Senator or any Congressman from South 
Carolina to appoint a black to any of the military academies, and 
certainly not my son to the Naval Academy. We had to go to your friend, 
Judge Bennett.''
  I said: ``Do you mean Judge Bennett, formerly from Charleston, up 
there in Minneapolis, MN?''
  He smiled. He said: ``That is right. He is your friend and thinks the 
world of you.'' I said, ``Yes, I remember in the law work when he was 
down in Charleston.''
  He said: ``Judge Bennett talked to your colleague Senator Hubert 
Humphrey, and Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota appointed Chuck 
Bolden, the astronaut, to the Naval Academy.''
  I just thought to myself that was a hell of a note. So I went back to 
the office. I told my staff I to make a special effort to seek out 
young blacks.
  This presented a problem, given the substandard schools provided to 
black South Carolinians at that time. Those applying to the service 
academies were nearer to around 1,200 and 1,300 in their SAT scores. I 
said if we can find a young black graduate near 1,000 and I can talk to 
his teachers and principal and they think he can succeed, we are going 
to try to make the nomination.
  That is an affirmative action policy that I instituted myself, but I 
would oppose such a policy if it were written into law. I am just 
making up for the past history of discrimination and in a studied 
fashion that has worked. No one has objected to it. It has worked 
extremely well.
  Someone looked it up, and I think I have appointed for my particular 
region of the country far more blacks to all the academies: Air Force, 
Naval, and the U.S. Military Academy. Now, that is a policy. That is 
not a law.
  And here comes the Attorney General. In that discussion, I said, 
``Madam Attorney General,'' and I said to Don Edwards, ``Come on. Where 
did you all get all of this from?'' I said, ``I've been at the bar for 
50 years, just about, and I never have seen this kind of prejudice.''
  I have tried murder cases, including blacks charged with murder. In 
one case, in a poker game where there were eight blacks in the game, 
the one that was murdered was Big Boy Cutler. The defendant charged as 
the murderer was Charlie White. The other six black defendants 
testified against Charlie White. But he got a not guilty verdict.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No; I do not want to yield. I have been waiting all day 
long to express this.
  And so I said, ``I never have had a judge really prejudiced. I have 
gotten leniency. I have gone in chambers with that district judge, 
Federal judge, otherwise; really, at the State level, murder and crime 
cases. I said, ``Look. This poor individual, he never had a mama, he 
never had a daddy; he never had a chance, judge. You have to do 
something for him. You can't send him away,'' and that kind of thing. 
And that occurred. And I said, ``I don't believe that has ever 
happened.''
  I looked up the record on death sentences and executions over the 
period since I became Governor. And the actual record since 1958, in 
the southern State of South Carolina, 12 people have been executed. 
Seven were white and five were black.
  Now, there was a suspension under that Furman versus Georgia case of 
death sentences, death penalties, between 1972 and 1985. But in the 
last 9 years now, since 1985, when the death penalty was reinstituted 
in the southern State of South Carolina, there have been four 
executions, I say to the Senator. Four white, zero black.
  I said, ``I never had that happen with a judge.'' And so the Attorney 
General turned to me and said, ``Well, the U.S. attorneys would be 
asking for the death sentence in an inordinate fashion against blacks 
in certain areas.''
  I said, ``Madam Attorney General, that is your job. Fire them. Let's 
get rid of that crowd that does it.''
  Now, here comes an amendment that says she cannot do that. She cannot 
consider it. How else do you consider it, except statistically? Heavens 
above.
  When we say here, in my particular case, my statistic was zero.
  The Attorney General, in looking at the practice as to whether or not 
there is prejudice--and we want this equal justice, and that is what 
the minorities want and they should want it, and we should be granting 
it, certainly, by policy. We put it in fair housing. We put it in with 
set-asides, minority business things, and various other practices of 
that kind of policy.
  When it comes to the criminal law, do not write on the face of it 
that you have to have equal justice, because then you have really 
different crimes, different offenses.
  I really feel it would be unconstitutional, on the one hand. 
Otherwise, you could not have had an Executive order by Harry Truman 
that integrated the Armed Forces. You could not have the Attorney 
General do what I asked her to do.
  While I oppose the racial justice provision, I told her, ``Let's 
clean out these U.S. attorneys that are running around asking for the 
death penalty.'' I had not seen it.
  I am looking at the amendment of the Senator from Utah. It is 
cleverly written, because you cannot use the evidence. It says, well, 
anyone could refer to any evidence about racial matters and say it is 
statistical, because you would say the numbers, you would not say the 
individuals, or whatever it is. That is how you would prove your case.
  In essence, what he is saying is, ``You can go in swimming, but you 
cannot get wet.'' You can use the evidence, but it cannot be 
statistical.
  Come on. That is double talk here. This is mischief. This is 
overkill. This is a wrong step. It is an amendment that should be 
defeated. And I think very much that we should reject this amendment.
  So, Madam President, Senators should understand this particular 
amendment without getting into the cross-fire about its politics, about 
the crime bill, or anything else.
  When you say affirmatively that none of the moneys can be spent by 
the Attorney General for any kind of policy, any kind of finding, any 
kind of action where she would bring in her U.S. attorneys and say, 
``Look, I am very sensitive about this. President Clinton, the 
administration, is very sensitive about this. We have assured the Black 
Caucus and others we are sensitive about it. I am going to be looking 
at you,'' and when you get to the measure, they say, ``No, you can't 
have a measure. That is statistical evidence''; that is playing games. 
That is, as I say, ``You can go swimming, but do not get wet.''
  I think it is a bad amendment, and I think it should be rejected.
  Several Senators. Vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree amendment offered by the 
Senator from Utah.
  Mr. SHELBY. I seek recognition to speak on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I want to offer my strong support to the 
amendment offered by the Republican leader. The so-called compromise 
struck by the proponents of the Racial Justice Act and the 
administration is no compromise at all--there is no compromise on this 
issue. I do not see how there can be.
  If the Racial Justice Act, in whole, in part or in fraction is 
included in the crime bill, if one letter of its provisions is found in 
the final language of the bill--I will vote against the entire $22 
billion package and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  However, Mr. President, whether proponents succeed in including the 
provisions in the crime bill or they seek to implement them by 
executive order, regulation or policy--the substance, the ends are 
still the same, only the means have changed. And the end which the 
Racial Justice Act seeks to achieve is the end of the death penalty--
nothing more, nothing less.
  The Racial Justice Act has nothing to do with racial justice and 
everything to do with eliminating capital punishment. It is simply a 
backdoor way of repealing the death penalty in this country. Even 
though a majority of the American people overwhelmingly support the 
death penalty, the Racial Justice Act would subvert that will by 
allowing convicted murderers to appeal their death sentence based on 
statistics--the Racial Justice Act is, therefore, anathema to fighting 
crime, and contrary to basic mores of our justice system.
  Mr. President, the Racial Justice Act is a misnomer because it would 
do nothing to promote racial justice. Instead, it would simply provide 
yet another avenue of appeal for convicted murderers, regardless of 
their race.
  It would allow a convicted murderer to challenge his death sentence 
based on statistical data that has nothing to do with his or her own 
particular case. A threshold showing of statistical disparities from 
other capital cases would be sufficient to warrant an additional 
appeal, and a further stay of executing the sentence, under the Racial 
Justice Act.
  Whatever happened to the concept of individual justice, the concept 
of safeguarding individual liberty by being judged on your own facts 
and circumstances rather than some set formula? Under the Racial 
Justice Act, this concept is completely up-ended. You would think that 
compelling reasons would have to justify such a usurpation. But the 
Racial Justice Act provides none.
  For although it proclaims Racial Justice as its purpose, it would not 
matter what race the defendant was. This new avenue of appeal would be 
available to any and all comers who choose to make a showing of some 
statistical disparity. So the Racial Justice Act does not even achieve 
its purported ends--and yet we would sacrifice a primary cornerstone of 
our justice system just to create another avenue of appeal for 
convicted murderers.
  I say, Mr. President, that is a rotten deal, and one that we should 
not enter into on behalf of the American people.
  The Racial Justice Act is not about enforcing the death penalty 
against an innocent man or woman. The Racial Justice Act has nothing to 
do with guilt or innocence.
  So the Racial Justice Act basically says to the American people that 
the content of the crime, the seriousness of the crime does not matter. 
What really matters in the final analysis, what really amounts to 
justice in our courts, is the race of the victim and the defendant when 
it comes to sentencing. I believe, and a majority of the American 
people believe that if you are guilty of a capital crime, you should 
receive the appropriate sentence, regardless of race or sociological 
statistics.
  The most appalling aspect of the arguments in favor of the Racial 
Justice Act, however, deals with finding evidence of disparities by 
looking at the race of the victim. Proponents of the Racial Justice Act 
rely on studies that have found that while disparities are not 
calculable when just looking at the race of the defendant, they can be 
identified if you look at the race of the victim.
  I have two things to say about this. One, recent study, including one 
conducted by the Rand Corp., have shown that these disparities can be 
explained by the nature of the relationship between the victim and the 
defendant and therefore the circumstances of the crime. So, statistics 
showing a lower percentage of death sentences when the victim is the 
same race as the defendant can be correlated in some instances to a 
familial or relative relationship between the defendant and the victim 
and vice versa.
  My second point is this. Whatever happened to the principle--you take 
your victims as you find them? Talk about adding insult to injury. It 
is the physical characteristics of the victim that forms the basis for 
the perpetrators appeal. The victim is victimized yet again--justice 
being forestalled while their murderer appeals his or her sentence 
because he or she chose to kill a white or a brown or a black person. 
What is going on in this country when we would reward a murderer with 
another appeal just because his victim happens to be a certain race. I 
do not care what race you are, if you kill another human being--you 
should pay the price and not benefit somehow from your choice of 
victims.
  I do not care how you slice it, the Racial Justice Act is 
unacceptable in any shape or form. It would still be unacceptable if it 
were only limited to Federal cases. Having worked my entire career to 
rebuild an effective Federal death penalty, I cannot support its 
repeal.
  Making the Racial Justice Act prospective is similarly unacceptable. 
It would say that future murders aresome how less heinous, less wrong, 
than past ones--that if you kill the right victim, you can elude the 
death penalty.
  The Racial Justice Act morally wrong, against the will of the 
American people and more than that--it is ineffective in its stated 
purpose.
  I oppose it in any form and I submit, Mr. President, that throwing a 
cloak over it in the form of an executive order fails to disguise its 
destructive purpose. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
offered by the Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, during the course of two debates over 
the misnamed Racial Justice Act, I found myself very much on the other 
side from the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I feel very strongly 
that once a jury has determined that a death penalty is appropriate, 
that considerations totally irrelevant to guilt or innocence, totally 
irrelevant to the rules of evidence, totally irrelevant to whether or 
not the trial was fair should not be considered; that the so-called 
Racial Justice Act was a profound perversion of the American justice 
system, which aims at the individual.
  In spite of that fact, I intend to vote against this amendment which 
I believe firmly confuses two entirely separate sets of considerations 
with respect to criminal prosecutions. First, what a prosecuting 
attorney can do in determining whether or not he or she should seek the 
death penalty; and determining whether or not a death penalty, duly 
voted by a jury, should be imposed.
  In the latter case, no such considerations, no considerations set out 
in the Racial Justice Act, should be a part of an appellate 
determination whatsoever. And should the crime bill come back with such 
a provision in it, no matter how limited, this Senator would do all he 
could do to defeat the entire crime package.
  But this Senator does not propose to limit the discretion of the 
Attorney General of the United States in the way in which that Attorney 
General administers the criminal law in any way other than the 
restrictions which are already contained in the Constitution. I think 
it would be a serious mistake, should this Attorney General decide to 
include such considerations. It would be another reason to replace this 
administration. But I will not limit the discretion that the Attorney 
General has in making those preprosecution decisions, and for that 
reason I cannot support the amendment.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch].
  Despite Senator Biden's assertion that this amendment is solely about 
politics, I want to state unequivocably that this amendment is to 
discourage any consideration of race in death penalty cases. It is not 
about politics, it is about maintaining a criminal justice system based 
on individual cases, not unrelated statistics.
  It is my firm belief that death penalty cases be void of any 
consideration of race by use of statistical evidence from unrelated 
cases or otherwise. An individual facing the death penalty should be 
tried on the facts of his or her own case. Statistical evidence from 
unrelated capital cases have nothing to do with establishing the 
innocence or guilt of the defendant at trial.
  The amendment which we are now considering is consistent with Supreme 
Court decisions which find that statistical evidence of this nature is 
unreliable. In fact, the Supreme Court, in McCleskey versus Kemp stated 
that statistical premises of discrimination in capital cases ``throw 
into serious question the principles that underlie our entire criminal 
justice system.''
  Again I say Mr. President, death penalty cases must be race neutral, 
free from statistical inferences of unrelated cases, and tried on the 
facts in the case before the court at the time. Our amendment is to 
ensure that race is not a factor in death penalty cases. This amendment 
is not political, rather it is based on sound legal principle and seeks 
to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system. I urge 
adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I commend our fine Republican leader, the 
ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, our 
most senior Republican colleague Senator Thurmond, and the always 
staunch advocate of a Federal death penalty, Senator D'Amato for 
bringing this amendment to the floor today. I, too, would ask unanimous 
consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  I have a strong interest in this legislation because it has become a 
major hurdle as to whether or not we are going to give Americans what 
they want most from this Congress, and that is not a health care reform 
bill, or the whole panoply of other things we have on our legislative 
plate--but rather Americans mostly want a strong Federal crime bill. 
Personal security is the most important issue according to all recent 
polls.
  Mr. President, I am a conferee on the crime bill, and I want to see 
us enact tough crime legislation this year. A tough crime bill includes 
a Federal death penalty, and that is what a vast majority of Americans 
want. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has accused Senate 
Republicans of playing games with this issue. I would assert that 
nothing could be further from the truth. It is curious that there is a 
direct relationship between those who oppose a Federal death penalty, 
and those who support this so-called Racial Justice Act. I wish that 
those proponents of the Racial Justice Act would be more candid. Step 
up to the plate and say ``I oppose the Federal death penalty, and I 
know that the Racial Justice Act will kill it, and the whole crime 
bill.'' The Senate has rejected the Racial Justice Act with bipartisan 
majorities on several occasions. I would submit that we are 
representing the majority of Americans in our opposition to those 
provisions in the crime bill. So we are not playing any games here. We 
are seeking to implement the will of most Americans.
  If a heinous crime is committed, and a defendant is convicted in a 
fair trial--the punishment allowed by law should not be based on the 
color of the defendant's skin. The Racial Justice Act is an insult to 
the integrity of our jury system. In addition, I believe that the last 
four persons to be executed in this country were caucasians. The jury 
system does work. The Racial Justice Act is an effort to undermine the 
death penalty, and to undermine the strong Federal crime bill most of 
us are working to achieve. It is not about race. It is not about 
justice. It is an effort to kill the death penalty.
  I strongly support this amendment which would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds to implement such a flawed idea as the so-called 
Racial Justice Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the 
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
Bumpers], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from 
Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum], the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Riegle], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], 
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop], are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 33, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Baucus
     Boren
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Durenberger
     Gramm
     Metzenbaum
     Murray
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Wallop
  So, the amendment (No. 2369) was rejected.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2368

