[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 118 (Friday, August 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
          AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will proceed to the 
consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4603, which 
the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4603) a bill making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these 
     departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1994, and for other purposes, having met after full and 
     free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of August 16, 1994.)
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time for debate on the conference report 
will be limited to 1 hour under the previous order, the time to be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form, which means that the 
manager of the bill, Mr. Hollings, will control half the time and the 
ranking manager, Mr. Domenici, will control the other half of the time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Hollings.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the conference 
report on H.R. 4603, the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, Justice, and State, 
the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill.
  In total, the conference agreement includes $26.8 billion in budget 
authority for fiscal year 1995. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates these appropriations will result in outlays totaling $25.4 
billion. Also included in this bill are fiscal year 1994 supplemental 
appropriations totaling $1.195 billion for Small Business 
Administration disaster loans, EDA disaster assistance grants and 
payment of UN peacekeeping arrearages.
  This bill is $892 million in budget authority and $676 million in 
outlays below the President's budget request.
  I should note straight off that this bill does not contain all the 
initiatives and funding levels included in the Senate-passed bill. 
That's not only because of the usual give-and-take in a conference. It 
is largely because the full House Appropriations Committee would not 
agree to the Senate's allocation for this bill. So this conference 
agreement had to be squeezed into a new section 602(d) allocation that 
is $338 million in budget authority and $185 million in outlays below 
the Senate-passed bill. So, no one should be surprised to learn that we 
had to reduce a lot of programs below the levels included in the bill 
we passed a few weeks ago.
  The priority in this conference agreement continues to be law 
enforcement, State and local assistance as well as Federal. Title VIII 
of the conference agreement provides $2.345 billion in funding for 
programs under our jurisdiction that were authorized in the crime bill 
conference. This includes $1.3 billion for ``cops on the beat''; $100 
million to upgrade criminal history records; $450 million for the Byrne 
Formula Grant Program, and $130 million to reimburse States for the 
cost of incarcerating illegal aliens.
  Highlights by agency are as follows:


                       for the justice department

  In total, the conference agreement provides $12.305 billion for 
Department of Justice Programs in fiscal year 1995. That's $2.706 
billion above last year's level and $161 million more than the House-
passed bill.
  The conference agreement includes $757 million for the DEA-
increasing-on-board agent strength by 311 in fiscal year 1995; $2.207 
billion is provided the FBI--increasing on-board agent strength by 436 
in fiscal year 1995 as well as restoring critical attorney and 
laboratory positions at headquarters; and $852 million is provided U.S. 
attorneys, restoring assistant U.S. attorney positions and implementing 
a new violent crime task force initiative.
  For the INS, the conference agreement includes program enhancements 
totaling $428 million, a 41-percent increase above fiscal year 1994 
enacted levels to implement a new, aggressive immigration initiative. 
Included in these enhancements are 700 new and 250 redirected border 
patrol agents; 310 additional land border inspectors; 168 new airport 
inspectors; $155 million for new automation and communication 
equipment; $50 million to support border infrastructure projects, and 
$24 million to speed up asylum processing. Also included in the 
agreement is $75 million for the immigration emergency fund to deal 
with crises like we are witnessing in Florida right now.
  The conferees have also provided funds to address court security 
requirements of the U.S. Marshals Service, and the agreement provides 
$280.5 million for prison construction and $2.356 billion for the 
salaries and expenses of the Federal Prison System. When combined with 
carryover funds of $30 million, the operating budget for the Bureau of 
Prisons will have increased some $406 million over last year.


                           for the judiciary

  The conference agreement provides $2.905 billion for the Federal 
judiciary. That's $164 million or 6 percent more than last year and 
will fully support court security needs, fees of jurors and 
commissioners, and court appointed counsel costs when adjusted to 
reflect the downward projections in the number of representations. For 
the court of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services the 
conference agreement provides funding to support increased workload 
requirements for probation and pretrial services, and deputy clerks' 
offices.


                          commerce department

  In total, we have recommended $4.218 billion for Commerce. That is 
$187 million above the House bill and $10 million above the President's 
budget request.
  NOAA: $1.960 billion--$35 million over 1994: NOAA programs are 
increased $148 million over the budget request and $122 million over 
the House. There are no fisheries fees legislated or assumed as 
proposed by the budget and the House bill. We have retained much of my 
``ocean initiative'' to enhance NOAA's ocean and coastal programs, like 
sea grant, coastal zone management, ocean remote sensing, and marine 
fisheries.
  NIST: $854.7 million--$334.5 million over 1994: the conference 
agreement provides an increase of $335 million for National Institute 
of Standards and Technology Programs. This is $14.6 million above the 
House and $24 million below the Senate. We have increased funding for 
my manufacturing technology center program.

  EDA: $440 million--$89.6 million over 1994: we've recommended an 
increase of $28.7 million above the budget and $69 million above the 
House. We have secured $120 million for defense conversion.
  We also have recommended the following amounts for other bureaus in 
commerce: $266 million for the International Trade Administration; $116 
million for the National Telecommunications Administration, including 
$64 million for National information infrastructure grants.


