Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14471-S14541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

Mr. DOLE. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the
consideration of the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just give my colleagues an update on
where we are on the items to be completed before the recess.
The State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill. I understand there is
some great progress being made on that bill.
The Interior appropriations conference report is coming from the
House on Friday. We did have a rollcall vote on the bill. I am not
certain we will need a rollcall vote on the conference report. We have
had a request for a vote on one or the other.
The DOD appropriations conference report is coming from the House
Friday. A rollcall vote was taken on that bill, too. If somebody
requests a vote, obviously we will have one.
The continuing resolution arrived from the House this afternoon. We
hope to pass that by unanimous consent.
Then the adjournment resolution, which I do not think there will be a
vote on.
Then the Senate Finance Committee needs to complete action on their
portion of the reconciliation package, and I could announce to members
of the Finance Committee right now we have staff on each side going
through a number of amendments to see if they, staff, can agree,
Republican and Democratic staff, and put them in a little ``cleared''
pile and a ``rejected'' pile and then ``above our pay grade'' pile,
which will be for Members' consultation. We hope to save a lot of time
that way. The chairman has indicated that he will call us back to the
Finance Committee meeting as soon as that has been completed.
So it seems to me there is no reason for us to be anything but
optimistic about next week at this point. Much will depend on the
leadership of the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings].
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader did not mention the Middle East
facilitation bill. Is that on the list?
Mr. DOLE. I think that is going to be resolved. I need to talk to the
Senator about that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2076) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1996, and for other purposes.

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

H.R. 2076

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

General Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the administration of the
Department of Justice, $74,282,000; including not to exceed
$3,317,000 for the Facilities Program 2000, and including
$5,000,000 for management and oversight of Immigration and
Naturalization Service activities, both sums to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 45
permanent positions and full-time equivalent workyears and
$7,477,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership
program: Provided further, That not to exceed 76 permanent
positions and 90 full-time equivalent workyears and
$9,487,000 shall be expended for the Executive Support
program: Provided further, That the two aforementioned
programs shall not be augmented by personnel details,
temporary transfers of personnel on either a reimbursable or
non-reimbursable basis or any other type of formal or
informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or funds on
either a temporary or long-term basis.

(transfer of funds)

For the Joint Automated Booking Station, $11,000,000 shall
be made available until expended, to be derived by transfer
from unobligated balances of the Working Capital Fund in the
Department of Justice.

police corps

For police corps grants authorized by Public Law 103-322,
$10,000,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

counterterrorism fund

For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney
General, $26,898,000, to remain available until expended, to
reimburse any Department of Justice organization for (1) the
costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability
of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed
as a result of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City or any domestic or international
terrorist

[[Page S 14472]]
incident, (2) the costs of providing support to counter, investigate or
prosecute domestic or international terrorism, including
payment of rewards in connection with these activities, and
(3) the costs of conducting a terrorism threat assessment of
Federal agencies and their facilities: Provided, That funds
provided under this section shall be available only after the
Attorney General notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate in accordance
with section 605 of this Act.

administrative review and appeals

For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration related activities,
[$39,736,000] $72,319,000.

violent crime reduction programs, administrative review and appeals

For activities authorized by [sections 130005 and] section
130007 of Public Law 103-322, [$47,780,000] $14,347,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall be derived from
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $30,484,000; including not to exceed
$10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential
character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney
General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance and
operation of motor vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitation.

United States Parole Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized by law, $5,446,000.

Legal Activities

Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities

For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the
Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including
activities authorized by title X of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and including not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of
collecting evidence, to be expended under the direction of,
and to be accounted for solely under the certificate of, the
Attorney General; and rent of private or Government-owned
space in the District of Columbia; [$401,929,000]
$431,660,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 for
litigation support contracts shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds available in this
appropriation, not to exceed $22,618,000 shall remain
available until expended for office automation systems for
the legal divisions covered by this appropriation, and for
the United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, and
offices funded through ``Salaries and Expenses'', General
Administration: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be available to the
United States National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1342, the Attorney General may
accept on behalf of the United States and credit to this
appropriation, gifts of money, personal property and
services, for the purpose of hosting the International
Criminal Police Organization's (INTERPOL) American Regional
Conference in the United States during fiscal year 1996.
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to
exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund, as authorized by section 6601 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1989, as amended by Public
Law 101-512 (104 Stat. 1289).

violent crime reduction programs, general legal activities

For the expeditious deportation of denied asylum
applicants, as authorized by section 130005 of Public Law
103-322, [$7,591,000] $2,991,000, to remain available until
expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.