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the underlying 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2368) was rejected.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           national weather service office in huntsville, al

  Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator from South Carolina knows about the community 
of Huntsville, AL, and about the high incidence of severe weather 
systems, especially tornadoes, which this community experiences. He 
also knows that the National Weather Service has proposed closing the 
Huntsville office of the National Weather Service in 1996, with 
preliminary steps taken in 1994 and 1995. Because of a number of 
serious concerns which remain among the Alabama congressional 
delegation and in the Huntsville community as to the ability of the 
NEXRAD in Shelby County, AL, to effectively cover the Huntsville area, 
I prepared an amendment to prohibit any funds from being spent to 
transfer, reduce, or terminate the functions or warning 
responsibilities from the Huntsville office. I realize that such an 
amendment on this appropriations bill can only affect the period from 
October 1, 1994, to September 30, 1995.
  In connection with this proposed amendment, my office met this 
morning with Elbert W. Friday, Director of the National Weather 
Service. At that meeting, Dr. Friday outlined the National Weather 
Service's current plan to transfer the warning responsibility of the 
Huntsville office to Birmingham in January 1995, to decommission 
Huntsville's radar in March 1995 and to significantly decrease staff at 
the Huntsville office in June 1995--all activities which would have 
been prohibited by my amendment during fiscal year 1995. Does the 
Senator from South Carolina share my understanding of the situation 
relative to the Huntsville National Weather Service Office?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with the understanding of the Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. It is also my understanding, based on conversations with 
Dr. Friday this morning that he has offered to delay the 
decommissioning--the shutting down--of the radar and the significant 
decrease in staff at the Huntsville National Weather Service Office 
through the end of fiscal year 1995, September 30, 1995. The National 
Weather Service does, however, reserve the right to transfer the 
warning responsibilities of the Huntsville office to Birmingham in or 
after January 1995. In effect then, the Huntsville office would be able 
to operate as an additional and backup radar service system for the 
Huntsville area and would keep its Doppler radar system in operation at 
least until September 30, 1995.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I share that same understanding.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his 
assistance in this matter. Mr. President, I do believe that the 
Huntsville Weather Service Office should be kept open and fully 
operational. I am very concerned about the Weather Service's plan to 
begin dismantling this office in fiscal year 1995 by decommissioning 
the radar and transferring significant number of staff persons. I 
believe that this offer by Dr. Friday to delay the bulk of these two 
activities until after fiscal year 1995 provides Huntsville with 
greater short-term assurance that their weather needs will be provided 
for. However, I want it clearly understood that I intend to do all that 
I can to protect the area's long-term needs. To both of these ends, I 
appreciate the interest and assistance of the Senator from South 
Carolina.


                great lakes programs funded in h.r. 4603

  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise to commend my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, for his continuing efforts 
on this bill and his consideration of programs related to the needs of 
the Great Lakes.
  As the cochairman of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, I have worked 
with my colleagues from the region to protect and restore both the 
environment and the economy associated with this priceless resource. I 
want to thank my colleagues on the task force for their work, and I 
want to sincerely thank the Senator from South Carolina and his staff 
for working with us during the writing of this bill.
  I am very pleased that this bill provides the necessary funding for 
several national programs that help us in our efforts to understand and 
manage the Great Lakes. At first glance, funding for NOAA programs such 
as the National Sea Grant College Program and National Coastal Zone 
Management Grants may not seem important to the Great Lakes. However, 
each of the eight Great Lakes States has a strong Sea Grant Program 
that helps its citizens directly, by conducting critical research and 
outreach efforts on such diverse problems as exotic species and 
contaminated sediments. By the end of next year, six Great Lakes 
States--Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Indiana, and Wisconsin--
should have coastal zone management plans to aid in the wise 
development of their lakeshores. In every sense, the Great Lakes are 
our north coast, important at the national level. That is not to say, 
however, that we do not have some unique problems that require special 
consideration.
  One of our most troublesome problems is the introduction of 
devastatingly harmful exotic species such as the zebra mussel. Since 
they were discovered in 1988, zebra mussels have profoundly impacted 
every lake except Superior. They have altered the makeup of our native 
flora and fauna, destroying populations of endangered native clams. 
They cost municipal and industrial facilities millions of dollars in 
cleanup and control costs. They disrupt recreation, causing thousands 
of dollars of damage to boats, docks, buoys, and beaches. Scientists 
estimate that over the next decade the zebra mussel could cost users of 
the Great Lakes over $5 billion. But the problem is not confined to the 
Great Lakes. In the last year, zebra mussels have become newly 
entrenched in the States of Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. I know 
my colleague from South Carolina is aware of the magnitude of the 
problem. I thank the Senator for his support of the Sea Grant Program 
and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, a NOAA facility, 
both of which lead the charge in the battle against the zebra mussel.
  The sea lamprey is another exotic pest with which we have to contend 
in the Lakes. The lamprey literally sucks the life-blood from Great 
Lakes sport and commercial fisheries, fisheries which generate annual 
economic activity of between $2 and $4 billion and support in excess of 
75,000 jobs. Controlling the sea lamprey is solely the responsibility 
of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The Fishery Commission, 
established by international treaty in 1955, coordinates United States 
and Canadian management of Great Lakes fishery resources. Over the last 
39 years, we in the United States have upheld our end of the treaty and 
appropriated enough money to the Fishery Commission for it to maintain 
its basic sea lamprey chemical control program. However, the cost of 
the chemical control measures undertaken by the Commission has 
substantially risen in recent years. Without research into alternative 
nonchemical control measures our options continue to be limited. In a 
very recent development, the Canadian Government has increased its 
monetary contribution to the Fishery Commission budget. My hope is 
that, when all is said and done, we will be able to match that 
contribution with an additional appropriation of $450,000. My colleague 
from Michigan, Senator Levin, has authorized an amendment for that 
purpose.
  My colleagues on the Great Lakes Task Force and I strongly support 
efforts to ensure adequate funding for exotic species research in the 
Great Lakes.
  In summary, Madam President, I support the committee's 
recommendations for funding of the National Coastal Zone Management Act 
and the National Sea Grant Program and I urge my colleague from South 
Carolina to make exotic species programs a high priority in the 
conference with the House.


                 radio free europe/radio liberty, inc.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, yesterday the Senate adopted an 
amendment I offered relating to the proposed relocation of Radio Free 
Europe, Radio Liberty, Inc., from Munich, Germany, to Prague, Czech 
Republic.
  The President is intending to notify the Congress at the beginning of 
next month that a move of RFE/RL, Inc., to Prague is not only in the 
significant national interest of the United States, but also can be 
achieved within the international broadcasting budget caps we worked so 
hard last year to establish.
  This is a move which I view with skepticism, Mr. President, because I 
have studied the numbers and do not see how they add up. Nevertheless, 
the administration has repeatedly pledged to make the move within the 
appropriation for the Board for International Broadcasting, and insist 
that it will not ask for additional funds to finance the relocation. 
Thus, the first part of my amendment simply requires the move to be 
financed solely out of the account for BIB, and will protect other 
broadcasting accounts from being raided to fund RFE/RL's move. 
Certainly, other programs should not suffer if this move does indeed 
prove to be misguided.
  The second part of my amendment practically restates current law, 
which apparently needs to be clarified. It is the intent of Congress 
that the inspector general at the Board for International Broadcasting 
continue its work in Munich, particularly as RFE/RL, Inc., downsizes. 
This amendment also lays out the intent of the Congress that the 
inspector general continue its valuable work with onsite inspections 
wherever RFE/RL, Inc., is located--Munich, Prague, and throughout the 
transition. RFE/RL, Inc., should be on notice that if it tries to 
impede the work of the inspector general, the Congress will protect the 
IG's authority.
  Finally, Madam President, while I have many questions about the 
financing of this move to Prague, there is one particular issue which 
recently arose which I find particularly unsettling. It involves a 
question of retroactive payments to the Czech Government by the United 
States Government for operating costs on a building the United States 
does not occupy. I am particularly concerned because I know the history 
of RFE/RL, Inc., and know that in the past, repeatedly, they have made 
questionable payments in a broad range of areas and charged it to the 
grant agreement. I am joined by my good friend, the Senator from 
Delaware [Mr. Biden], in a colloquy today about such commitments, and 
hope we can work together to ensure that so much unauthorized payments 
are made.
  Obviously, I am concerned that without close oversight, thousands and 
thousands of taxpayer dollars are likely to be squandered during the 
proposed process of relocation from Munich to Prague. This amendment is 
intended to instill some fiscal constraints on the move--completely 
consistent with what the administration and RFE/RL, Inc., contemplate. 
I thank the managers for their cooperation in accepting this amendment.
  As negotiations have progressed on a proposed relocation of Radio 
Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. from Munich, Germany, to Prague, Czech 
Republic, the National Security Advisor, Tony Lake, has received a 
letter from the Czech Prime Minister's chief of staff, Dr. Igor Nemec, 
stating that RFE/RL representatives had pledged to make retroactive 
payments for operating costs of the Federal Parliament Building in 
Prague from April 1, 1994, as part of RFE/RL's lease of the building. I 
understand that these payments would run between $70,000 and $100,000 a 
month, thereby costing the U.S. Government at least $350,000 for rent 
on a building before it ever agreed to lease it.
  I have been assured by the president of RFE/RL, Inc., Mr. Kevin 
Klose, that no such commitments were made by RFE/FL to the Czech 
Government, and that RFE/RL made it very clear that the move to Prague, 
and thereby any lease arrangement involving retroactive payments, would 
be subject to approval by the United States Government and Congress.
  I, for one, have serious problems with any such arrangement. It is 
not right that the U.S. Government would be liable to pay operating 
costs on a building before it even agreed to move into that building. I 
intend to monitor the situation very closely to ensure that such 
unauthorized payments are not made. I must also add that I am 
particularly concerned because RFE/RL, Inc., is an agency which has a 
particularly bad track record of committing U.S. taxpayer dollars for 
things we should not be paying for.
  Mr. BIDEN. I have worked closely with the Senator from Wisconsin on 
this issue. I have received the same assurances he has from RFE/RL that 
it has made no commitments to pay retroactive operating costs of the 
former Czechoslovak Federal Assembly building, and that any such 
payment would be subject to congressional scrutiny and approval. I 
expect to examine closely any arrangement reached by RFE/RL, Inc., 
before any move to Prague takes place, and I will work with the Senator 
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used wisely by RFE/RL, Inc.