              state department and international programs

  State operations: $2.729 billion--$29 million over 1994: We've done 
our best to fund the State Department's operations. We haven't done as 
well as I would have liked. We have settled at about a split--$55 
million below the Senate and $57 million above the House. We have 
provided the full request for buildings and operations, and have 
included the new Embassy in Ottawa, Canada and additional funds for 
real property maintenance and restoration of our historical buildings, 
like the ambassador's residence in Buenos Aries, Argentina.
  International peacekeeping: $1.203 billion. Our recommendation fully 
funds the President's request for U.N. peacekeeping. We have provided 
$981 million for arrearages. We have fully funded annual requirements 
requested in the budget of $222 million.
  Voice of America/Radio Free Europe: $554.1 million. This agreement 
provides $554 million for the operations and facilities of the Voice of 
America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Liberty. We got the House to 
agree to drop its restrictive language that prevented radio free 
Europe's move to Prague but we have taken action to ensure that the 
Federal Government is not being expected to pay more than its fair 
share for this move.
  Radio Free Asia: $10 million. We have included $10 million for the 
new Radio Free Asia Program. We also have provided $5 million under the 
Radio Construction Program to begin a new shortwave transmitter for the 
Voice of America and Radio Free Asia to be built in the Northern 
Mariana Islands. We need to get this capability to ensure broadcasting 
across Asia.
  TV and Radio Marti: $24.8 million.
  I am pleased to note that the conference report includes the Senate 
proposed level for Radio and TV Marti. I know that many of my 
colleagues who joined me on the floor--Senators Graham, Mack, 
Lieberman, Lautenberg, and Dole--will be pleased that we are not going 
to retreat in our opposition to the Castro dictatorship. This 
conference report fully carries out the recommendations of the advisory 
panel on Radio and TV Marti, and it gives Dr. Joe Duffey the resources 
to improve this high priority program.


                          independent agencies

  SBA: $814.5 million--$106 million above 1994. The agreement provides 
$106 million more than 1994 in discretionary appropriations, which is a 
16-percent increase. For business loans we have recommended $278.3 
million to subsidize $10.5 billion in credit. Included in that number 
is $55.6 million for microloans and $30 million for section 503 
refinancing. In addition, the conference agreement includes a $470 
million supplemental for SBA disaster loans to deal with the increased 
activity in Los Angeles resulting from the earthquake, floods in the 
southeast and now tornados in my home State of South Carolina.
  Federal Communications Commission: We have recommended total 
budgetary resources of $185.2 million, of which $68.8 million is from 
direct appropriations. We have rejected the president's proposal to 
eliminate direct appropriations for the FCC and we have brought back an 
agreement that provides $18.4 million more in resources than the House 
bill. The administration seems to want to turn that ``information super 
highway'' into an ``information toll road.'' We are not going to do 
that. This Congress is going to pass a telecommunications bill and get 
the FCC moving. We all know how important this agency is to fostering 
the development of new communications industries. We need to give the 
FCC the resources to do its job.
  The conference agreement includes two legislative provisions that 
were included in the Senate bill at Chairman Byrd's request.
  First, the first amends the Foreign Relations Act to require the 
State Department to start taking fingerprints of immigrant visa 
applicants to ensure that they do not have State or Federal felony 
convictions in the United States. The State Department stopped 
performing any checks on these people in 1990. The provision will 
require a fingerprinting test in the 10 countries with the highest 
volumes of visa applicants. The agreement allows the State Department 
to charge applicants for the cost of performing these fingerprint 
checks and reimbursing the FBI.
  Second, the second amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
allow immigrant visa applicants to adjust their status in the United 
States with the Immigration Service rather than going overseas and 
adjusting status at an overseas post. These individuals have to pay a 
fee to the INS that is five-times higher than the existing fee for 
changing immigration status and it requires all applicants to be 
fingerprinted and have full background checks to ensure that they have 
not been convicted of a felony in the United States. This provision 
only relates to cases where an immigrant can already apply for a visa, 
it does not change the requirements for the application or when the 
applicant can be provided with a visa. It also provides the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service with at least $50 million in additional 
revenue.


                                   SEC

  Securities and Exchange Commission:
  One compromise in this bill I am not pleased with is what we have 
been forced to do regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 
House committee tried to fund the SEC through fees, but was stopped on 
the House floor by Chairman Dingell. The bill that passed the House 
would require the SEC to shut down on October 1. The Senate-passed bill 
maintained fees and appropriations at current levels and provided the 
SEC with its full budget request of $306 million. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee and the Senate did the right thing.
  But after the bill passed the Senate, the House Ways and Means 
Committee threatened to ``blue slip'' this conference report if the 
conferees did the right thing and agreed to the Senate language. 
Chairman Gibbons made clear that he did not care what the impact would 
be on law enforcement, small business disaster assistance, and U.N. 
peacekeeping shortfalls, because of a narrow interpretation of the 
House rules, he made clear that he would ``blue slip'' or kill this 
conference report.
  I think that Mr. Gibbons and Chairman Dingell are playing a dangerous 
game. At the same time the Congress is trying to pass a crime bill to 
combat violent crime, they seem intent on destroying the SEC and giving 
a boost to fraud and white collar crime. They seem to have no regard 
for what the elimination of the SEC would do to the securities markets 
and the formation of capital in this country.
  But, they have us, no matter what we on the Appropriations Committee 
and the Conference were to do--even if we went back in true 
disagreement and the Senate voted to insist on its position. Chairman 
Gibbons made clear that he would ``blue slip'' this conference report 
and kill the entire Commerce, Justice, and State bill.
  We could not let that happen. So, Chairman Mollohan and I have done 
our best and provided the SEC with $125 million in budgetary resources, 
which is enough to get them through February. I hope by then the House 
Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees can either raise 
these fees themselves or let us do so and stop holding the SEC hostage.


