[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.
____________________