            Freight and light rail services in rhode island

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I wonder if I might ask a question of my 
colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be delighted to respond to my colleague from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. On page 96 of the committee report, in the section dealing 
with the Economic Development Administration, I see where the committee 
has listed some 11 proposals which have been brought to its attention 
and which it hopes the EDA will evaluate. I understand that the 
committee requests EDA to individually consider these proposals and, 
where warranted, to provide grants. Is that correct?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My colleague is correct.
  Mr. PELL. I wish to bring to the attention of my colleague a project 
which is a natural fit for the purpose and mission of the EDA which we 
in Rhode Island hope the EDA will view favorably. This project would 
entail the construction of a railroad track to accommodate freight and 
light rail services. This project is the single most important economic 
development project in our State. Further, the construction of this 
track will not only sustain Rhode Island's current freight operations, 
which will be disrupted by the ongoing electrification of the Northeast 
corridor, but it will enhance and modernize its freight services. As my 
colleague knows, Rhode Island, as is New England, has been struggling 
out of a prolonged recession. This project will also incorporate the 
constructive use of some 900 acres of prime real estate which 
previously housed the Naval Construction Battalion station which was 
closed during the 1991 round of BRAC. Some of this land is currently 
used for a deep-draft shipping port which we hope to enlarge. In order 
to make this transition from a former military site to a successful 
shipping facility, we need to build the track that I have previously 
mentioned which would connect the port with the main train tracks.
  I want to assure my colleague that Rhode Island has already committed 
to funding 50 percent of this project and we will seek funds from the 
various Federal sources. It seems to me that EDA is an ideal source 
and, since Rhode Island plans to pursue this matter with the EDA, I 
wanted to bring this project to the attention of my colleague, Senator 
Hollings.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague for bringing this matter to my 
attention. I believe that this project would be an ideal fit with 
respect to EDA's programs. I would certainly encourage the EDA to give 
this project as careful consideration as those listed in the committee 
report and, if warranted, to provide a grant.
  As my colleague knows, we in South Carolina have also been impacted 
by the ongoing BRAC process. He is quite correct to state that EDA's 
role in these communities should be to help transition the community as 
well as enhance its infrastructure to brighten its economic future. I 
wish my colleague all success as Rhode Island proceeds with this 
project.


               congress-bundestag youth exchange program

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I would like to engage the managers of 
the bill in a brief colloquy on the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange 
Program. I would like to hear their thoughts about German-American 
student exchanges and why the bill before the Senate reduces 
appropriations for these extremely important exchanges.
  Let me say that I am a strong supporter of the Congress-Bundestag 
exchange program which has been in existence now for 11 years. I recall 
the enthusiasm on the floor of the Senate when in 1983 the late Senator 
Heinz introduced the bill authorizing the Congress-Bundestag Youth 
Exchange Program. Many of us rose to endorse it and the legislation 
received unanimous support.
  The exchange initiative was inspired by and coincided with events 
surrounding the monumentally important agreement by the German 
Government to deploy United States Pershing-II missiles in Germany--a 
decision that in my judgment accelerated the end of the cold war. At 
the time, it became very evident there were fundamental 
misunderstandings within Germany of United States intentions and 
equally shallow perceptions in the United States about Germany. We felt 
it imperative that United States-German understanding must be deepened 
and strengthened among young people.
  The German Government felt the need for correcting misperceptions 
about the United States most acutely and initiated the process of 
establishing and funding a youth exchange program with the United 
States. The Congress-Bundestag Program that emerged from this period 
was not just another bilateral exchange program. Rather, it became a 
fundamental part of United States foreign policy administered by the 
U.S. Information Agency with a valuable ally whose cooperation was and 
is vitally important to United States interests in Europe. As part of 
crucial foreign policy developments in 1983, the Congress-Bundestag 
Youth Exchange Program was launched jointly by the United States 
Congress and the German Bundestag and has been funded by both 
governments in roughly equal amounts ever since.
  The Congress-Bundestag program has special foreign policy 
significance. It ought not be grouped with other exchanges. It is 
different, it has special importance, and it should not be weakened.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle who were in the Senate and the 
House at the time of its creation understood its significance and spoke 
passionately in support of these exchanges. Those of us who have 
followed its evolution or who have met with the thousands of students 
involved continue to believe strongly that this program is an important 
element of our overall international exchange effort and a critical 
component of our foreign policy.
  These exchanges were designed to strengthen ties between two great 
countries by expanding awareness of German and American institutions, 
while extending mutual friendship across the Atlantic. Apart from this, 
many students have found their overseas experience and their increased 
fluency in a foreign language a valuable asset in their continuing 
education and community life.

  One of the unique features of the Congress-Bundestag program is that 
the German Government matches our contribution virtually on a dollar-
for-dollar basis. They match the number of students they send to the 
United States to that which we send to Germany. Indeed, they are so 
enthusiastic about this program, they would like to send more students 
to the United States. An increase or decrease in our funding leads to 
an increase or decrease in their funding. When we decrease our funding, 
as the bill before us does by almost 25 percent, there is, in effect, a 
double hit because the German funding will be reduced also and the 
number of students will be decreased by twofold. That would be 
devastating and we should not do it.
  Because of this parity funding, thousands of young people from 
Germany and from the United States are able to spend a year in the 
other country, live with host families and learn from their cross-
cultural experiences. Thousands of students have become young 
ambassadors for their country and carriers of understanding and 
tolerance of the other country and its people. Our relations have been 
strengthened and our mutual interests better understood.
   President Clinton recently spoke of the unique partnership with 
Germany. Germany is one of our most important allies. Its strategic 
importance in Europe is self-evident, it enjoys the strongest economy 
in Europe and has been cooperative in extending the European Union and 
NATO towards the east, a role we have welcomed and encouraged. It is 
poised to play an even greater international role in peacekeeping and 
out-of-area challenges to international security. Moreover, there are 
nearly 60 million Americans who trace their heritage to German origins. 
According to Stephen Rosenfeld of the Washington Post, Americans of 
German background may constitute the largest single ethnic group in the 
United States.
  As we reduce our military presence in Germany and in Europe, we 
should not be reducing our student exchange program. That would send 
the wrong message, a message of indifference, of withdrawal, and 
disinterest. Rather, this is an appropriate time to increase our 
exchanges, or at least maintain them at current levels. This is not the 
time to reduce our contacts or diminish our close ties and long-
standing commitments to Germany.
  Could I ask the managers if the proposed appropriation in the bill 
for the Congress-Bundestag exchanges in fiscal year 1995 is at or below 
the current level of appropriation for fiscal year 1994?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The recommended appropriation mark in the bill for the 
Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program is at $2.1 million for fiscal 
year 1995. The House bill recommends $2.25 million. The current level 
for fiscal year 1994 is $2.75 million.
  Mr. LUGAR. It is also my understanding that the appropriations for 
this program has been funded at $2.75 million for the past several 
years. Is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it has been at $2.75 million since at least fiscal 
year 1992.
  Mr. LUGAR. By my calculation, a reduction to $2.1 million would 
amount to a 23 percent cut in one of our most valuable 
exchange programs. I know the two distinguished managers of this bill 
are supporters of the Congress-Bundestag exchanges. Could they explain 
why this program has been reduced so severely in the committee bill?

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I share the Senator's support for this program and we 
would very much like to provide appropriations for this and other 
exchange programs at a steady, if not larger, funding level. 
Unfortunately, stringent budgetary limitations made this impossible.
  As the senior Senator from Indiana knows, the number of international 
exchange programs has proliferated over the past several years. Members 
of the Congress have been so enthusiastic about international exchange 
programs that they have created many new programs. Unfortunately, the 
appropriations available to fund them have not increased at the same 
rate. Pressures to reduce spending have been greater than pressures to 
increase spending.
  As the demands for funding increase and the supply of resources 
remain static or even shrink, the regrettable result is that some 
programs must be reduced. This is essentially what is proposed for the 
Congress-Bundestag exchange program.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the managers of the bill and appreciate their 
explanation. I am prepared to introduce an amendment that would set the 
funding level for the Congress-Bundestag program at the current level 
of $2.75 million but I am reluctant to burden the legislation with a 
specific earmark. I am most interested in restoring funds to this 
program through any means available. Could the managers give assurances 
that they will to do all they can to support a shift of funds to 
restore German-American exchanges to the current appropriation level? 
If they do, I will withdraw my amendment from consideration.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for his consideration and I share 
his support for this program. I want to give you my assurances that I 
will support efforts both in conference with the House and in 
communications with the U.S. Information Agency to maintain the funding 
level at the current level of $2.75 million.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Lugar has offered the strongest argument on 
behalf of this program that I have heard. As usual, he makes good 
sense. I want to join Senator Hollings in giving my firm assurances 
that I will support and encourage efforts to keep the German-American 
youth exchanges at the fiscal year 1994 funding level.
  Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate the strong assurances from the managers of 
this bill. Their support offers comfort that they will fend off 
additional cuts in conference and argue for appropriations as close to 
the current program funding level as possible. I will therefore 
withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to offer some additional comments on the 
Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program for the record.
  The annual funding for the Congress-Bundestag exchanges permits some 
400 American and 400 German youths to live with host families and 
attend schools every year in the other country. Nearly 4,000 
participants have been funded by this program since its inception. The 
largest number of students in the program is administered by the Youth 
for Understanding [YFU] International Exchange which is one of several 
organizations that administers this program for the U.S. Information 
Agency. Roughly three-fourths of these students are juniors and 
sophomores in high school The standards are high. To be eligible, 
American students must have a 3.0 grade point average and be a citizen 
or permanent resident of the United States.

  At least two students are selected from each State. Those States with 
large populations tend to have more participants. After their year 
abroad, the American students are expected to make a presentation on 
their experiences in Germany to their classmates and/or to interested 
community and schools audiences.
  Madam President, let me repeat my concern that a reduction in funding 
for the Congress-Bundestag Program will send an untimely, unwanted, and 
unwarranted signal to our German friends that we value our relationship 
less now than we have in the past. President Clinton has just gone to 
great pains to reassure the Germans that the reduction of the American 
military presence in Germany does not signal a diminution in the 
importance as we attach to the German-American partnership. We should 
reinforce that message. Cutting this German-American exchange program 
regrettably contradicts the President's message.
  The Congress-Bundestag Program, despite its comparatively small 
funding, is a highly visible program. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was 
personally involved in setting it up and he has retained his interest 
ever since. He has visited American exchange students sponsored by it. 
Last year, Rita Sussmuth, the president of the German Bundestag, 
personally presided over a warm celebration of the 10th anniversary of 
the program. Indeed, many members of the German Bundestag personally 
adopt United States scholars who come to their electoral districts, 
invite them into their homes and arrange events for them.
  There is no corresponding active involvement or interest in the 
United States. It is one lightly funded program that gets lost in the 
welter of international programs which have proliferated over the 
years. Our German counterparts value this program very highly. They 
want to send more German students to the United States. They actively 
promote it. Many members of the Bundestag directly participate in it. 
The German embassy is dismayed by this proposed cut and so should we. 
We should restore the funding to the current level of $2.75 million. We 
should do so because it is in our interest to preserve and protect 
programs important to our national interest. The Congress-Bundestag 
Youth Exchange Program is unmistakably one of those programs.
  Once again, I want to thank the distinguished managers of the bill 
before us. They have a difficult task of balancing growing and 
competing needs with fewer resources. I appreciate their understanding 
and courtesy.


            recognizing the service of elizabeth K. blevins

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, Liz Blevins recently left the 
Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee to join the full 
Appropriations Committee staff and work directly with Chairman Byrd and 
Jim English. This bill represents the first time since 1989 that Liz 
Blevins is not out here on the floor of the Senate supporting me as a 
member of our subcommittee staff.
  In the Senate we do not often enough recognize the people who work so 
hard to support us and make this institution run. I would like to just 
take a minute to salute Liz Blevins and commend her for the 
contributions she made to this Commerce, Justice and State 
Subcommittee.
  Liz Blevins is a true professional. She came to the subcommittee 
after serving several years with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. She had previously served with the Senate Democratic Policy 
Committee, the Department of Energy, and Department of the Navy and she 
also had served in the White House Office of Media Liaison under 
President Carter. She came to the Nation's Capital from Michigan in 
1963, and she often has used her annual leave to visit that State or 
her husband Gypsy's home State of West Virginia.
  Liz was responsible for making this subcommittee run. She organized 
our hearings and markups, and helped ensure that agencies responded to 
data calls and committee requests in a timely manner. She also kept 
track of the blizzard of paper--from reprogrammings to hearing 
transcripts--which pass through our subcommittee office. She always 
carried out her responsibilities with dedication and she helped 
contribute to the team spirit and esprit that so typifies our 13 
appropriations subcommittees.
  While we wish Liz the best in her new position, we cannot help but 
say that we miss her. Almost every agency funded in our bill--and we 
oversee 3 Cabinet departments and 24 independent agencies--has called 
to wish Liz the best and to say they will miss seeing her smiling face.
  And, Madam President, that is the point. Liz Blevins truly is one of 
those people in life who makes a special effort to brighten up 
everyone's day. She made every visitor to our subcommittee--each 
Senator, staff person, agency official, or tourist--feel special. 
Countless times she has gone out of her way to ensure that visitors 
wandering around the Capitol get to the location they are trying to 
find, or obtain tickets to visit the House and Senate Chambers.
  I know that her husband Gypsy, and daughter Shannon are very proud of 
her. We all are. We are proud of her for her professional achievements 
and of who she is.
  Madam President, in conclusion, as chairman of this subcommittee, I 
just want to thank Liz Blevins for a job well done.