                        sba disaster assistance

  I want to reiterate, Mr. President, that it is critically important 
that we get this bill through the Senate and to the President quickly. 
The Small Business Administration ran out of disaster loan funds on 
Wednesday of this week. This bill includes $470 million which will 
subsidize up to $2 billion of additional loan authority. With floods in 
Georgia, tornadoes in South Carolina, and wildfires in the West and 
Northeast. We need to expedite this bill and get it to President 
Clinton for his signature.
  In conclusion, I especially want to recognize the new House Chairman, 
Alan Mollohan. He took over this Commerce, Justice, and State bill just 
a few months ago and has impressed everyone with his diligence and hard 
work. He has really taken command of it and has mastered the facts. 
And, I want to recognize my vice chairman, Senator Domenici who has 
worked so hard on this bill and helped put a priority on law 
enforcement. He has been instrumental in putting together the 
immigration initiatives and border patrol enhancements in this bill.
  Finally, I want to recognize our subcommittee staff: Scott Gudes, 
Dorothy Seder, John Shank, Lula Edwards, and Jeff Goldstein.


                     recognition of jeff goldstein

  Mr. President, I just want to take a minute to recognize Jeffrey D. 
Goldstein who is a presidential management intern from the Defense 
Logistics Agency on detail to our Commerce, Justice and State 
Subcommittee. He has been serving with my staff since February.
  Jeff is a graduate of Cornell University and holds a master's degree 
in public administration from the Maxwell School at Syracuse 
University. He specialized in labor/management relations and previously 
worked with a variety of labor organizations. During his tenure with 
us, Jeff was responsible for the review of and making recommendations 
for the Census Bureau, Economic and Statistics Administration, the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Federal Trade Commission. Jeff 
was responsible for keeping the numbers databases for the subcommittee 
and in helping draft the committee bill and report. He put in long 
hours and became an integral member of my subcommittee staff.
  I recently learned that Jeff will be leaving the Senate soon, to take 
a position with the National Security Division of the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB] in the Executive Office of the President. 
He will be working on pay and compensation policy.
  Alice Rivlin is getting a real winner. I know Jeff will continue to 
be a credit to the professional civil service. On behalf of all the 
subcommittee members, I want to wish him the best.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I note that the conference report on H.R. 
4603, the Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill, 
adopts the Senate's position on Chinese munitions imports--an amendment 
proposed by Senator DeConcini and myself. I am pleased the House and 
Senate conferees agreed that this language is necessary to grant 
transitional relief to U.S. importers in the interests of simple 
fairness.
  I have spoken with many Members in the House and Senate who are 
following the situation that generated this provision. These comments 
are offered to update those who have a particular interest in the 
matter, and to assist in understanding and implementing this language.
  By way of background, on May 26, 1994, the President of the United 
States decided to impose a ban on the import of munitions from the 
People's Republic of China [PRC]. On May 28, 1994, the Secretary of 
State requested that the Department of Treasury take all necessary 
steps to prohibit the import of such munitions. The ban was officially 
implemented at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 28, 1994 to 
carry out the President's decision.
  As a result, any munitions on the munitions import list of the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF], which are manufactured, 
produced or merely exported from the PRC are prohibited from 
importation into the United States. BATF is not processing any permits 
for permanent import of the affected munitions. Additionally, munitions 
and arms in bond, in port, in a foreign trade zone or in-transit at the 
time of the embargo have been prohibited from entry into the United 
States for consumption. Furthermore, as of May 28, 1994, all current 
permits to import such munitions from China were deemed null and void.
  U.S. importers had no prior notice of the President's action or the 
Secretary's interpretation of it. Goods they purchased that were 
already licensed for import and on the way to the United States were 
suddenly thrown in limbo--indefinitely detained in the United States or 
held in China following their return to that country. The result is 
that U.S. companies are being forced to breach purchase agreements, 
suffer unnecessary financial harm, and undermine ongoing commercial 
relationships.
  It was only a few days ago that BATF issued a notice that may provide 
some relief to those who have items that were in bond, in port, or in 
foreign trade zone prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 28, 
1994. This notice, however, provided no hope or help to the many 
importers who had shipments en route to the United States at the time 
of the embargo.
  The conference report provision has the effect of allowing entry, for 
U.S. consumption, arms and munitions for which:
  First, authority had been granted on or before May 26, 1994, under 
the applicable permits and licenses, or ATF Form 6, to import such arms 
and munitions into the United States, and
  Second, which were, on or before May 26, 1994, in a bonded warehouse 
or foreign trade zone, or in port, or
  Third, which were, on or before May 26, 1994, as determined by the 
United States on a case-by-case basis, in transit.
  With regard to the last category, in transit, the case by case review 
language as added specifically to respond to a concern raised by the 
administration about establishing the date of departure of goods from 
China. The review is intended to allow an expeditious factual 
determination as to whether or not the arms or munitions licensed to be 
imported were actually in a state of being transported or shipped to 
the United States on or before May 26, 1994. Like the other categories, 
in bond, in port or in a foreign trade zone, that review is not 
intended to reopen the question whether the arms or munitions are 
importable because of their type or kind, since it is a requirement for 
this transitional relief that they were already approved for entry at, 
or prior to, the time of the embargo.
  This provision does not reverse or erode the President's order or his 
authority to effect foreign policy. In the past, U.S. companies have 
been given notice of granted concessions for intransit 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. H.R. 4603 would grant one-
time transitional relief for a strictly limited class.
  I hope with the passage and enactment of this language, that the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will not wait to take action 
but instead will immediately issue a letter to all importers inviting 
them to submit the necessary documentation to get quick approval to 
bring into the United States those goods that were in transit at the 
time of the embargo.


  statement on the commerce, justice, state appropriations conference 
                                  bill