Salaries and Expenses, Antitrust Division

For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $69,143,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, not to exceed $48,262,000 of
offsetting collections derived from fees collected for
premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
General Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections
are received during fiscal year 1996, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 1996 appropriation from the General Fund
estimated at not more than $20,881,000: Provided further,
That any fees received in excess of $48,262,000 in fiscal
year 1996, shall remain available until expended, but shall
not be available for obligation until October 1, 1996.

Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys

For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Attorneys, including intergovernmental agreements,
[$896,825,000] $920,537,000, of which not to exceed
$2,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 1997 for
the purposes of (1) providing training of personnel of the
Department of Justice in debt collection, (2) providing
services to the Department of Justice related to locating
debtors and their property, such as title searches, debtor
skiptracing, asset searches, credit reports and other
investigations, (3) paying the costs of the Department of
Justice for the sale of property not covered by the sale
proceeds, such as auctioneers' fees and expenses, maintenance
and protection of property and businesses, advertising and
title search and surveying costs, and (4) paying the costs of
processing and tracking debts owed to the United States
Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated,
not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for
automated litigation support contracts and $4,000,000 for
security equipment shall remain available until expended.

violent crime reduction programs, united states attorneys

[For activities authorized by sections 190001(d), 40114 and
130005 of Public Law 103-322, $14,731,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be derived from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which $5,000,000 shall
be available to help meet increased demands for litigation
and related activities, $500,000 to implement a program to
appoint additional Federal Victim's Counselors, and
$9,231,000 for expeditious deportation of denied asylum
applicants.]
For activities authorized by sections 190001(b) and
190001(d) of Public Law 103-322, $30,000,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be derived from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

united states trustee system fund

For the necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, [$101,596,000] $103,183,000, as authorized by 28
U.S.C. 589a(a), to remain available until expended, for
activities authorized by section 115 of the Bankruptcy
Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy
Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-554), which shall be derived from
the United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That
deposits to the Fund are available in such amounts as may be
necessary to pay refunds due depositors: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to
exceed $44,191,000 of offsetting collections derived from
fees collected pursuant to section 589a(f) of title 28,
United States Code, as amended, shall be retained and used
for necessary expenses in this appropriation: Provided
further, That the [$101,596,000] $103,183,000 herein
appropriated from the United States Trustee System Fund shall
be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 1996, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996
appropriation from such Fund estimated at not more than
[$57,405,000] $58,992,000: Provided further, That any of the
aforementioned fees collected in excess of $44,191,000 in
fiscal year 1996 shall remain available until expended, but
shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1996.

Salaries and Expenses, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, [$830,000] $905,000.

Salaries and Expenses, United States Marshals Service

For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and
operation of vehicles and aircraft, and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles for police-type use without regard
to the general purchase price limitation for the current
fiscal year; [$418,973,000] $439,639,000, as authorized by 28
U.S.C. 561(i), of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.

violent crime reduction programs, united states marshals service

For activities authorized by section 190001(b) of Public
Law 103-322, [$25,000,000] $15,000,000, to remain available
until expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.

[support of united states prisoners]

federal prisoner detention

For [support of] expenses related to United States
prisoners in the custody of the United States Marshals
Service as authorized in 18 U.S.C. 4013, but not including
expenses otherwise provided for in appropriations available
to the Attorney General; [$250,331,000] $295,331,000, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), to remain available until
expended.

Fees and Expenses of Witnesses

For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of
witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and
supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel
expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law, including advances, $85,000,000, to remain
available until expended; of which not to exceed $4,750,000
may be made available for planning, construction, renovation,
maintenance, remodeling, and repair of buildings and the
purchase of equipment incident thereto for protected witness
safesites; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may be made
available for the

[[Page S 14473]]
purchase and maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of
protected witnesses; and of which not to exceed $4,000,000
may be made available for the purchase, installation and
maintenance of a secure automated information network to
store and retrieve the identities and locations of protected
witnesses.