 h.r. 4603, the commerce justice, state, and judiciary appropriations 
                                  bill

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today in strong support for this 
bill. Through the work of subcommittee chairman Hollings, ranking 
member Senator Domenici and the other members of the Appropriations 
Committee the Senate has before it a tough--and smart--bill. Indeed, 
this bill implements the first step of the Biden crime bill by 
appropriating the first year of the violent crime reduction trust fund. 
Unlike any other crime bill that has ever passed into law, the Biden 
crime bill--because of the efforts of Appropriations Committee chairman 
Robert Byrd--actually pays for what it promises. And, today, with the 
appropriation of $2.423 billion from the first year of the trust fund 
the Senate sees the first evidence of this fundamentally new approach 
to combating crime and violence in America.
  Due to the efforts of Senators Hollings and Domenici, this 
appropriations bill spends the first year of the trust fund on the 
Nation's top crime-fighting priorities:
  First, $1.3 billion for community policing efforts, enough to add 
14,000 police officers to our Nation's streets, and the first step to 
adding 100,000 police officers over the next five years;
  Second, $299 million to enhance the Federal efforts to control our 
borders, dollars that will hire 700 new Border Patrol agents, redeploy 
240 more Border Patrol Agents to the front-lines through enhanced 
computerization, in addition to several other necessary reforms;
  Third, $86 million for State grants to combat violence against 
women--increasing the enforcement, prosecution, and victim services for 
those who fall prey to the scourge of violence at the hands of a brutal 
spouse;
  Fourth, $423 million to restore the Byrne Drug Enforcement Grants to 
State and local law enforcement--equal to the greatest appropriation 
the Byrne Program has achieved since its creation in 1988;
  Fifth, $100 million to undertake a greatly needed drug court program, 
taking up to 50,000 offenders who are today simply walking the streets 
on probation, unsupervised and uncontrolled, and holding them 
accountable through drug testing and drug treatment backed up by the 
certain threat that drug abuse will be detected and punished;
  Sixth, $175 million for State grants for corrections programs, 
including military-style boot camp prisons for up to 18,000 prisoners--
one of the most cost-effective ways of punishing first-time, nonviolent 
offenders--160,000 of whom are now behind bars in a prison cell that 
should be used for violent criminals; and
  Seventh, $40 million for the Community Schools Program--an effort 
crafted by Senators Bradley, Domenici, Danforth, and Dodd that will 
take a commonsense approach to keeping children away from crime and 
drugs by keeping schools open in the afternoon, evening, on weekends, 
and during the summer. This will mean safe haven for a significant 
number of the hundreds of thousands of children who must literally 
dodge bullets as they walk the streets and playgrounds of their 
neighborhoods.
  In addition, this appropriations bill provides $100 million for the 
Brady law effort to assist in the development of a nationwide instant 
criminal background check that has proven so successful in my home 
State of Delaware. In fact, in just the first few months since taking 
effect in February, the Brady law stopped 23,610 convicted felons from 
buying a gun over-the-counter at their local gun shop.
  When combined with $144 million for the Justice Departments' juvenile 
justice programs, these and other efforts mean that through the crime 
bill trust fund and the efforts of Chairman Hollings and the 
appropriations mean that the Federal Government will provide nearly 
$2.3 billion in aid to State and local law enforcement.
  State and local law enforcement are the real front lines of the 
Nation's battle against violent crime, and the $2.3 billion in greatly 
needed aid represents a more than 300 percent increase over last years' 
level. In other words, for the first time in years we are actually 
living up to the support for State and local law enforcement that is so 
often voiced on the floor of the Senate.
  This bill does not stop there--for Chairman Hollings has made great 
strides in boosting Federal law enforcement as well. The bill before 
the Senate
  Gives us the chance to:
  Boost funding to the FBI by more than $150 million, that will hire 
436 new FBI agents--restoring FBI agent strength to the 10,475 peak 
level reached in 1992;
  Boost funding to the DEA by about $40 million, that will support 311 
more DEA agents--restoring DEA to its 3,702 peak reached in 1992;
  Boosting funding to U.S. attorneys by more than $12 million, so that 
no reduction will be necessary from this year's level; and
  Increasing the Federal prison budget by $404 million above this 
years' level--to fully fund the expected increase of more than 8,400 
Federal prisoners--raising the total number of Federal prisoners to 
nearly 93,000--the greatest total in our Nation's history.
  In yet another high priority area--the Weed and Seed Program--
Chairman Hollings and the Appropriations Committee have continued 
funding at $23 million. This will ensure that weed and seed sites, such 
as Wilmington, DE, will be maintained--and expanded to even more 
neighborhoods in Wilmington and the other weed and seed sites.
  Now I would like to take a moment to discuss the funding for Radio 
Free Asia provided by this bill. As the author of the legislation to 
establish this new service, I am extremely grateful to the chairman, 
Senator Hollings, for providing $18 million to begin Radio Free Asia 
broadcasts.
  As my colleagues will recall, in the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act, enacted into law earlier this year, Congress authorized the 
establishment of a Radio Free Asia.
  This proposal rests on a concept that has been central to U.S. 
foreign policy for 40 years: the dissemination of accurate news and 
information to people suffering under Communist rule. For 4 decades, 
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have broadcast to the nations that 
once constituted the Soviet empire. The radios, as they are known, were 
an important instrument in promoting political pluralism and spurring 
dissidents across the Soviet bloc.

  A similar broadcasting service to China and the other Communist 
nations in East Asia could catalyze democratic development in those 
nations.
  In each country--China, Cambodia, Loas, North Korea, and Vietnam--
press freedom is virtually non-existent, and the media are used largely 
as instruments of state policy. Radio Free Asia will fill this 
information gap by providing information about local developments, and 
thus complement the Voice of America, which concentrates largely on 
U.S. and international news.
  It is often claimed that Radio Free Asia is unnecessary, because 
China's reform process has caused an unprecedented openness that will 
inevitably yield still greater political freedom. To be sure, Western 
investment, economic reform, and greater prosperity among the masses 
will all have a subversive effect on the regime's tyrannical powers. 
But economic liberalism does not guarantee political openness. There is 
simply no evidence that the Chinese Government plans to abandon Mao's 
dictum that power comes from a barrel of a gun. Indeed, Beijing 
recently expanded the powers of the police--already extensive--to 
detain and restrict activities of dissidents. And as a recent edition 
of the Far Eastern Economic Review reported, China continues to jam 
Voice of America broadcasts--despite claims to the contrary.
  The dynamism of the Asian market demands that the United States, in 
its own self-interest, remain deeply engaged in the region. But pursuit 
of profits and economic prosperity does not require us to be morally 
comatose. Radio Free Asia is a modest and cost-effective means to 
advance our democratic ideals. We should not shrink from the challenge. 
I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee to assure continued funding for Radio Free Asia.
  This bill will do all this and much more. Chairman Byrd, Subcommittee 
Chairman Hollings, Senator Domenici, and every member of the 
Appropriations Committee have offered the Senate a strong, effective, 
efficient bill, and I urge every Senator to support this bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to support the Commerce, 
Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill before us today and I 
want to recognize Chairman Hollings' efforts in bringing this bill to 
the floor and applaud the broad-based support this package has received 
from a majority of subcommittee and full committee members. I believe 
the committee reached an acceptable compromise given the nearly 
overwhelming challenges of putting together a bill that fairly 
distributes funding for an array of important and critical programs 
within a budgetary framework of extremely limited resources.
  While I have some reservations about individual measures and 
particular programs, as I suspect many of us may, I want to take this 
opportunity to highlight what I view as the most important areas that 
the committee has addressed.
  I am privileged to serve as the vice chair of the Commerce 
Committee's National Oceans Policy Study and as such I know and value 
Chairman Hollings deep commitment to the adequate funding of the 
important marine mammal and living marine resource programs that are 
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
[NOAA] and other agencies. Despite the austere budget environment that 
we are laboring under, I am pleased to see the continuation of many 
vital marine and coastal programs.
  I am encouraged that the bill gives priority to National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's infrastructure and ocean, coastal and 
fisheries programs. I approve of the effort to put the ``O'' back in 
NOAA and balance NOAA programs by emphasizing increases for ocean, 
coastal, and fisheries programs, including the National Sea Grant 
Program and the Coastal Zone Management Program.
  The additions for fisheries programs without imposing fishing fees as 
a financing mechanism is especially laudable and reflects the 
importance of this vital national resource.
  I am very appreciative that the bill includes a $2.5 million increase 
in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment Program that 
addresses restoration of the New England groundfish fishery.
  For over 20 years, through the unique Federal/State partnership 
established by the Coastal Zone Management [CZM] Act, the coastal 
states and NOAA have worked in a cooperative and productive effort to 
``preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore or enhance 
our Nation's coastal resources.'' The national CZM program is a vital 
defense against the constant pressures on the fragile and finite 
coastal zone. Twenty-three Senators joined me in sending a letter 
supporting increased funding for this small but extremely effective 
program that seeks to protect our coastal resources. This is a welcome 
increase for this vital program.
  Many excellent programs were included in today's bill. However, some 
beneficial programs did not receive the funding I believed they 
merited, and I remain optimistic that it will be possible to address 
some of these as we move to conference with the House.
  One program I believe falls into this category is the New England 
Aquarium study of bluefin tuna. The bluefin tuna is the most valuable 
finfish in the world and its value has driven the fishery to the brink 
of collapse. The Atlantic bluefin tuna research program conducted by 
the New England Aquarium includes important studies of the biology, 
physiology and reproduction of this extremely valuable highly migratory 
species about which very little is known. I hope that the Senate will 
concede to the House request of $300,000 to fund this important 
research.
  As chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Narcotics and International Operations, I commend the chairman and 
ranking member for the excellent work that they have done in following 
the funding levels set forth in the authorization act for the 
Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, international 
broadcasting, and other functions. I was particularly pleased that the 
bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee contained $1.170 
million for peacekeeping assessments, including a supplemental 
appropriation of $670 million for fiscal year 1994.
  I cannot overemphasize the importance of meeting our financial 
obligations to various international bodies. Consequently, I am deeply 
disappointed that the Senate voted today to ignore those obligations 
and cut $350 million from the appropriation for international 
organizations and peacekeeping assessments. These cuts are doubly 
troublesome coming at a time when Ambassador Albright is working so 
diligently to bring about management and financial reform at the United 
Nations. Those who stood in this Chamber and demanded the creation of 
an independent inspector general, and then complained that the truly 
astonishing work of our delegation at the United Nations to bring about 
that creation was insufficient, should understand clearly that this cut 
serves to undermine the reforms which they so vociferously support.
  I would also point out to my colleagues, who may have thought that 
they were voting to cut funds for peacekeeping operations which they do 
not support, that in fact the Dole-Hutchison amendment cuts funds for 
all international organizations. In addition to U.N. assessments, the 
cuts will affect funding levels for the North Atlantic Council, the 
Organization of American States and other international institutions on 
which we are placing ever greater demands. This $350 million cut will 
have a devastating impact on our ability to use the United Nations and 
these other organizations to foster our foreign policy goals. 
Fortunately, I have confidence that the chairman and ranking member 
will work diligently in conference to minimize the damage.
  In closing, I would again like to express my appreciation to Chairman 
Ernest F. Hollings and ranking member Pete Domenici for their tireless 
efforts on behalf of this legislation. Without their help, none of this 
would be possible. I would also like to thank the talented staff of 
both the Senators, with a special thanks to John Shank and Scott Gudes 
who toiled countless hours to make this bill a reality.


                   dole-hutchison amendment no. 2357

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I oppose the Dole-Hutchison amendment, 
which seeks to further reduce our contributions and payment of arrears 
to the United Nations in order to reimburse States for the cost of 
incarcerating illegal aliens.
  While I certainly support the intent of the amendment to relieve the 
States of the onerous financial burden resulting from our immigration 
policies, I do not believe that we should undermine a key element of 
our foreign policy to achieve it.
  We have already agreed to withhold a portion of our U.N. 
contributions until the President certifies that the U.N. Secretary 
General has created an office of Inspector General with broad oversight 
responsibilities. The Secretary General has begun to address our 
concerns. We should work with the United Nations to implement these 
reforms, and pay our debts to the institution to ensure that progress 
will be made.
  I have heard many of my colleagues assert that the United States is 
the only remaining superpower and, as such, the world leader. Yet if we 
truly hope to be a leader in world affairs, we cannot constantly shrink 
from our commitments.
  I say commitments because the United States is part of the 
decisionmaking process in the United Nations. We are a permanent member 
of the Security Council. The decision to commit the United Nations, 
and, by extension, the United States, to peacekeeping operations and 
humanitarian relief efforts is taken by the Security Council, over 
which we have a veto.
  Our failure to fund peacekeeping and humanitarian operations--which 
we have approved with our vote in the Security Council--casts doubt 
upon our own policy process and places an unfair financial burden on 
our Third World partners in peacekeeping endeavors.
  Increasingly, we have called for greater multilateral and regional 
resolution of conflicts. We have grown reluctant to condone the 
presence of U.S. personnel in U.N. peacekeeping operations. In fact, 
U.S. personnel comprise less than 2 percent of all U.N. peacekeepers 
worldwide.
  Nowhere has this emphasis on regional management of crises been more 
evident than in Africa. Yet African nations do not have the financial 
or material resources to fund such operations without the help of the 
United States and other Western nations.