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee has examined 
H.R. 4603, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations conference bill 
and has found that the bill is under its 602(b) budget authority 
allocation by $108 million and under its 602(b) outlay allocation by 
$37 million.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Hollings, 
and the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, State 
Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, on all of their hard work.
  Mr. President, I have a table prepared by the Budget Committee which 
shows the official scoring of the Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations conference bill and I ask unanimous consent that it be 
inserted in the Record at the appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SCORING OF H.R. 4603--FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMERCE,
             JUSTICE, STATE APPROPRIATIONS--CONFERENCE BILL             
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                   Bill Summary                     authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary totals:                                                   
    New spending in bill..........................     26,344     18,590
    Outlays from prior years appropriations.......  .........      6,322
    Permanent/advance appropriations..............          0          0
    Supplementals.................................          2         -0
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary spending............     26,346     24,912
Mandatory totals..................................        527        515
      Bill total..................................     26,873     25,427
      Senate 602(b) allocation....................     26,981     25,464
                                                   ---------------------
        Difference................................       -108        -37
                                                   =====================
Discretionary totals above (+) or below (-):                            
    President's request...........................       -855       -669
    House-passed bill.............................        306        102
    Senate-reported bill..........................       -275       -187
    Senate-passed bill............................       -369       -186
      Defense.....................................         75        305
      International Affairs.......................      5,494      5,535
      Domestic Discretionary......................     20,777         19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this conference bill is truly a crime 
bill. The moneys that are contemplated to be spent under the new trust 
fund, if it ever takes place, have already been allocated by the 
Appropriations Committee under the leadership of the Presiding Officer. 
This committee has funded for 1995 many of the provisions that require 
funding under the so-called crime bill that is currently in dispute in 
the U.S. House and perhaps in the U.S. Senate. So I am very pleased to 
report this bill to the Senate.
  Obviously, every conference report has provisions in it that either 
the ranking member or the chairman do not totally agree with. There are 
some provisions in this bill I would prefer not be there. Nonetheless, 
overall, it is a very real credit to the process. Sometimes it seems to 
me that we get bogged down and cannot get our work done. But in this 
case, it seems to this Senator that this bill is a giant step in the 
direction of the U.S. Government committing itself to fight crime.
  Let me go through what we did and why we did it and highlight just a 
few things.
  First, I must remind those who are interested in the crime bill that, 
yes, the President is talking about this crime bill and wants it very 
badly. But if one were to look at his budget that he sent down here 
just a few months ago, which we are not incorporating in appropriations 
in this bill, you would find that at that time, not too many months 
ago, the President's budget had major reductions in many Federal law 
enforcement programs. The President chose other programs instead of the 
Federal law enforcement activities. For instance, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation would have lost 861 positions. The Drug Enforcement 
Administration would have lost 93; the U.S. attorneys, instead of 
growing in numbers under the heavy burden of more prosecutions, would 
have lost 123 positions; the criminal division, with some very major, 
new responsibilities, would have lost rather than even remained 
constant in terms of its efforts.
  So we have rejected all of those proposals that were included in the 
President's budget. The FBI will receive $75 million, 436 new agents, 
and as my distinguished friend and chairman of this committee said; the 
DEA, instead of going down, will go up, 311 agents. We all think that 
is a very professional organization. They have, in the last few years, 
begun to do a very good job in terms of fighting illegal drugs in the 
United States. And, yes, the U.S. attorneys, I think, as a body and as 
a whole in America, are probably as good a prosecutors and fighters of 
crime as we now have. Their funding will go up $15 million for the 
violent crime task forces. That is very important. They are beginning 
to make some real headway in this area.
  Another issue that was focused on in this bill are the so-called 
Byrne grants. These Byrne grants are a formula grant program for the 
States. And what happened in the President's budget, first, the 
President decided to terminate this program--probably the most 
effective program to help our States fight crime. A little later, they 
found $125 million for it. The truth of the matter is, that was a huge 
cut over previous Byrne grant funding to our States. We have rejected 
efforts to terminate or dramatically reduce this fund. In fact, we have 
restored funding and increased it $92 million over the 1994 levels. Any 
Senator can tell his Governor that the Byrne grants not only were 
recaptured and held in this budget, but each State will get a little 
bit more for the excellent crime fighting that occurs because of this 
grant program.
  The formula grant program is used by States for a variety of things. 
I want to just mention a few. Over 950 task forces and drug units have 
been established or expanded throughout the country with these funds. 
Just taking my own State for a moment, there are 11 multijurisdictional 
law enforcement task forces funded through this program. These task 
forces integrate Federal, State, and local law enforcement in ways that 
have never been done before, and they are extremely effective.
  In addition, we all hear that one of the best programs going for our 
young people is a program called DARE. We see it all over our cities 
and our States. That program would have been terminated if the Byrne 
grants would have been terminated. Each State will now be able to 
continue and, perhaps, add to this very significant drug abuse 
resistance education program, where policemen work in the schools with 
our young people to talk about what is bad about crime, what is bad 
about drugs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the 
Record which provides a comparison of the funding levels each State 
will receive under the Byrne grant formulas under this bill.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL STATE AND LOCAL LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM              
                         [Amounts in thousands]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              $358      $450            
             State/Territory                 million   million  Increase
                                             level     level            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................    $5,827    $7,326    $1,498
Alaska....................................     1,595     2,005       410
Arizona...................................     5,465     6,869     1,404
Arkansas..................................     3,756     4,721       965
California................................    37,704    47,394     9,690
Colorado..................................     5,033     6,326     1,293
Connecticut...............................     4,808     6,043     1,235
Delaware..................................     1,717     2,158       441
District of Columbia......................     1,597     2,008       411
Florida...................................    16,980    21,343     4,363
Georgia...................................     8,946    11,245     2,299
Hawaii....................................     2,278     2,864       586
Idaho.....................................     2,167     2,724       557
Illinois..................................    14,765    18,560     3,795
Indiana...................................     7,647     9,612     1,965
Iowa......................................     4,248     5,340     1,092
Kansas....................................     3,904     4,907     1,003
Kentucky..................................     5,373     6,754     1,381
Louisiana.................................     6,007     7,551     1,544
Maine.....................................     2,368     2,976       608
Maryland..................................     6,748     8,482     1,734
Massachusetts.............................     8,048    10,116     2,068
Michigan..................................    12,149    15,271     3,122
Minnesota.................................     6,237     7,840     1,603
Mississippi...............................     4,012     5,043     1,031
Missouri..................................     7,088     8,909     1,821
Montana...................................     1,878     2,360       482
Nebraska..................................     2.810     3,532       722
Nevada....................................     2,477     3,114       637
New Hampshire.............................     2,220     2,790       570
New Jersey................................    10,184    12,800     2,616
New Mexico................................     2,780     3,495       715
New York..................................    22,502    28,285     5,783
North Carolina............................     9,055    11,382     2,327
North Dakota..............................     1,653     2,078       425
Ohio......................................    14,032    17,638     3,606
Oklahoma..................................     4,725     5,940     1,215
Oregon....................................     4,445     5,587     1,142
Pennsylvania..............................    15,216    19,126     3,910
Rhode Island..............................     2,093     2,631       538
South Carolina............................     5,192     6,526     1,334
South Dakota..............................     1,743     2,191       448
Tennessee.................................     6,886     8,656     1,770
Texas.....................................    21,950    27,591     5,641
Utah......................................     3,057     3,843       786
Vermont...................................     1,575     1,979       404
Virginia..................................     8,500    10,684     2,184
Washington................................     7,020     8,824     1,804
West Virginia.............................     3,056     3,841       785
Wisconsin.................................     6,866     8,630     1,764
Wyoming...................................     1,451     1,824       373
American Samoa............................    \1\671    \1\844       173
Guam......................................     1,054     1,325       271
N. Mariana Islands........................    \1\331    \1\416        85
Puerto Rico...............................     5,095     6,404     1,309
Virgin Islands............................     1,016     1,278      262 
                                           -----------------------------
    Total.................................   358,000   450,000   92,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In accordance with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, these
  two Territories are considered as one State and the total amount      
  available is allocated by percentage; $358 million level: American    
  Samoa (67%--$671,340) and Northern Mariana Islands (33%--$330,660);   
  $450 million level: American Samoa (67%--$844,256) and Northern       
  Mariana Islands (33%--$415.828).                                      
                                                                        