Assets Forfeiture Fund

For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B),
(C), (F), and (G), as amended, $35,000,000 to be derived from
the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

Radiation Exposure Compensation

Administrative Expenses

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

Payment to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund

For payments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund, $16,264,000, to become available on October 1, 1996.

Interagency Law Enforcement

interagency crime and drug enforcement

For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation,
and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime
drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include
intergovernmental agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, [$374,943,000] $359,843,000, of which
$50,000,000 shall remain available until expended: Provided,
That any amounts obligated from appropriations under this
heading may be used under authorities available to the
organizations reimbursed from this appropriation: Provided
further, That any unobligated balances remaining available at
the end of the fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney
General for reallocation among participating organizations in
succeeding fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming
procedures described in section 605 of this Act.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for detection, investigation, and
prosecution of crimes against the United States; including
purchase for police-type use of not to exceed 1,815 passenger
motor vehicles of which 1,300 will be for replacement only,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of
aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General; [$2,251,481,000]
$2,315,341,000, of which not to exceed $50,000,000 for
automated data processing and telecommunications and
technical investigative equipment and $1,000,000 for
undercover operations shall remain available until September
30, 1997; of which not less than $121,345,000 shall be for
counterterrorism investigations, foreign counterintelligence,
and other activities related to our national security; of
which not to exceed [$14,000,000 for research and development
related to investigative activities] $98,400,000 shall remain
available until expended; and of which not to exceed
$10,000,000 is authorized to be made available for making
payments or advances for expenses arising out of contractual
or reimbursable agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies while engaged in cooperative activities
related to violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, and
drug investigations; and of which $1,500,000 shall be
available to maintain an independent program office dedicated
solely to the relocation of the Criminal Justice Information
Services Division and the automation of fingerprint
identification services: Provided, That not to exceed $45,000
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses[: Provided further, That $50,000,000 for expenses
related to digital telephony shall be available for
obligation only upon enactment of authorization legislation].

violent crime reduction programs

[For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322,
$80,600,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of
which $35,000,000 shall be for activities authorized by
section 190001(c); $27,800,000 for activities authorized by
section 190001(b); $4,000,000 for Training and Investigative
Assistance authorized by section 210501(c)(2); $8,300,000 for
training facility improvements at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Academy at Quantico, Virginia authorized by
section 210501(c)(3); and $5,500,000 for establishing DNA
quality assurance and proficiency testing standards,
establishing an index to facilitate law enforcement exchange
of DNA identification information, and related activities
authorized by section 210306.]
For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322 or Senate
bill 735 as passed by the Senate on June 7, 1995,
$282,500,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of
which $50,000,000 shall be for activities authorized in
section 521(a)(1) of Senate bill 735; of which $42,820,000
shall be for activities authorized in section 521(a)(2) of
said Act; of which $13,900,000 shall be for activities
authorized in section 521(a)(5) of said Act; and of which
$148,280,000 shall be for activities authorized in section
521(a)(7) of said Act; and of which $5,500,000 shall be for
activities authorized by section 210306 of Public Law 103-
322.

construction

For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings
and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law
(including equipment for such buildings); conversion and
extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary
planning and design of projects; [$98,400,000] $147,800,000,
to remain available until expended.

Drug Enforcement Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be
expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General;
expenses for conducting drug education and training programs,
including travel and related expenses for participants in
such programs and the distribution of items of token value
that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to
exceed 1,208 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,178 will be
for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to
the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal
year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft; [$781,488,000] $790,000,000, of which not to exceed
$1,800,000 for research and $15,000,000 for transfer to the
Drug Diversion Control Fee Account for operating expenses
shall remain available until expended, and of which not to
exceed $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and payments for
information, not to exceed $4,000,000 for contracting for ADP
and telecommunications equipment, and not to exceed
$2,000,000 for technical and laboratory equipment shall
remain available until September 30, 1997, and of which not
to exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses.