  Our practice of withholding funding for peacekeeping operations has 
not only hampered current operations, but jeopardizes future efforts to 
rapidly deploy peacekeeping forces to gain control over conflicts 
before they get out of hand.
  One need look no further than Rwanda to see the aftershocks of our 
fiscal delinquency. In May of this year, the UNAMIR forces commander in 
Rwanda, General Dallaire, indicated that between 5,500 and 8,000 U.N. 
troops would be necessary to gain control over the reign of terror and 
put an end to the genocide. After much debate and delay, the Security 
Council approved a force level of 5,500. Several African nations 
pledged troops, on the condition that the United Nations or Western 
donors provided them with equipment and logistical support. 
Understandably, these and other financially strapped African nations--
some of which still have not been reimbursed for their participation in 
prior peacekeeping operations--are now reluctant to commit troops and 
equipment to Rwandan relief efforts without assurances that they will 
be reimbursed by the United Nations. But the United Nations cannot 
promise that repayment, when the United States continues to withhold 
significant portions of its obligations. These arrears are expected to 
top $1 billion dollars by the end of this year. One billion dollars!
  Meanwhile a half million Rwandans have been massacred, two-thirds of 
the remaining population has been displaced, and more than a million 
people are at risk of starvation and disease.
  I agree that we must continue to aggressively press the United 
Nations to reform its management procedures and operational practices, 
especially in regard to peacekeeping. But we should not continue to 
look to this account as a limitless source of funding for other 
underfunded needs.
  We have in the past criticized U.N. peacekeeping operations, and 
often rightly so. But further delaying payment of our commitments will 
certainly not serve to strengthen this institution nor its capacity to 
manage peacekeeping.
  Madam President, doctors used to believe that they could cure illness 
by bloodletting. But the treatment was worse than the disease, serving 
merely to further weaken the patient and hasten death. In the same way, 
the adoption of this amendment would weaken the United Nations and 
undermine the reforms we have been seeking.
  I believe that the United Nations is a patient worth saving. I 
therefore urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.


       funding for the radiation exposure compensation trust fund

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Congress established the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act [RECA] trust fund in 1990 to compensate 
victims of radiation caused by our nuclear weapons testing program. 
There is no new funding proposed in this appropriations bill for the 
radiation exposure compensation trust fund for fiscal year 1995. I 
understand that this is so because there will once again be more than 
enough moneys in the trust fund to meet the needs of the program for 
the coming fiscal year.
  As a chief sponsor of the program, as is my distinguished friend from 
New Mexico, I have been concerned that, since Congress finally 
acknowledged the Government's fault so many years after causing such 
harm and suffering to citizens of Utah and other Western States, there 
be sufficient funds to pay for the compensation promised in the law 
throughout the trust fund's life.
  The issue of radioactive harm caused by the Government has been much 
in the news this year. I want to be certain that, as we and the 
administration continue to review harms caused by some of our nuclear 
programs, this compensation program remain fully viable over its 
intended life. And because I know that my colleagues, the distinguished 
managers of this bill, are strong supporters of this compassionate 
program, I wanted to clarify a few points and enlist their continued 
support for the trust fund.
  Am I correct in my understanding that there are still sufficient 
moneys in the RECA fund to fully pay all claims now pending as well as 
all claims projected to be filed in 1995 so that no RECA claimant will 
be harmed by this funding proposal?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Our information from the Justice Department is 
that more than $73,00,000 will be available for use in 1995. We have 
been assured that this is more than sufficient to cover all outstanding 
claims.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We have been assured that this amount, $73,000,000, is 
sufficient to cover all pending and future claims through fiscal 1995.
  Mr. HATCH. If it should happen that part way through the fiscal year 
the RECA trust fund should fall short of funds to make these 
compassionate payments, would the Senator from South Carolina and the 
Senator from New Mexico commit to working with me to ensure that the 
victims of radiation caused by our Government are paid the sums owed to 
them under present law?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely. As one of the chief sponsors of the 
program, I am committed to its success.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator can count on my assistance.
  Mr. HATCH. Will my colleagues further commit to working with me to 
ensure that sufficient funds are appropriated then and in subsequent 
years in which the trust fund exists to meet the obligations of the 
Government to the radiation victims as required under the current law?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Again, I will do everything in my power to ensure that 
all claims are paid according to the law.
  Mr. HATCH. And, do my colleagues agree that simply because no new 
funds have been appropriated for fiscal year 1995 no presumption will 
be raised about the level of funding necessary in future years?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is quite right. No presumptions will be 
raised against future appropriations.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with my colleagues. We will work together to 
ensure that the necessary funding is available over the life of the 
trust fund.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I note in the report on H.R. 4603 that 
the committee requested the Economic Development Administration [EDA] 
to evaluate several worthwhile proposals for projects which may be 
eligible for funding under the various EDA programs.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct. The committee listed eleven such 
proposals.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to make the Senator from South Carolina and 
the ranking member, Senator Domenici, aware of a particularly 
meritorious project from my home State of Rhode Island. The proposal 
calls for the expansion of the historic Providence Performing Arts 
Center in downtown Providence. The building is the second largest 
indoor theater in New England and is listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places.
  The expansion and theater renovation will afford Providence the 
opportunity to attract major theater productions and lead to the 
creation of hundreds of new jobs in the surrounding arts and 
entertainment district. It is just the type of project the Economic 
Development Administration is trying to encourage in our Nation's 
downtown, central business district areas.
  I ask the managers of the bill, if the Providence project is similar 
to those listed in the Senate report.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree, the proposal certainly appears to accomplish 
the goals of the Economic Development Administration's mission.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That being the case, I ask the managers if they would 
deem the Providence project part of the Senate committee's 
recommendation to the EDA and the conferees when the bill goes to 
conference.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Although we cannot amend the Senate report at this 
point, I speak for this side of the aisle in requesting that EDA 
evaluate the Providence Performing Arts Center project along with the 
other projects listed in the committee report. Like the committee 
recommended projects, the Providence proposal should be given every 
consideration by the Economic Development Administration.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I concur with the Chairman. There is no objection on 
this side of the aisle to the Senator from Rhode Island's request.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators and look forward to working with the 
committee and EDA to make the Providence proposal a reality.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would like to yield to the majority 
leader. I think we have an understanding on both sides here with 
respect to further disposition and that we can handle these amendments. 
I know the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is talking about one 
particular amendment. If that can be cleared, then all the rest of 
them--when I say ``the rest of them,'' there are about 11 of them that 
can be handled by voice vote and accepted on both sides. Then we can 
pass the bill by a voice vote rather than a rollcall.
  Let me yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, we are attempting to complete action 
on the bill without the necessity of any further rollcall votes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Madam President, we have talked with Senator 
Helms. He has no further action that he desires.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, let me inquire of Senators now present 
on the floor. We have no request for a rollcall vote on final passage. 
I hope there is none. If that is the case and no other amendment is to 
be offered which will require a rollcall vote, then I will be able to 
say that there will be no further rollcall votes tonight.
  Madam President, no Senator having expressed a view to the contrary, 
I take that as acquiescence in the proposal made; that is to say, there 
will be no further amendments offered that require a rollcall vote. The 
managers have a list of the amendments which have been agreed to and 
which will be accepted. There will not be a rollcall vote on final 
passage. So there will be no further rollcall votes this evening.
  I will have to have a brief consultation before announcing the 
schedule for Monday. I will do so shortly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, will the leader please concur that we 
have all agreed that there will be an up-or-down vote on the conference 
report?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So those who are not having a vote on some issues will 
have a chance there.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. There will be a vote on the conference 
report when it returns to the Senate. So there will be no further 
rollcall votes this evening. I must await a brief period of 
consultation before making an announcement with respect to Monday. I 
will do that as soon as possible, which I hope will be shortly and 
within a matter of minutes.
  Madam President, in the meantime I hope the managers will proceed to 
complete action on this bill.
  I thank my colleagues. I especially want to thank, if I may have 
their attention, the Senator from South Carolina, the chairman, and the 
Senator from New Mexico, the ranking member, for an extremely diligent 
effort on this bill. I thank all my colleagues for their cooperation on 
this matter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished leader for his leadership and 
the minority leader for his leadership in getting this together 
expeditiously.


                           Amendment No. 2370

 (Purpose: To add funds to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to match 
     the proposed increase in Canadian funding for the Commission)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, [Senator Levin], and 
Senators Glenn, D'Amato, Kohl, Riegle, Wofford, and Lugar, an amendment 
relative to the National Marine Fisheries Service, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. And the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] for Mr. 
     Levin (for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
     Riegle, Mr. Wofford, and Mr. Lugar), proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2370.

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

       On page 51, line 9, after the sum ``$500,000'' insert: ``: 
     Provided further, that of the total amount included in this 
     paragraph for the National Marine Fisheries Service, $450,000 
     shall be made available for payment to the Great Lakes 
     Fishery Commission within 90 days of enactment of this Act, 
     as part of the United States' match to the increased Canadian 
     contribution pursuant to the Convention on Great Lakes 
     Fisheries. This sum shall not affect other appropriations 
     provided for the Commission under this Act''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased that the managers of the 
bill have agreed to accept my amendment to increase funds for the Great 
Lakes Fishery Commission in fiscal year 1995.
  As those Senators from the Great Lakes are fully aware, the sea 
lamprey population in the Great Lakes continues to grow, threatening 
the world's largest freshwater ecosystem and a multi-billion-dollar 
commercial and recreational fishing industry. This parasitic fish's 
predation is checked only by the Commission's efforts.
  The cosponsors of this amendment and I are appreciative that the 
fiscal year 1995 bill reported by the Appropriations Committee includes 
$8.323 million for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and that the 
fiscal year 1994 bill provided extra funds to pay lampricide 
reregistration costs. The additional $450,000 provided in our amendment 
for the Commission are necessary because Canada has indicated its 
intention to provide an increase in its contribution in the Canadian 
fiscal year 1994-95--spanning part of our fiscal year 1994 and part of 
fiscal year 1995--to the bilateral Commission and the United States 
needs to match that contribution.
  The traditional cost-sharing ratio for the activities of the 
Commission is 69:31, United States to Canada, pursuant to the 
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. To take full and immediate 
advantage of Canada's offer to increase its annual contribution by 
about 34 percent, the United States has to increase its total 
contribution in fiscal year 1995 by using $852,000 in fiscal year 1994 
funds and the additional $450,000 provided by this amendment. The 
amendment explicitly states that these funds should be turned over to 
the Commission within 90 days. The Commission's lamprey control 
activities are vital and should not be deferred, and the reregistration 
funds provided by Congress should not be used by the State Department 
as a cushion to leverage funds for the control effort.
  Madam President, this amendment provides a small increase, but a 
necessary one. Without it, our lamprey control and lampricide 
reregistration costs would end up being even higher than currently 
estimated. We need to get this money to the Commission so it can get 
the lampreys out of the lakes in the most efficient way, and so we can 
meet our international obligation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I think we are going to work out all 
of the amendments. If Senators want to stay, fine. But I think we have 
agreed to amendments that Senators have submitted to us.
  Could I, Madam President, take 3 minutes and engage in a bit of 
conversation with Senator Biden?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Can we get the amendment of the Senator from Michigan 
agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment. If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The amendment (No. 2370) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I see the distinguished chairman on 
the floor. I just wanted to tell him first that I want the Senate to 
know that even though we are not engaged these days in a lot of 
legislation together, the new Senators would not believe how we arrived 
in the Senate and what the Senate did for us when we arrived.
  You see, Senator Biden was elected at the same time I was. But he 
decided to wait a few months because of some very serious problems, 
domestic problems where there had been an accident in his family. But 
when he arrived, the Senate decided in its wisdom that we did not have 
enough room for both of us.
  So they put us both in the same room. So Senator Biden and I, I 
think, maybe have a record for any Senators that are currently Senators 
in that we had one suite for two Senators, one from New Mexico and one 
from Delaware. It was so cramped that staff used to walk over the 
desks.
  So when Senators think things are so bad these days, they might hark 
back to the days when Senators Biden and Domenici came.
  Senator, having said that, that is just to make sure everybody knows 
that we are good friends. Nonetheless, I wanted to share with you, 
Senator, a couple of things that I did not do before because I wanted 
to let that vote occur. Everybody wanted to get on with it. But even 
when you arrived way back 22 years ago, when we came together to the 
Senate, you had a tendency to get excited. In fact, I thought I was the 
most excitable one because of my Italian vintage. But obviously, your 
Irish culture caused you to be very excited.
  I think today, when you spoke about Republicans and crime bills, that 
maybe I might just tell you my version of why crime bills did not pass 
in the past. I think there have been five. Everyone had your name on 
it. One was you and Senator Hatch. One was the distinguished Senator, 
Senator Biden, and Senator Thurmond. But I believe the real reason they 
failed was not because of Republicans. I believe they cleared this 
Senate in good shape.
  I think certain liberal elements in the House, every time you took 
one of those bills there, would take out things that the Republicans in 
this body thought very, very important, like death penalty, or 
modifications to habeas corpus, or the like.
  I really think you overstated the case to say that the Republicans 
killed crime bills in the past. Having said that, you also used the 
word chicanery, and you wonder what kind of chicanery we were all up 
to.
  I might just say to my good friend, Senator Biden, I am confident 
that you have something up your sleeve, too. I do not know that I want 
to call it chicanery. But it seems to me that if you are going to get a 
crime bill, and there is not going to be a quota in it----
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will Senators please address other 
Senators through the Chair and in the third person?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, excuse me. I am sorry. And the Senate 
will vote that day on the consideration of the Interior bill. I 
encourage Senators who want to offer amendments to do so as early in 
the day as possible. They can begin to do so as early as shortly after 
10 a.m. and not wait until the end of the day to offer amendments, 
which means votes in the late evening and dead time during the day.