 Note.--Allocations are for comparison purposes only and do not         
  represent actual allocations. After enactment of the 1995             
  appropriation act, final allocations will be calculated using the     
  latest population data available at the time.                         

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this conference agreement also will 
include language that will expand on the purposes for which Byrne 
grants may be used. They can now be used related to driving-while-
intoxicated laws and the enforcement thereof. New Mexico took a lead in 
that, and the United States Senate and the House have both accepted 
this broadening language.
  The second phase of this bill is a fight against illegal immigration. 
So it is a twin bill. It is a bill that fights crime, and it is a bill 
that puts money into the American agencies that are charged with 
enforcing our immigration laws. There is nothing more important than 
that we make a commitment on behalf of our country that we enforce our 
immigration laws.
  The conferees recommended an increase of $359 million for the 
operational accounts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I 
think this is extremely important. The $54 million will add 700 new 
Border Patrol agents for our States, across the borders, and even 
inland where the immigration laws are being enforced.
  We will also increase the automation and communication systems of the 
immigration service. It is currently outmoded and ancient. We are 
trying to bring it current with modern technology. There is $24 million 
for increasing the asylum processing, and $17.5 million to expedite 
deportation and detention activities, which is very important. Our 
people are giving up in many of our States as to whether we are going 
to enforce our immigration laws.
  Let me move on. Within this crime bill, I am disappointed that we 
were not able to fund programs that would help our States build 
prisons. All we could do is start the program with $24 million. I 
believe these prison grants may prove to be the most effective of all 
the new programs that we are likely to include in a crime bill.
  I remind everyone that 65 percent of the felony defendants are 
released prior to trial. This includes 63 percent of all violent felony 
defendants. A quarter of them simply never show up in court. 
Approximately 11 percent of the murder arrestees and 12 percent of all 
violent crime arrestees are on pretrial release for an earlier case at 
the time they are cited with the new offense. Twenty percent have 10 or 
more prior arrests. Over 35 percent have one or more prior convictions.
  Obviously, we can go on, but this is why the American people are 
discouraged and disgusted with reference to violent crimes where we 
have repeaters with many, many felonies still on the streets.
  My last remarks have to do with cops on the beat. This is one of 
these provisions, I say to my fellow Senators, that if I had my way I 
would not have put the money in for cops on the beat. I would have 
given the States a grant and let them use it for crime fighting. It has 
been touted as 100,000 cops on the beat. This will not produce 100,000 
new policemen on the beat unless the State of California or the State 
of South Carolina can hire a new cop for $13,000 because 100,000 
policemen with $1.3 million, using simple arithmetic, is $13,000 per 
policeman. Now, that is not going to happen. Maybe the States might 
decide that they will take that money and supplement it with their own 
money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The 10 minutes are concluded.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I have 2 additional minutes?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The 2 additional minutes he yields to me. My time is 
committed to two other Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will quickly move on.
  We will not get the 100,000 policemen. If you do the simple 
arithmetic, it probably would permit you to hire about 20,000. But 
essentially when you have to provide three policemen for around-the-
clock protection, you can then divide that number by three in terms of 
new policemen on the beat at a given time, and now you are already down 
to a third of 20,000, which I guess is about 6,600.
  So, frankly, I would not have spent that much money on this program. 
I would give the States the latitude to use it, and I would bet even 
cities would not have used it all there but rather to help district 
attorneys prosecute and to help parole boards, who are overloaded, and 
the like.
  Let me just talk about two other provisions quickly. We were able in 
this bill to provide $4 million to the Office of Women's Business 
Ownership of the Small Business Administration. That is a doubling of 
the grants program from last year. This helps some of the new 
organizations that are helping women in business. The fastest growing 
portion of our entrepreneurial system are of women-owned businesses. It 
is dynamic, dramatic, and very welcome. This will permit some of these 
organizations helping women to get programs that they did not have 
before.
  Last, I second the comments of the chairman regarding the SEC. 
Frankly, if we had done this bill the way the House wanted on the SEC, 
the bill would have fallen. We would have no bill, or else we would 
have no SEC. Nobody could go along with that. That borders on 
irresponsibility. We have done the best we could. We found enough money 
to fund them through February, and, frankly, there is no more money. If 
those who come up with a program to pay for it in the authorizing 
committees do not act, then, frankly, there may be a difficult time 
come March or April for the SEC.
  Let me close by thanking the chairman for the diligent work and the 
staff on both sides for their efforts, which obviously helped this 
Senator, who has only been on this committee a couple years, learn what 
I have been able to learn and do my job better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, this appropriations bill is the crime 
bill for 1994.
  That it is so is due to the efforts of the distinguished chairman and 
ranking Republican member of this appropriations subcommittee. We all, 
and I believe the country as a whole, owe them a debt of thanks for 
reorienting so much of the portion of this appropriations bill directed 
to the Department of Justice to affect law enforcement programs.
  As compared with the bill and now with all of the headlines, this 
will have a greater impact in fighting violent crime. It includes cost-
effective crime prevention measures, and it was written in a bipartisan 
fashion and has bipartisan support.
  Perhaps the single most important triumph in the bill is its generous 