violent crime reduction programs

[For Drug Enforcement Administration agents authorized by
section 180104 of Public Law 103-322, $12,000,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be derived from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.]
For activities authorized by section 524(b) of Senate bill
735 as passed by the Senate on June 7, 1995, $60,000,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall be derived from
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
immigration, naturalization, and alien registration,
including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
type use (not to exceed 813 of which 177 are for replacement
only) without regard to the general purchase price limitation
for the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of
aircraft; and research related to immigration enforcement;
[$1,421,481,000] $953,934,000, of which not to exceed
$400,000 for research shall remain available until expended,
and of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be available for
costs associated with the training program for basic officer
training: Provided, That none of the funds available to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be available for
administrative expenses to pay any employee overtime pay in
an amount in excess of $25,000 during the calendar year
beginning January 1, 1996: Provided further, That uniforms
may be purchased without regard to the general purchase price
limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further,
That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
the Attorney General may transfer to the Department of Labor
and the Social Security Administration not to exceed
[$30,000,000] $10,000,000 for programs to verify the
immigration status of persons seeking employment in the
United States[: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this Act may be used to operate the Border
Patrol traffic checkpoints located in San Clemente,
California, at interstate highway 5 and in Temecula,
California, at interstate highway 15]: Provided further, That
not to exceed 15 positions shall be available for the Office
of Public Affairs at the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and not to exceed 10 positions shall be available for
the Office of Congressional Affairs at the Immigration and
Naturalization Service: Provided further, That the two
aforementioned offices shall not be augmented by personnel
details, temporary transfers of personnel in either a
reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis or any other type of
formal or informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or
funds on either a temporary or long-term basis.

violent crime reduction programs

[For activities authorized by sections 130005, 130006,
130007, and 190001(b) of Public Law 103-322, $303,542,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall be derived from
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which $44,089,000
shall be for expeditious deportation of denied asylum
applicants, $218,800,000 for improving border controls,
$35,153,000 for expanded special deportation proceedings, and
$5,500,000 for border patrol equipment.]

[[Page S 14474]]

For activities authorized by sections 130005, 130006, and
130007 of Public Law 103-322, $165,362,000, to remain
available until expended, which shall be derived from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which $20,360,000
shall be for expeditious deportation of denied asylum
applicants, $114,463,000 for improving border controls, and
$40,539,000 for expanded special deportation proceedings.

Border Patrol

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for Border Patrol Operations,
$489,200,000, to remain available until expended.

violent crime reduction programs

For activities authorized by section 130006 of Public Law
103-322, $127,300,000, to remain available until expended,
which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund.

Construction

For planning, construction, renovation, equipping and
maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not
otherwise provided for, [$11,000,000] $35,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Federal Prison System

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the administration, operation,
and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional
institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 853, of which
559 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and
passenger motor vehicles; and for the provision of technical
assistance and advice on corrections related issues to
foreign governments; $2,574,578,000: Provided, That there may
be transferred to the Health Resources and Services
Administration such amounts as may be necessary, in the
discretion of the Attorney General, for direct expenditures
by that Administration for medical relief for inmates of
Federal penal and correctional institutions: Provided
further, That the Director of the Federal Prison System
(FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with a
fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to
determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of
the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to
the custody of the FPS: Provided further, That uniforms may
be purchased without regard to the general purchase price
limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further,
That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $50,000,000 for the activation of new
facilities shall remain available until September 30, 1997:
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for Contract
Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available
until expended to make payments in advance for grants,
contracts and reimbursable agreements and other expenses
authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 for the care and security in the
United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants.

violent crime reduction programs

For substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons as
authorized by section 32001(e) of Public Law 103-322,
$13,500,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

national institute of corrections

For carrying out the provisions of sections 4351-4353 of
title 18, United States Code, which established a National
Institute of Corrections, and for the provision of technical
assistance and advice on corrections related issues,
$8,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Buildings and Facilities

For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility;
purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling and
equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use,
including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by
contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and
equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing
penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary
expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account;
[$323,728,000] $349,410,000, to remain available until
expended, of which not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be
available to construct areas for inmate work programs:
Provided, That labor of United States prisoners may be used
for work performed under this appropriation: Provided
further, That not to exceed 10 percent of the funds
appropriated to ``Buildings and Facilities'' in this Act or
any other Act may be transferred to ``Salaries and
Expenses,'' Federal Prison System upon notification by the
Attorney General to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate in compliance with
provisions set forth in section 605 of this Act: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed
$22,351,000 shall be available for the renovation and
construction of United States Marshals Service prisoner
holding facilities.

federal prison industries, incorporated

The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase
of (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.

Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries,
Incorporated

Not to exceed $3,559,000 of the funds of the corporation
shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an
accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the
corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such
amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of
claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system
requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities
acquired or produced, including selling and shipping
expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition,
construction, operation, maintenance, improvement,
protection, or disposition of facilities and other property
belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

Office of Justice Programs

Justice Assistance

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing
Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and
expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984, as amended, [$97,977,000] $102,345,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by section
1001 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524).

violent crime reduction programs, justice assistance

For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs
for management and administration, which amounts shall be
transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance''
account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994
Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 Act''),
[$152,400,000] $100,900,000, to remain available until
expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund; of which [$6,000,000] $4,250,000 shall
be for the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program, as
authorized by section 218 of the 1990 Act; $750,000 for Child
Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel and
Practitioners, as authorized by section 224 of the 1990 Act;
[$82,750,000] $61,000,000 for Grants to Combat Violence
Against Women to States, units of local governments and
Indian tribal governments, as authorized by section
1001(a)(18) of the 1968 Act; $28,000,000 for Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policies to States, units of local
governments and Indian tribal governments, as authorized by
section 1001(a)(19) of the 1968 Act; [$7,000,000] $6,000,000
for Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement
Assistance Grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994
Act; [$27,000,000 for grants for Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment For State Prisoners, as authorized by section
1001(a)(17) of the 1968 Act;] and $900,000 for the Missing
Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as authorized by
section 240001(d) of the 1994 Act: Provided further, That any
balances for these programs shall be transferred to and
merged with this appropriation.

civil legal assistance

For grants to States for civil legal assistance as provided
in section 120 of this Act, $210,000,000.

state and local law enforcement assistance

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for
State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance
Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511
of said Act, [$50,000,000] $225,000,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of title I of
said Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524)[,
which shall be available only]: Provided, That not more than
$50,000,000 shall be made available to carry out the
provisions of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of
said Act, for discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs:
Provided further, That not more than $175,000,000 shall be
made available to carry out the provisions of subpart 1, part
E of title I of said Act, for formula grants under the Edward
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Programs: Provided further, That balances of amounts
appropriated prior to fiscal year 1995 under the authorities
of this account shall be transferred to and merged with this
account.

violent crime reduction programs, state and local law enforcement
assistance

[[Page S 14475]]
$3,092,100,000, to remain available until expended, which shall be
derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund; [of
which $1,950,000,000 shall be for Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants, pursuant to [H.R. 728 as passed by the House of
Representatives on February 14, 1995;] of which
$1,690,000,000 shall be for State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Block Grants pursuant to title I of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (as amended by
section 114 of this Act); $25,000,000 for grants to upgrade
criminal records, as authorized by section 106(b) of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, as amended,
and section 4(b) of the National Child Protection Act of
1993; [$475,000,000] $300,000,000 as authorized by section
1001 of title I of the 1968 Act, which shall be available to
carry out the provisions of subpart 1, part E of title I of
the 1968 Act, notwithstanding section 511 of said Act, for
the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs; $300,000,000 for the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program, as authorized by section 501 of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended;
[$19,643,000] $15,000,000 for Youthful Offender Incarceration
Grants, as authorized by section 1001(a)(16) of the 1968 Act;
[$500,000,000 for Truth in Sentencing Grants pursuant to
section 101 of H.R. 667 as passed by the House of
Representatives on February 10, 1995 of which not to exceed
$200,000,000 is available for payments to States for
incarceration of criminal aliens pursuant to section 508 as
proposed by such section 101;] $750,000,000 for Violent
Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive
Grants pursuant to subtitle A of title II of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (as amended by
section 115 of this Act); $1,000,000 for grants to States and
units of local government for projects to improve DNA
analysis, as authorized by section 1001(a)(22) of the 1968
Act; [$10,000,000] $9,000,000 for Improved Training and
Technical Automation Grants, as authorized by section
210501(c)(1) of the 1994 Act; [$200,000 for grants to assist
in establishing and operating programs for the prevention,
diagnosis, treatment and followup care of tuberculosis among
inmates of correctional institutions, as authorized by
section 32201(c)(3) of the 1994 Act; $1,000,000 for Law
Enforcement Family Support Programs, as authorized by section
1001(a)(21) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 as added by section 210201 of the 1994 Act; $500,000]
$1,100,000 for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, as
authorized by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act; $1,000,000
for Gang Investigation Coordination and Information
Collection, as authorized by section 150006 of the 1994 Act:
Provided, That funds made available in fiscal year 1996 under
subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, may be obligated
for programs to assist States in the litigation processing of
death penalty Federal habeas corpus petitions: Provided
further, That any 1995 balances for these programs shall be
transferred to and merged with this appropriation: Provided
further, That if a unit of local government uses any of the
funds made available under this title to increase the number
of law enforcement officers, the unit of local government
will achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement
officers who perform nonadministrative public safety service.