  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Senator Byrd will be 
present to manage the bill at that time. The next vote will occur at 
noon on Monday. I thank my colleagues, and I thank the Senator for his 
courtesy.
  I will continue with Senator Biden. The distinguished Senator from 
Delaware indicated that the Republicans had chicanery behind this 
amendment of some sort or another. I do not want to use that word, but 
I want to suggest that, clearly, if you have been able to strike the 
quotas-for-murders provision, you have been able to strike that, and 
there is going to be nothing in the crime bill, then it seems to me 
that you have made some kind of a deal with somebody. I submit that I 
do not know who it is, and I do not want to call that chicanery, but 
clearly there must be something in mind to take its place. Maybe it is 
an executive function, or an Attorney General function.
  I just wanted to make sure that from this Senator's standpoint, at 
least, and put on the record, the fact that the Republicans did not 
kill the crime bills in the past, and that there must be something that 
you agreed to that satisfied those who think we must have some kind of 
racial justice or quotas. I do not say that in any disparaging way. It 
is an observation, and if I am wrong, I would be pleased to hear it 
from the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, first, I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I could comment further, I do not 
want to get involved in the middle of this debate going on. I do want 
to say something about the Senator from Delaware. As far as I am 
concerned, there is no more effective Senator, there is no better 
chairman, there is no more efficient manager of legislation in the 
Senate. He is very well able to speak for himself, and I do not suggest 
that any implication to the contrary was made in the remarks made. I 
want to say from my standpoint as majority leader, and before that, as 
a Senator, he is extremely effective, and I think he has done an 
outstanding job in his position. I thank the Chair. I suppose he did 
not mind yielding for that statement.
  Mr. BIDEN. I did not mind yielding for that. I thank my colleagues. I 
disagree with my colleague from Maine, and I agree with my colleague 
from New Mexico on one point: We are friends. We have been friends for 
a long time and will continue to be friends.
  One of the things my friend from New Mexico said--to demonstrate how 
people who have not had the great honor and privilege to serve in this 
body, it is always difficult for them to understand how we can be so 
vigorous in our disagreements and still be friends. As evidence of 
that, while the vote was going on, he came up to me in the well and he 
said: ``Joe, look, will you hang around after the vote so I can tell 
everybody how much I disagree with you and how much I think you have 
inappropriately and/or inaccurately characterized the Republican 
position.'' As he would have done for me, I indicated to him I would 
stand here so he would have an opportunity to tell me how wrong he 
thought I was, and so I offer that as evidence of the nature of our 
friendship.
  We are going to have plenty of time to debate whether or not anyone 
did, or who stopped what bill, and when and under what circumstances. 
For this evening, out of deference to all of the Senators here and, 
quite frankly, because it probably would not be particularly 
enlightening to anybody in America to know what my view of who stopped 
what bill in the past was, let me suggest only that as to the last 
rhetorical question raised by my friend--that is, what agreement did I 
make in order to move this crime bill along in the House to get it to 
conference--we have an expression my Grandfather Finnegan used to use: 
``The proof is in the pudding.''
  Hopefully, I am going to be able to, as one of the many players in 
this arena, bring back to the U.S. Senate a bill that will, in fact, 
have all the major elements of what the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico has been for. There will be significant elements of it that will 
reflect the Republican Senate's contribution to that bill, and elements 
with which I disagree but with which I feel bound as a U.S. Senator and 
as chairman of the caucus on the Senate side to bring back to the 
Senate. But I do not, in any way, resent, nor do I think it 
inappropriate, for my friend from New Mexico to wonder how we were able 
to get to the point where the incredibly contentious issue--the Racial 
Justice Act--which had been preventing us, until now, from getting to 
conference, has been moved so we are able to get to the conference. The 
proof will be in the pudding.
  I thank my friend for his friendship, and I also appreciate the 
vehemence with which he shares a disagreement with me about the bill.
  (Mr. GRAHAM assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes so that I can 
characterize my own position. I am very much opposed to the language in 
the crime bill, even with the so-called Racial Justice Act. I am 
opposed to that because I think the practical effect of it would be to 
eliminate corporal punishment and capital punishment. So I am very much 
opposed to it.
  I was opposed to it on this bill. I do not want to bog down this 
appropriations bill. That is the reason why I did not vote for the 
amendment offered by Mr. Dole and Mr. Hatch. I do not want to see it 
bogging down the bill. I do not want anyone to read into that vote any 
indication that I am not opposed to the so-called racial justice 
language.
  I hope that the White House and Justice Department do not implement a 
back-door entry somehow with respect to the same subject. I, too, 
congratulate the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, for his leadership. I thank him for his friendship.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished Senator, 
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2371

(Purpose: To reallocate $3,000,000 of the Community Schools Supervision 
        Grant appropriation to the Ounce of Prevention Council)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Dodd 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. Dodd 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2371.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 9, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 
     10, line 5, and insert the following:


                  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, 
     $37,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                      ounce of prevention council

       For grants by the Ounce of Prevention Council, as 
     authorized in H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1993, as passed by the Senate, $3,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment by the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], is on community school supervision 
grants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2371) 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. 2372

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send another 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] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2772.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 51 of the bill on line 8 strike the sum 
     ``$2,200,000'' and insert the sum ``$2,000,000''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. We have 
for years included a maximum and minimum funding level for section 306 
and 306(a) coastal zone management grants. This is to ensure that small 
States and territories receive adequate funding to assist them in 
managing their coastal zone areas and to ensure that larger States do 
not deplete all funding for the program. I was the principal author of 
the Coastal Zone Management Act, and it was never our intention to 
create a program that was dominated by larger States.
  Now in this Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, we have 
significantly increased NOAA coastal zone management grants. These 
amounts and bill language were included only after reaching agreement 
with the coastal zone States through their representative organization 
to accommodate the interests of all States, including those with larger 
coastal zone areas. This agreement provided more funding for the 
program and an increase in the maximum grant to $2,200,000. Now I am 
informed that some larger States have decided that they do not intend 
to live up to their part of the agreement and have started lobbying for 
a greater maximum grant at the expense of small and mid-size States.
  This subcommittee doesn't do business that way. Accordingly, my 
amendment restores current law and places minimum and maximum grants at 
fiscal year 1994 levels. Also, it is our intention to redistribute our 
directed funding levels for NOAA programs as is shown in the table on 
pages 61 through 67 of the committee report. Specifically, the amount 
for CZM grants as shown on page 61 of the report should now be 
$49,000,000 instead of $52,000,000 as currently appears. That provides 
for a $3,000,000 reduction in the Senate level for CZM grants. The 
amount for National Marine Fisheries Service resource information is 
intended to increase by $3,000,000 for a total of $64,473,000, instead 
of $61,473,000 as currently appears in the report. This increase should 
be used for the management of highly migatory species, such as bluefish 
and yellowfin tuna, swordfish, and marlin, including $62,000 to support 
the activities of the advisory committee to the International 
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection to the adoption of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2372) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, 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. 2373

 (Purpose: Relating to United States assessed contributions to United 
                    Nations peacekeeping operations)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Pressler and others and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Pressler 
     (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Hutchison) 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2373.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:


     payments-in-kind as assessed contributions to united nations 
                        peacekeeping activities

       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) United States assessed contributions to peacekeeping 
     operations conducted by the United Nations may consist of 
     contributions of excess defense articles or may be in the 
     form of payments made directly to United States companies 
     providing goods and services in support of United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities; and
       (2) such contributions should be made in consultation with 
     the Secretaries of State and Defense.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment permits in kind 
contributions to the United Nations where it is consistent with their 
policies and where they agree to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Is there objection to the amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2373) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2374

 (Purpose: To require a report on the technical cooperation activities 
               of the International Atomic Energy Agency)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a second amendment in behalf of 
Senator Pressler to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Pressler 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2374.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 103, after line 23, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 507. (a) No later than March 1, 1995, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report describing the technical cooperation 
     activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency with 
     countries on the list of terrorist countries.
       (b) As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the term ``list of terrorist countries'' means the list 
     of countries the governments of which have repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism, as 
     determined by the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979.


             iaea technical assistance to terrorist nations

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, during my December 1993 visit with Mr. 
Hans Blix, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], 
he mentioned that countries which join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty regime are eligible for IAEA technical assistance for their 
nuclear programs. I have now received disturbing allegations that this 
technical assistance may have been extended to North Korea and perhaps 
some other nations on the list of terrorist countries. The assistance 
in question may have included design and equipment purchases for 
research facilities which we suspect to be weapons related.
  It is my understanding the U.S. contribution to the IAEA is in excess 
of 25 percent of the IAEA's total budget. Consequently, if these 
allegations are true, the American taxpayer has made a sizable 
contribution to these programs.
  Therefore, I am asking the State Department to report to the 
Committees on Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Foreign Affairs on 
the extent to which IAEA technical assistance may contribute to nuclear 
weapons research or production in terrorist countries.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2374) 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. 2375

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Craig and Senator DeConcini and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Craig 
     (for himself and Mr. DeConcini) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2375.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Sec.   . No funds appropriated herein, or by any other 
     Act, shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the 
     compensation of any officer or employee of the United States 
     to deny or refuse entry into the United States of any goods 
     on the U.S. Munitions List manufactured or produced in the 
     People's Republic of China, for which authority had been 
     granted to import into the United States, on or before May 
     26, 1994, and which were, on or before May 26, 1994, in a 
     bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone, in port, or, as 
     determined by the United States on a case-by-case basis, in 
     transit.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on May 26, 1994, President Clinton issued 
an order ``banning the import of munitions, principally guns and 
ammunition, from China.'' The Secretary of State interpreted the 
decision as encompassing firearms and ammunition for which licenses had 
already been issued and which were in transit or even in port or 
already in the United States.
  The U.S. importers of those firearms and ammunition had no prior 
notice of the President's action or the Secretary's interpretation of 
it. The firearms and ammunition cannot be returned to China--due to the 
no-refund policy of the manufacturers. As a result, goods are in limbo, 
and U.S. companies are being forced to breach purchase agreements, 
suffer unnecessary financial harm and undermine ongoing commercial 
relationships.
  The proposed amendment is intended to release these goods for import 
only if they were in transit, in port, or in the United States and 
licenses had already been issued on the date of the order.
  The amendment is being offered in the interests of simple fairness. 
it does not reverse or erode the President's order or his authority to 
effect foreign policy.
  This amendment is also supported by precedent. In the past, U.S. 
companies have been given notice or granted concessions for in-transit 
goods before such policy changes were implemented--in order to minimize 
unnecessary financial harm and honor commercial relationships and 
agreements. Examples include the implementation of the ban on 
Nicaraguan imports and the ban on purchases from Toshiba and Kongsburg 
Vaapenfabrikk under the Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2375) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2376

                           Amendment No. 2377

 (Purpose: To ensure the exclusion from the United States on the basis 
               of membership in a terrorist organization)


                           Amendment No. 2378

 (Purpose: To require that any new guidelines for the determination of 
 religious harassment shall be drafted so as to make explicitly clear 
  that symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent with the 
 first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 are 
    not to be restricted and do not constitute proof of harassment)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send 3 amendments to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Brown and ask they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes 
     amendments en bloc numbered 2376, 2377, and 2378.

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2376

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . HIGH-LEVEL VISITS FOR TAIWAN.