funding of the Byrne formula grant program for interagency drug task 
forces across the United States. The President of the United States in 
his budget recommended that this highly successful program be canceled 
lock, stock and barrel. Instead, we first voted in the budget 
resolution to continue it at the level of the current year, and by the 
time this bill was finished, it has actually significantly increased.
  To take one example of just 48 hours old, the regional drug task 
force, funded partly by Byrne grants in Spokane, WA, arrested day 
before yesterday 18 people there and in northern Idaho in connection 
with a major cocaine distribution ring. One hundred and ten officers 
from many different organizations, even across State lines, 
participated in those arrests which might not have taken place did we 
not have these Byrne grants.
  Second, Madam President, this appropriations bill funds a program 
called ``Weed and Seed,'' still experimental, taking place in only 
perhaps 20 cities across the country. It is a demonstration project 
under which law enforcement officers work with people in various social 
service disciplines in particular neighborhoods that are afflicted with 
high crime rates to try to do something about them. I have visited and 
worked with that in the city of Seattle and find it to be a 
magnificently successful program.
  Here we have some $13.5 million to continue it with the understanding 
that the Attorney General will add another $10 million from her 
discretionary funds, which will allow some expansion of the program to 
new communities which do not have it at the present time.
  Federal law enforcement programs are particularly important. How we 
could conduct a war against crime under the President's budget, which 
was going to cut the Federal Bureau of Investigation and cut the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, this Senator simply does not know. These 
Senators, however, and this committee have increased the appropriations 
for the FBI in a way that will restore 250 field support positions and 
special agent staffing. There is an increase of some $37 million for 
the Drug Enforcement Agency. There is a major increase for the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. There is a restoration of the 
regional information sharing system, which also the President 
recommended eliminating. There is money for organized crime drug 
enforcement.
  Madam President, in addition, these Senators have worked to 
appropriate for some of the elements that will be in any overall crime 
bill which we authorize this year, ones that are particularly popular 
and have a particularly good future. Part of that, of course, is for 
community policing, and I join with the Senator from New Mexico in my 
questions about this quasi-subsidy, which is to be phased out over the 
years, as to whether or not it will be nearly as effective as simply 
allowing jurisdictions to make their own choices. But it has grants for 
the violence-against-women programs that are in that bill, which are 
very important.
  Equally, however, it does not fund some of the dubious porkbarrel 
projects in that crime bill, like the Local Partnership Act, which 
ignores crime rates in the billions of dollars that it is to 
distribute; the youth employment and skills crime prevention, another 
unrelated jobs program on the top of the 154 or so we already have in 
seven or eight agencies of the Federal Government; the model 
intensified grant program, which is simply pork to be delivered to 
complacent mayors across the United States.
  So, in summary, with respect to appropriations for the Department of 
Justice, Madam President, this is a wonderful crime bill. This will 
actually do something to keep the promises we have been making over the 
course of the last year.
  I want to end as I began by commending the chairman and commending 
the ranking Republican under very difficult circumstances for setting 
their priorities in the field of crime and criminal law enforcement in 
a wise and judicious manner.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does Senator Gorton have a minute left or so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes and 28 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to just say to Senator Gorton, I forgot to 
mention in my opening remarks, as I talked about the Byrne grants, that 
on the budget resolution one of the very first things, where the 
sentiment expressed its Senate, had to do with not taking the 
President's budget which would have written it out, but rather to fund 
it at last year's level.
  I believe that amendment was your amendment, was it not?
  Mr. GORTON. It was.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to commend the Senator for starting the momentum 
that it was brought back to life in not only fully funding, but next to 
$90 million for the Byrne grants, which works probably better than any 
other crime fighting in terms of our cities and States.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Madam President.
  First of all, I would like to thank the managers of the bill for an 
excellent piece of legislation. I want to associate myself with Senator 
Gorton's remarks, and others.
  I would point out, Madam President, that some of this may come as a 
surprise. I was able to get a copy of this bill at 7 p.m. last night. I 
was able to get it only from the Republican legislative scheduling 
office. It was the only one she had. I note that bill itself has just 
been distributed to me and has not even been put out the desks as yet.
  I also think it is important to note that the approval rating of 
Congress is around 26 percent. Thirteen percent of the American people 
think that Congress will do the right thing some of the time. One of 
the reasons for that, when you ask any American, is because of the 
unwarranted expenditures of their tax dollars that they do not believe 
receives proper scrutiny or proper authorization and is done in the 
dead of night or in some back room.
  Madam President, this bill contains $41 million in earmarked add-ons 
not considered in a deliberative manner by either the full House or the 
Senate; $41 million in earmarks that were not in the Senate bill, that 
were not in the House bill, and were inserted in the conference.
  Madam President, you know, one of the finest publications ever put 
out is ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' I urge students and other citizens to 
read this book.
  But next year, the next time it is published, I am going to urge that 
there be a change made in this book, because it is not correct as to 
how we actually do business around here.
  On page 38 of this book, under the title ``Authority of Conferees,'' 
it says:

       The conferees are strictly limited in their consideration 
     to matters in disagreement between the two Houses. 
     Consequently, they may not strike out or amend any portion of 
     a bill which was not amended by the Senate. Furthermore, they 
     may not insert new matter that is not germane to the 
     differences between the two Houses.

  Madam President, that is how our laws are made. That is what we are 
telling the American people.
  What did we do here? In the conference now, not in the House or in 
the Senate bill, there is $2,500,000 for a grant to city of Kansas 
City, MO, for development of a weather environmental center; $3,500,000 
for a grant for construction of a Multispecies Aquaculture Center in 
the State of New Jersey.
  I would like an explanation from the managers as to what a 
Multispecies Aquaculture Center is, why it has to be in the State of 
New Jersey, and what relevance--why there was not a hearing in the 
House or a hearing in the Senate or an authorization either in the 
House or the Senate--Why we need a Multispecies Aquaculture Center?
  One million dollars for a grant to the Mystic Seaport, Mystic, CT, 
for a maritime education center; $5,200,000 for a grant to the Center 
for Interdisciplinary Research and Education in Indiana; and $2 million 
for a grant of the construction of the Massachusetts Biotechnology 
Research Institute in Boston.
  All of these things may be worthy, they might be vital, they may be 
the most important things we could ever have had. If they are, why were 
they not in the original bill, either one?
  And the parliamentary situation, Madam President, is that there is 
nothing that can be done about. If I lodged a parliamentary point of 
order on these insertions--that kind of word I can use--these 
insertions, I would be ruled out of order.
  Madam President, we do not know whether these projects are valid or 
not. But they were inserted, $41 million of them. And, by a rare and 
strange coincidence, every single one, but one, is in the district or 
the State of a member of the Appropriations Committee. Now, that is an 
incredible coincidence. Only one, in the State of Nebraska, is not.
  Madam President, I know that some of these are very important. I know 
that $3 million should be available for the continuation of a grant for 
the National Center for Genome Resources in New Mexico. I know that 
maybe we need $1 million to continue a grant for the Genesis Small 
Business Incubator Facility, Fayetteville, AR; $500,000 for a grant to 
an entity--they do not even say what the entity is--an entity in 
Bozeman, MT.
  Maybe we need a National Data Center Small Business Institute Program 
in Conway, AR. Maybe we need $2,500,000 for a grant to the city of 
Wheeling, WV, for the Oglebay Small Business Rural Development Center. 
Maybe we need $250,000 for continuation of grant to the city of 
Espanola, NM, for the second phase--not the first phase, but the second 
phase--I would be interested in knowing how many phases there are--of 
the development of the Espanola Plaza project to assist small 
businesses and enhance economic development; $500,00 for a grant to the 
Mississippi Delta small business technology project, Little Rock, AR, 
for technology education. On and on and on. I do not have time to go 
through all of them.
  Here are the facts. The facts are, I repeat, it was not in the House 
bill, it was not in the Senate bill, so I assume their were no hearings 
on these projects. If there were, I would assume that the hearings 
would have indeed authorized and then appropriated these projects. So 
they were not in the House, they were not in the Senate, the conferees 
gathered and then they put in 41 million dollars' worth of earmarks. Is 
41 million dollars a lot of money? I do not know if it is in 
Washington. I know it is in Arizona--$41 million in earmarks, which I 
cannot do anything about, Madam President, except wonder what a 
Multispecies Aquaculture Center is, except wonder why it is that Kansas 
City needs a weather and environmental center more than Phoenix, AZ, or 
Albuquerque, NM.
  So, if I sound like I am frustrated, Madam President, it is because I 
am. But I would like for the manager of the bill at least to tell me 
what a Multispecies Aquaculture Center is. I would also like to know 
why it is that Kansas City, MO, needs a weather and environmental 
center.
  But most important, the question I would ask the managers is why 
these $41 million had to be inserted in conference? Why could they not 
have been put in either bill so that at least either body could have 
considered them? I think those are legitimate questions and I think not 
only this Member but the American people deserve an answer.
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am just going to respond to two 
things. This bill was printed in the Record two days ago. I regret that 
my friend from Arizona did not find it.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I can respond, I said copies of the bill, I did not 
say printed in the Record. I said a copy of the bill was not available 
until last night at 7. I did not say not printed in the Record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just make the point, the way we normally make it 
available is put it in the Record, and the Record is available to 
everyone. I do not want anyone to think we tried to hold this until 
7:30 in the morning or 7:30 last night. It was done in the normal 
manner.
  Second, I would like to make a point on the first item that was 
raised. What did the Senator call it? Aquaculture center?
  Mr. McCAIN. Multispecies aquaculture center.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All I know is, this is a House request that we had to 
give them. But this has been in the bill before so this is not showing 