Weed and Seed Program Fund

For necessary expenses, including salaries and related
expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to
implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $23,500,000,
of which $13,500,000 shall be derived from discretionary
grants provided under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs and $10,000,000
shall be derived from discretionary grants provided under
part C of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, to remain available until expended for
intergovernmental agreements, including grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts, with State and local law
enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and
Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements
or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of
Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified
by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed''
program strategy: Provided, That funds designated by Congress
through language for other Department of Justice
appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program
activities shall be managed and executed by the Attorney
General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed:
Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct the
use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in
support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after
the Attorney General notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act.

Juvenile Justice Programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and
expenses in connection therewith to be transferred to and
merged with the appropriations for Justice Assistance,
$144,000,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized by section 299 of part I of title II and section
506 of title V of the Act, as amended by Public Law 102-586,
of which: (1) $100,000,000 shall be available for expenses
authorized by parts A, B, and C of title II of the Act; (2)
$10,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
sections 281 and 282 of part D of title II of the Act for
prevention and treatment programs relating to juvenile gangs;
(3) $10,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
section 285 of part E of title II of the Act; (4) $4,000,000
shall be available for expenses authorized by part G of title
II of the Act for juvenile mentoring programs; and (5)
$20,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
title V of the Act for incentive grants for local delinquency
prevention programs.
In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements,
and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990, as amended, $4,500,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by section 214B, of the Act:
Provided, That balances of amounts appropriated prior to
fiscal year 1995 under the authorities of this account shall
be transferred to and merged with this account.

Public Safety Officers Benefits

For payments authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796),
as amended, such sums as are necessary, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law
100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340), and, in addition, $2,134,000,
to remain available until expended, for payments as
authorized by section 1201(b) of said Act.

General Provisions--Department of Justice

Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses in accordance with distributions,
procedures, and regulations established by the Attorney
General.
Sec. 102. Subject to section 102(b) of the Department of
Justice and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, as
amended by section 112 of this Act, authorities contained in
Public Law 96-132, ``The Department of Justice Appropriation
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980,'' shall remain in effect
until the termination date of this Act or until the effective
date of a Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization
Act, whichever is earlier.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in the Act
may be used to pay rewards and shall not be subject to
spending limitations contained in sections 3059 and 3072 of
title 18, United States Code: Provided, That any reward of
$100,000 or more, up to a maximum of $2,000,000, may not be
made without the personal approval of the President or the
Attorney General and such approval may not be delegated.
Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That [this
section shall not apply to any appropriation made available
in title I of this Act under the heading, ``Office of Justice
Programs, Justice Assistance'': Provided further, That] any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 108. For fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal year
thereafter, amounts in the Federal Prison System's Commissary
Fund, Federal Prisons, which are not currently needed for
operations, shall be kept on deposit or invested in
obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States and all
earnings on such investments shall be deposited in the
Commissary Fund.
Sec. 109. Section 524(c)(9) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding subparagraph (E), as follows:
``(E) Subject to the notification procedures contained in
section 605 of Public Law 103-121, and after satisfying the
transfer requirement in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph,
any excess unobligated balance remaining in the Fund on
September 30, 1995 shall be