       Section 2(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301(b) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) to establish regular, cabinet-level contacts with 
     Taiwan through exchanges of visits between cabinet-level 
     officials of Taiwan and the United States.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2377

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC.   . MEMBERSHIP IN A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AS A BASIS 
                   FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE 
                   IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       ``Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B) is amended--
       ``(1) in clause (i)(II) by inserting `or' at the end;
       ``(2) by adding after the clause (i)(II) the following:
       `(III) is a member of an organization that engages in, or 
     has engaged in, terrorist activity or who actively supports 
     or advocates terrorist activity,'; and
       ``(3) by adding after clause (iii) the following:
       `(iv) Terrorist Organization Defined.--As used in this Act, 
     the term `terrorist organization' means an organization which 
     commits terrorist activity as determined by the Secretary of 
     State, in consultation with the Attorney General.'''.
                                  ____

       On page 118, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the liberties protected by our Constitution include 
     religious liberty protected by the first amendment;
       (2) citizens of the United States profess the beliefs of 
     almost every conceivable religion;
       (3) Congress has historically protected religious 
     expression even from governmental action not intended to be 
     hostile to religion;
       (4) the Supreme Court has written that ``the free exercise 
     of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe 
     and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires'';
       (5) the Supreme Court has firmly settled that under our 
     Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be 
     prohibited merely because the content of the ideas is 
     offensive to some;
       (6) Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
     of 1993 to restate and make clear again our intent and 
     position that religious liberty is and should forever be 
     granted protection from unwarranted and unjustified 
     government intrusions and burdens;
       (7) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has written 
     proposed guidelines to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964, published in the Federal Register on October 1, 1993, 
     that expand the definition of religious harassment beyond 
     established legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court, 
     and that may result in the infringement of religious liberty;
       (8) such guidelines do not appropriately resolve issues 
     related to religious liberty and religious expression in the 
     workplace;
       (9) properly drawn guidelines for the determination of 
     religious harassment should provide appropriate guidance to 
     employers and employees and assist in the continued 
     preservation of religious liberty as guaranteed by the first 
     amendment;
       (10) the Commission states in its proposed guidelines that 
     it retains wholly separate guidelines for the determination 
     of sexual harassment because the Commission believes that 
     sexual harassment raises issues about human interaction that 
     are to some extent unique; and
       (11) the subject of religious harassment also raises about 
     human interaction that are to some extent unique in 
     comparison to other harassment.
       (b) Category of Religious Harassment in Proposed 
     Guidelines.--For purposes of issuing final regulations under 
     title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in connection with 
     the proposed guidelines published by the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 
     51266), the Chairperson of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission shall ensure that--
       (1) the category of religion shall be withdrawn from the 
     proposed guidelines;
       (2) any new guidelines for the determination of religious 
     harassment shall be drafted so as to make explicitly clear 
     that symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent 
     with the first amendment and the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 are not to be restricted and do not 
     constitute proof of harassment;
       (3) the Commission shall hold public hearings on such new 
     proposed guidelines; and
       (4) the Commission shall receive additional public comment 
     before issuing similar new regulations.


                         brown-heflin amendment

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Mr. Heflin. The amendment is directly similar to a 
sense-of- the-Congress amendment which was unanimously adopted by this 
body last night (94-0) concerning the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission's [EEOC] proposed guidelines concerning religious harassment 
in the workplace (29 CFR Part 1609).
  The sense-of-the-Congress amendment to the Airport and Airways 
Improvement Act, S. 1491, expresses the sense of Congress that the EEOC 
should take the following actions related to the religion category of 
the proposed guidelines:
  First, the category of religion should be withdrawn from the proposed 
guidelines at this time, that is, immediately;
  Second, any new guidelines for the determination of religious 
harassment should be drafted so as to make it explicitly clear that 
symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent with the first 
amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for 1993 are not to 
be restricted and do not constitute proof of harassment;
  Third, the Commission should hold public hearings on such new 
proposed guidelines; and
  Fourth, the Commission should receive additional public comment 
before issuing similar new regulations.
  In addition to the action taken by the Senate, the House of 
Representatives followed the Senate action concerning the proposed 
religious harassment guidelines by adopting, 366-37, the Taylor-
Lancaster-Wolf amendment to the Commerce, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 1995, H.R. 4063, prohibiting 
the EEOC from using funds to implement the proposed guidelines as now 
drafted.
  These actions clearly indicated the overwhelming sense of Congress 
that actions consistent with these provisions should immediately be 
taken by the EEOC.
  However, as of this date we, unfortunately, have not received any 
response whatsoever from the EEOC indicating actions the Commission 
intends to take in light of these expressions. We fear that the EEOC 
may not be as sensitive to the concerns as expressed by Congress, and 
therefore submit the Brown-Heflin amendment which will codify the 
sense-of-the-Congress amendment into law. The EEOC now must expressly 
comply with the provision unanimously adopted by this body.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we have proposed this amendment with the 
belief that it is important for all of us to recall the importance that 
we have put on religious freedom throughout our history. This amendment 
will solidify the unanimous position taken by the Senate on June 16 and 
require the EEOC to withdraw the guidelines proposed on October 1, 
1993.
  As a body, we agreed that the overall impact of the proposed EEOC 
guidelines, specifically as they relate to religion, could lead to a 
business environment in which religious freedom is stifled and 
employers are put into an untenable position. Beyond the Senate's 
position there is a consensus on all sides of the political and 
religious spectrum that these guidelines, as currently worded, are 
seriously flawed at best.
  Yesterday, the three nominees to the EEOC testified before the Labor 
and Human Resources Committee and, as I understand it, would not give a 
statement as to whether or not they agreed with the position taken by 
the Senate in the June 16 resolution. Now, I understand that the new 
commissioners will have to deliberate over this issue after their 
confirmation. Nonetheless I think it is valuable and worthwhile to send 
the message to the Commission that any guidelines concerning religious 
harassment cannot prohibit speech and expressions that are consistent 
with the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  It is also worth noting that the House, by a vote of 366 to 37, 
supported an amendment to this appropriation bill prohibiting the EEOC 
from further promulgation of these proposed guidelines. This House 
resolution, was supported by a diverse group including the American 
Jewish Congress and the Family Research Council. The amendment we are 
proposing today calls on the EEOC to take no action inconsistent with 
the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
  To be sure, we all want to do whatever is possible to prevent 
harassment of any kind in the workplace. However, we cannot do this as 
a tradeoff for religious freedom. While the EEOC probably had good 
intentions in promulgating these guidelines, the Commission should take 
notice of the enormous public outcry over this issue, the unanimous 
position taken by the Senate, and the overwhelming opinion of the House 
and realize that the constitutional protection of the free exercise of 
religion requires the immediate withdrawal of the proposed guidelines 
and the commitment by the EEOC to freedoms supported throughout our 
history.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We approve the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection to the amendments approved 
en bloc?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  So the amendments (Nos. 2376, 2377, and 2378) were agreed to, en 
bloc.


                           Amendment No. 2379

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that certain criminal 
  aliens who are being deported should be escorted abroad by Federal 
                     agents, and for other reasons)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mrs. 
     Hutchison proposes an amendment numbered 2379.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 36, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 112. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) any alien who is being deported upon release from 
     imprisonment for committing an offense which is an aggravated 
     felony, as defined under immigration laws, should be escorted 
     out of the United States by a federal law enforcement 
     official or employee of the Service; and
       (2) the Attorney General must take adequate safeguards and 
     determine that there is no threat to the public health and 
     safety in deporting any alien described in paragraph (1) 
     where the Attorney General knows or has reason to know that 
     the alien has a communicable disease of public health 
     significance (as determined by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services).


               on the deportation of criminal immigrants

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, imagine that you and your family are 
aboard a commercial airline flight, and a passenger refuses to take a 
seat, and shouts at and threatens bodily harm to the flight crew and 
the airplane. Who wouldn't be frightened?
  A recent article in the Houston Chronicle described just such an 
incident, one that ended with the disruptive passenger being removed 
from the airplane. Not too much news there, you say? What if I told my 
colleagues that the problem passenger's reservation had been made by 
the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service?
  That is right. The INS. Was this person an INS employee? No, he was 
an illegal immigrant. What is more, he had just been released from a 
Texas jail for having committed the crime of indecency with a child 
after he had come across the border into our country. As the law calls 
for, the INS took him into custody after his release from prison, for 
the purpose of deporting him back to his native country. But then to 
put this criminal--unescorted--on a regularly scheduled commercial 
flight to Mexico is, in my view, the height of callousness and 
irresponsibility.
  The same Houston Chronicle article, entitled ``Criminal immigrants 
deported unescorted,'' discloses that it is the policy of the INS to 
dispatch illegal immigrants via commercial flights without escort. In 
fact, the INS deports scores of unescorted illegal immigrants via air 
each year, including those who have just finished prison terms for 
offenses like child molestation and armed robbery.

  If it is not bad enough for the INS to put into the seat next to you 
on an airplane a deportee, who has just been released from prison and 
would do anything to escape deportation, the INS also puts aboard 
illegal aliens who have very serious communicable diseases.
  Of the 300 or so illegal aliens the INS deports each month, it seems 
that more than one-half are carrying very serious germs or viruses. For 
instance, according to the medical director at the U.S. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service in Houston, some 40 percent of deportees test 
positive for tuberculosis--10 percent are active and contagious. It is 
no wonder the INS does not want its people cooped up on airplanes with 
aliens being deported. They would be exposed to infection with 
tuberculosis or some other dread disease.
  Mr. President, it is an outrage that our Government subjects 
unsuspecting American air travelers to potential disruptions of the 
flights, physical danger, and serious threats to their health. The INS 
won't state definitively how many illegal aliens are deported by air 
each year, but we know that among them are a large fraction of the 
released convicts, who are flown home after their release from jail. We 
also know that many of them came to the United States infected with 
diseases that have been largely known for decades. We know, therefore, 
many of the unescorted aliens are potentially dangerous, probably 
desperate to avoid deportation, and perhaps contagious with some 
disease.
  The costs, human, and otherwise, of even one major incident on a 
large aircraft are incalculable--and certainly much more than what the 
INS might claim to save by simply dropping those in its custody off at 
the airport.
  Mr. President, I propose that the Senate put itself on record as 
demanding that the Immigration and Naturalization Services cease these 
irresponsible practices.
  The amendment I introduce today expresses the sense of the Senate 
that criminal illegal immigrants being deported should be escorted by a 
Federal agency, and any criminal immigrant who is deportable and is 
known to be carrying an infectious disease which would endanger the 
health and safety of the general public should not be deported through 
commercial means that would expose the general public to risk.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and put this 
body on record--unequivocally--that the INS should not continue to 
endanger innocent citizens. I hope that simply because we serve notice 
here the INS will see the error of its ways and change its policies and 
procedures. If not, Mr. President, I intend to take other steps to 
ensure that the INS corrects its practices.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Houston 
Chronicle article I referred to earlier and ask that it be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Criminal Immigrants Deported Unescorted--Air Travelers at Risk for 
                              Violence, TB

                           (By Jo Ann Zuniga)