up for the first time.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, he cannot tell me what it is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the time, go ahead.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator cannot tell me what a multispecies 
aquaculture center is?
  Mr. DOMENICI. As I told the Senator, this is a House project. But I 
think the name means that this is a place where you research species of 
fish to be used for food. That is what it is, I assume. That is what 
the name says and that is what they are trying to do at a center there 
in that State.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor--who 
yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for such time as he 
may consume.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Incidentally, Madam President, we included the full amount that was 
authorized relative to the incarceration of illegal aliens. It was only 
$130 million under the crime bill, which is our authorization. We kept 
it as a separate item.
  Remember, when we came to the floor what we had was a matter of 
taking it from the Byrne grant enlargement on the House side and from 
the cops-on-the-beat account on the Senate side. But the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from California, requested that it be 
put out as a separate item, and it is a separate item and it is the 
full authorization. We will be working with the distinguished Presiding 
Officer on that.
  Now addressing the concerns of the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, let me point out that none of this was done in the dead of 
night. It was not done secretly. Everything was scrutinized. There are 
a lot of things in here, for instance relative to NOAA that sound 
strange to those unfamiliar--for instance, the multispecies aquaculture 
center mentioned by the Senator.
  If you will just wait a couple of years, we are going to have one 
down in South Carolina. We are building one in my hometown. It is a 
wonderful thing for the youngsters who live in the inlands, not near an 
ocean, to come and look and see the different species of the ocean. I 
want to invite the Senator from Arizona to see the one we get in 
Charleston. I am sorry I could not get a provision in here to assist 
the one planned for Charleston.
  Be that as it may, we do have many things in this bill that are not 
authorized. This is a fact of life, however at variance it may be with 
the civics textbooks. I will never forget, 27 years ago when I got 
elected, my hero was the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator 
Dick Russell. Elected on a Tuesday, I found myself Wednesday on the 
front porch of his little house in Winder, GA. He turned to me--we were 
sitting in his wonderful rocking chairs--and he said: ``Now, Fits,'' he 
never called me Fritz, he called me Fits--he said, ``what committee do 
you want?''
  I said, ``I'd like to get on Armed Services.''
  He said, ``Oh, you don't want that.''
  Here he was, the chairman of the very committee. I said, ``I don't 
want that?''
  He says, ``No, that is all just authorizing. You want to get on the 
Appropriations Committee. That is where you really spend the money, 
give the scrutiny and appropriate the funds.''
  Well, I had been in the State legislature for 10 years, Governor for 
4 years. We never had the bifurcation, you might say, of authorization 
on the one hand and appropriations on the other. And the fine gentleman 
got me on the Appropriations Committee.
  For example, in this particular bill, the Border Patrol in Arizona is 
not authorized. The FBI office in Phoenix, AZ, is not authorized. The 
list extends much further.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Justice Department.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. The entire Justice Department is not authorized.
  I can go over to many other things in the International Trade 
Administration and otherwise that are not authorized. We do, indeed, 
work closely with the respective authorizing committees. The 
distinguished Senator is on the Armed Services Committee, and present 
on the floor is the distinguished chairman of our Appropriations 
Subcommittee for Defense. He works very closely with our distinguished 
chairman, Sam Nunn, and with you as a member of the committee and with 
other members of the committee.
  It is not the intent or objective of those on the Appropriations 
Committee to disregard authorizations. We go forward without 
authorization as a favor to the authorizing committee 95 percent of the 
time. I can tell you that. They come and say, ``We haven't been able to 
get it authorized.'' The Justice Department authorization is a good 
case in point. If they put that bill up they would immediately have a 
gun amendment and that would be the end of that bill. Or perhaps a 
school prayer amendment or abortion amendment. I have been arguing 
those issues for 27 years and voting on them for 27 years.
  So they can write these harmless little civics booklets; they are 
fine for school children and the unknowing.
  But the distinguished Senator from Arizona is knowing. He has been 
here. He has served here long before he even became a Member of the 
U.S. Senate. So he knows the wily ways of Senators better than most. We 
put these items into this bill in conference. The conference is a give 
and take proposition between the House and the Senate. That is how we 
get the big jobs done, including this appropriations crime bill that we 
are now considering. And we are very proud of it.
  So Madam President, let me reserve the remainder of my time. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum. We can take the time of the call from 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
for the vote, set by an earlier unanimous-consent agreement, be changed 
from 10:30 to 10:45, with the additional time equally divided between 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
South Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________