       The federal government is deporting unescorted criminal 
     immigrants, most of whom have served their prison sentences, 
     alongside paying passengers on commercial flights out of 
     Houston Intercontinental Airport.
       A government memo confirmed one incident last year in which 
     a detainee, reportedly a convicted rapist, attempted to 
     assault a flight attendant aboard a plane awaiting takeoff.
       In addition to the potential for violence, unsuspecting 
     travelers aboard these flights are also exposed to an 
     increased threat of tuberculosis, an airborne disease 
     transmitted by the coughing of an actively infected person.
       The medical director at the U.S. Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service detention center here said up to 40 
     percent of the 300 or so deported out of the facility each 
     month test positive for tuberculosis, with up to 10 percent 
     of those becoming active and contagious. Physicians called 
     those numbers ``a significant threat'' to passengers in an 
     enclosed plane.
       Most of those deported each month out of the detention 
     center at 15850 Export Plaza near the airport have committed 
     a crime, been convicted, served time in state prison and are 
     then returned to their country aboard public planes.
       The INS memo concerning the April 8, 1993, assault said the 
     Continental Airlines attendant was rescued by fellow crew 
     members after she was grabbed by the man. She then ``advised 
     the pilot . . . that she had just been attacked by the INS 
     detainee.''
       The man was taken off the flight and driven by an INS 
     employee to his destination.
       Continental Airlines spokesperson Peggy Mahoney confirmed 
     the incident, saying: ``There was a report from our flight 
     attendant.''
       But she said the deportee had a mental problem and called 
     the attempted assault ``an isolated incident.''
       ``We do have procedures in place to ensure the comfort and 
     safety of our employees and customers,'' Mahoney said. She 
     declined to specify the procedures because of security 
     reasons.
       In one deportation witnessed April 7 of this year, two 
     government vans with the U.S. eagle insignia drove onto a 
     Houston Interncontinental Airport runway where a TACA 
     International Airline plane was preparing to leave for Belize 
     City and San Salvador. Three INS officers loaded 20 deportees 
     onto the plane and departed.
       Paying passengers then boarded and flew with the unescorted 
     immigrants, some of whom had criminal records, sources said.
       ``I've had some folks on their vacation on the way to 
     Belize to scuba dive ask me who the passengers were, but I 
     basically had to lie,'' said a source, who asked to remain 
     anonymous.
       ``The government doesn't want people to know what's going 
     on,'' the source said.
       The group of deportees had flown earlier that morning from 
     Los Frespos detention facility in the Texas valley to Houston 
     on Continental flight 1076. They were taken off the plane by 
     INS officers and transported by van to the INS detention 
     center.
       After lunch, the group returned to the airport and was 
     loaded directly onto the TACA plane on the runway.
       TACA declined comment.
       INS local district director Robert Wallis said, ``We cannot 
     release specific flight information and numbers because of 
     national security. This is a safety issue that could put our 
     officers in danger if people have information about known 
     criminal aliens.''
       Sources claim these unescorted deportations occur almost 
     daily, although INS policy generally calls for reported 
     immigrants with criminal, violent backgrounds to be escorted 
     by officers.
       INS officials acknowledged that unescorted flights do 
     occur, but said in those instances they inform airline 
     security in advance.
       ``Most of the people we are sending back come from our 
     sanitized environment, have been searched and have no 
     weapons,'' said Houston INS detention center manager Emilio 
     Saenz.
       Those immigrants considered a danger are handcuffed and 
     escorted, he said. But he acknowledged immigrants with 
     criminal records were reported unescorted as well.
       In a separate flight that same day at 2:40 p.m., INS 
     officers placed four illegal immigrants with criminal records 
     aboard Continental flight 711 to fly unescorted on a direct 
     flight to Bogota, Colombia.
       ``We clear that Continental 711 with security. There are 
     only a very few who go unescorted with criminal records.'' 
     Saenz said.
       He added: ``We have a wonderful working relationship with 
     all the airlines.''
       The Houston INS office spends $15,000 to $18,000 a month in 
     air fare for deporting these immigrants, Saenz said.
       He estimated the center deports as many as 300 immigrants a 
     month. While Mexicans are taken back to the border via INS 
     buses, about 150 or more Salvadorans, Colombians, Nigerians 
     and others from farther away are flown back on commercial 
     airlines.
       A former Continental employee said of the deportation 
     practices, ``It was an everyday thing. Every day we were 
     shipping them out.
       ``We just went by their (INS) policy because they were 
     government,'' he said. ``They would bring some of these guys 
     in handcuffs, then the handcuffs were removed and the 
     officers left the plane.''
       Although saying the potential for danger exists, the ex-
     employee said he was not aware of any dangerous incidents 
     occurring during any unescorted trips.
       ``If INS thinks they have someone who could hurt someone 
     while in flight, they should escort. But most of the 
     immigrants just come into the country illegally and have done 
     nothing criminal and are not a threat,'' the former employee 
     said.
       Paying passengers are never informed that a deportation is 
     occurring, he said.
       ``They are not (aware of) what's going on because 99 
     percent of the time the aliens are already on board.''
       INS spokesman Duke Austin in Washington, D.C., said 
     providing INS escorts with all criminal immigrants would be 
     too costly. And switching from commercial airlines to 
     military or government planes would be even more exorbitant 
     in equipment and manpower, he said.
       ``Can you imagine the cost to us if you started flying an 
     escort with every deportee? And I don't think the military 
     wants to get involved in these procedures,'' Austin said.
       ``If we had enough private planes perhaps, but there are 
     some things that realistically and common sense-wise can't be 
     done.
       ``We don't have a mountain of policy to deal with every 
     situation. If someone posed a significant threat to public 
     safety, then we escort him. The policy is very generic,'' 
     Austin said.
       ``It doesn't say, if a rapist, yes; if an arsonist, no; if 
     convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, yes.
       ``We can't say citizens convicted of violent crimes can't 
     fly on commercial airlines. So why should we treat alien and 
     citizen convicts any differently?'' Austin said.
       Announcing or informing passengers that a deportation was 
     occurring also would not be an effective way of ensuring 
     public safety, he said.
       ``That could be really productive. `Excuse me, ladies and 
     gentlemen but on this flight we have rapists, burglars, 
     arsonists,' I could see them bailing out. The Bureau of 
     Prisons doesn't announce it so why do you expect INS to?'' 
     Austin asked.
       In regard to exposing airline passengers to tuberculosis 
     and other infectious diseases, Austin said, ``There's a big 
     difference between active TB and testing positive for it.
       ``We could say `let's put every person testing HIV-positive 
     in a camp,' but there are human rights and individual rights 
     to be considered,'' he said.
       The INS detention center clinic manager, Guadalupe Rivera, 
     said, ``Up to 30 to 40 percent of INS detainees test 
     positive.
       ``But there's such a high turnover, there's no time for 
     follow-up.
       ``They are told what we're testing for and what to look 
     for,'' said the nurse, describing a hard, red skin reaction 
     forming a bump.
       Federal sources stated deportees with active cases of 
     tuberculosis, some taking medication and others not yet 
     treated, have been placed on public airline flights.
       Kathy Barton, Houston Health Department spokeswoman said 
     only those who have active tuberculosis are contagious and 
     they are no longer infectious after taking medication for 
     about two weeks.
       ``Testing positive only means that you were infected in 
     your lifetime and you may or may not come down with an active 
     case,'' she said.
       But Dr. Robert Awe, associate professor at Baylor College 
     of Medicine, said: ``Because the air conditioning and 
     circulation in an enclosed airplane is so inadequate, if 
     someone had active tuberculosis and was coughing hard, it 
     would pose a significant threat.
       ``I wouldn't want to be on a plane with someone with active 
     tuberculosis,'' he said.
       A fellow physician concurred. Dr. Jeffrey Starke, also an 
     associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine, said about 
     10 percent of adults who test positive for tuberculosis 
     actually come down with an active case.
       ``From a strictly public health point of view, it would be 
     highly desirable not to put a person who is potentially 
     infected or known to have active tuberculosis in a public 
     airplane until they have been taking the medication for at 
     least two weeks,'' he said.
       Maria Jimenez, local director of American Friends Committee 
     which advocates for immigrants, said that using private 
     government planes rather than commercial airlines may be the 
     best solution to ensure public safety as well as the rights 
     of the people being deported.
       ``Once they (criminal immigrants) finish their sentence 
     after they committed a felony and served, they are then 
     deported,'' she said.
       ``I can't take the position that they're still dangerous,'' 
     she said. ``But with the immigrant hysteria as well as the 
     criminal hysteria, I'm sure some people could perceive that.
       ``But theoretically, those who serve their terms have 
     completed their debt to society.''
       For quick deportation of criminal immigrants or felons, the 
     federal government ``needs to give resources to transport the 
     aliens within government-owned planes,'' Jimenez suggested.
       ``That would ensure the public safety as well as the rights 
     of the persons being deported.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We approve the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2379) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2380

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Domenici and I ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] for himself 
     and Mr. Domenici proposes an amendment numbered 2380.

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

       On page 24, on line 4, strike the sum ``$2,210,511,000'' 
     and insert ``$2,230,511,000'';
       On page 28, on line 18, strike the sum ``$2,354,104,000'' 
     and insert ``$2,400,104,000'';
       On page 69, on line 7, strike the sum ``$2,399,318,000'' 
     and insert ``$2,409,318,000'';
       On page 76, on line 10, strike the sum ``$120,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$138,000,000''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which 
has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
tabled.
  This amendment amends the amounts in the bill for several priority 
programs.
  First, the amendment provides an additional $20 million for the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct digital telephony research. 
Our FBI Director Freeh considers this a priority, and this provides the 
resources to move ahead.
  Second, the amendment provides an additional $46 million for the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons for operations and to open new prisons that 
are coming on-line.
  Third, the amendment provides an additional $10 million for the 
Federal Judiciary. It enhances operational funding for new courts and 
court security personnel.
  Fourth, it provides $18,000,000 for the Maritime Administration's 
Ready Reserve Force and provides operations and maintenance funding at 
last year's appropriation of $138 million.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment. I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Is there objection?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2380) 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
excepted committee amendments be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the pending excepted committee amendments are 
agreed to en bloc.
  So the excepted committee amendments were agreed to, en bloc.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  So the bill (H.R. 4603), as amended, was passed.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 4603, and the Chair is 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham) appointed Mr. Hollings, Mr. Byrd, 
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sasser, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cochran, and 
Mr. Gramm on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as we finish this amendment, might I 
first thank the distinguished chairman for all the cordialities that 
have been extended to me and indicate for the Record the Senator from 
New Mexico considers it a pleasure to have worked with him on this 
bill.
  I repeat that I believe this is an excellent bill. We have had a lot 
of amendments. Some have passed. Some have not. But I believe we will 
take to the conference with the House a real crime bill. In fact, I 
think this is the crime bill.
  We have put substantial money in new programs and substantially 
beefed up the Federal criminal agencies that needed it overall. I 
believe we could not have done better.
  We could not have done this without the support of an excellent 
bipartisan staff. They worked together on most matters in the bill 
unless there is real disagreement, and then we choose sides, and we do 
the best we can.
  I thank Scott Gudes, Dorothy Seder, Jeffery Goldstein, Loula Edwards, 
and John Shank for all the work they have done to make this job doable 
at least from this Senator's standpoint. It could not be done without 
them.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would also just immediately make 
certain I thank Scott Gudes, Dorothy Seder, Jeff Goldstein, John Shank, 
and other staffers, on the Senator's side of the aisle.
  Let me start at the beginning and that was where we started with our 
distinguished chairman of the overall Appropriations Committee. Senator 
Domenici and I conferred with the distinguished chairman, Senator Byrd, 
and he was very, very considerate of our 602(b) allocation. It is just 
like a mother getting the children together and wanting to help all the 
children and deal fairly and impartially.
  Yet the distinguished Senator from West Virginia understood that 
there were a lot of conversations in which something had to be done 
about crime.
  We get a little bit more than our share, I think. Even though it was 
less than the President had allocated us. It was a job. It was still, 
as committees were assigned, I can tell you Senator Byrd started us off 
on the right foot. Jim English, of the staff, has been in constant 
consultation and a help to us.
  And then, of course, you get with the Senator from New Mexico, and 
you can tell just by his comments just a minute ago with the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware that he is very sensitive, very 
helpful, very cooperative, and very determined; very determined. That 
is just topflight in my book.
  We do not give up. We fought to get these amounts in there in that 
crime bill. It was not easy. And you can see a lot of amendments would 
have come. And I could enumerate the ones we typically receive from 
this particular special interest and that.
  It was the general interest and concern of the American public on 
crime that really motivated this bill.
  I do not want to mislead by saying if nothing happens even on the 
other side with respect to that conference, because I am vitally 
interested in the conference and in that crime bill.
  But, be that as it may, this is the crime bill. This is the money. 
This is where the rubber meets the road, as they say.
  We are particularly proud and we are going to fight strongly, and I 
am sure we will be receiving every cooperation on the House side.
  So my thanks to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
  And for the floor staff here, I can tell you that Marty Paone and 
Lula Davis and all these folks here just work around the clock to keep 
us straight parliamentarily and help us get the Senators to the floor, 
and everything else.
  I think in this bill there was the least amount of quorum calls and 
sitting around waiting of any bill that I have been associated with.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought I was finished a while ago, 
but I did not know the distinguished chairman of the committee was 
going to arrive.
  Might I say I, too, recall the consideration that the distinguished 
chairman gave to us as we talked about how we would handle what was 
obvious, that we were going to need some new money. Some of the money 
available to allocate over and above last year's had to come to this 
subcommittee or we could not fund the crime measure that everybody knew 
we ought to do.
  I said in my remarks when we began this bill that oftentimes Senators 
question the allocation process that the appropriators make. Obviously, 
everybody has a job around here, and that is the Appropriations 
Committee's job, to allocate the resources among its subcommittees.
  But I do not believe in this case, even though we received 
substantial money over last year, that anyone can complain about the 
allocation by the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of 
Senator Byrd on this bill, because that is where the new money had to 
go. It went there. We believe it is going to do some good for everybody 
in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators who have 
managed this bill so proficiently and so skillfully for their kind 
references to me.
  We are all concerned about the greatest priority, and right now that 
is fighting crime. It is getting worse. That is why so many of us feel 
so very strongly with respect to any language that might have the 
practical effect of eliminating the death penalty. I hope that will 
never happen.
  I hope that the administration and the Justice Department will not 
misunderstand this vote today. I hope they will understand that those 
of us who are opposed to that language, so-called racial justice 
language that is in the crime bill, are still opposed to it. We are 
opposed to it on any legislation.
  But I did not want to see our appropriations bill bogged down in 
conference, and so for that reason I voted as I did. I have already 
explained that.
  But I want to commend the chairman and ranking member for their 
efforts in crafting this bill. While there may be some who would like 
to see one particular program increased over another, this bill 
addresses critical national priorities under this subcommittee's 
jurisdiction in a very balanced and comprehensive way.
  The 602(b) allocations are different in the Senate from what they are 
in the House. Specifically, I chose to provide the Commerce, Justice, 
State Subcommittee with $282 million in outlays above the House 
allocation for the same subcommittee. I took this action because this 
bill truly is a crime bill. It represents over 82 percent of the 
Federal spending for law enforcement. It is this bill that supports the 
Federal court system, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
U.S. attorneys, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Prison System, 
the Weed and Seed Program, Byrne formula grants to States, and 
community policing.
  Without an adequate allocation of resources, we would be kidding 
ourselves and our constituents if we expected the subcommittee to draft 
a bill that actually did something about combating crime. The 
distribution of 602(b) allocations placed a priority, and I intended 
for it to place a priority, on the Commerce, Justice, State 
Subcommittee. In turn, the bill places a priority on fighting crime. It 
deserves the strong support of the Senate, and I hope it will have 
strong support in conference.
  I thank both Senators, and I thank the members of their staffs. They 
have excellent staffs.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________