[[Page S 14476]]
available to the Attorney General, without fiscal year limitation, for
any Federal law enforcement, litigative/prosecutive, and
correctional activities, or any other authorized purpose of
the Department of Justice. Any amounts provided pursuant to
this subparagraph may be used under authorities available to
the organization receiving the funds.''.
Sec. 110. [Notwithstanding] Hereafter, notwithstanding any
other provision of law--
(1) no transfers may be made from Department of Justice
accounts other than those authorized in this Act, or in
previous or subsequent appropriations Acts for the Department
of Justice, or in part II of title 28 of the United States
Code, or in section 10601 of title 42 of the United States
Code; and
(2) no appropriation account within the Department of
Justice shall have its allocation of funds controlled by
other than an apportionment issued by the Office of
Management and Budget or an allotment advice issued by the
Department of Justice.
Sec. 111. (a) Section 1930(a)(6) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``a plan is confirmed or''.
(b) Section 589a(b)(5) of such title is amended by striking
``;'' and inserting, ``until a reorganization plan is
confirmed;''.
(c) Section 589a(f) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``.'' and inserting,
``until a reorganization plan is confirmed;'', and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) 100 percent of the fees collected under section
1930(a)(6) of this title after a reorganization plan is
confirmed.''.
Sec. 112. Public Law 102-395, section 102 is amended as
follows: (1) in subsection (b)(1) strike ``years 1993, 1994,
and 1995'' and insert ``year 1996''; (2) in subsection
(b)(1)(C) strike ``years 1993, 1994, and 1995'' and insert
``year 1996''; and (3) in subsection (b)(5)(A) strike ``years
1993, 1994, and 1995'' and insert ``year 1996''.
Sec. 113. Public Law 101-515 (104 Stat. 2112; 28 U.S.C. 534
note) is amended by inserting ``and criminal justice
information'' after ``for the automation of fingerprint
identification''.

SEC. 114. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM.

Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
``TITLE I--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

``SEC. 10001. BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES.

``(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants
under this title to States for use by State and local
governments to--
``(1) hire, train, and employ on a continuing basis, new
law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel;
``(2) pay overtime to currently employed law enforcement
officers and necessary support personnel;
``(3) procure equipment, technology, and other material
that is directly related to basic law enforcement functions,
such as the detection or investigation of crime, or the
prosecution of criminals; and
``(4) establish and operate cooperative programs between
community residents and law enforcement agencies for the
control, detection, or investigation of crime, or the
prosecution of criminals.
``(b) Law Enforcement Trust Funds.--Funds received by a
State or unit of local government under this title may be
reserved in a trust fund established by the State or unit of
local government to fund the future needs of programs
authorized under subsection (a).
``(c) Allocation and Distribution of Funds.--
``(1) Allocation.--The amount made available pursuant to
section 10003 shall be allocated as follows:
``(A) 0.6 percent shall be allocated to each of the
participating States.
``(B) After the allocation under subparagraph (A), the
remainder shall be allocated on the basis of the population
of each State as determined by the 1990 decennial census as
adjusted annually, by allocating to each State an amount
bearing the same ratio to the total amount to be allocated
under this subparagraph as the population of the State bears
to the population of all States.
``(2) Distribution to local governments.--
``(A) In general.--A State receiving a grant under this
title shall ensure that not less than 85 percent of the funds
received are distributed to units of local government.
``(B) Limitation.--Not more than 2.5 percent of funds
received by a State in any grant year shall be used for costs
associated with the administration and distribution of grant
money.
``(d) Disbursement.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall issue
regulations establishing procedures under which a State may
receive assistance under this title.
``(2) General requirements for qualification.--A State
qualifies for a payment under this title for a payment period
only if the State establishes that--
``(A) the State will establish a segregated account in
which the government will deposit all payments received under
this title;
``(B) the State will expend the payments in accordance with
the laws and procedures that are applicable to the
expenditure of revenues of the State;
``(C) the State will use accounting, audit, and fiscal
procedures that conform to guidelines that shall be
prescribed by the Attorney General after consultation with
the Comptroller General of the United States and, as
applicable, amounts received under this title shall be
audited in compliance with the Single Audit Act of 1984;
``(D) after reasonable notice to a State, the State will
make available to the Attorney General and the Comptroller
General of the United States, with the right to inspect,
records that the Attorney General or Comptroller General of
the United States reasonably requires to review compliance
with this title;
``(E) the State will make such reports as the Attorney
General reasonably requires, in addition to the annual
reports required under this title; and
``(F) the State will expend the funds only for the purposes
set forth in subsection (a).
``(3) Sanctions for noncompliance.--
``(A) In general.--If the Attorney General finds that a
State has not complied substantially with paragraph (2) or
regulations prescribed under such paragraph, the Attorney
General shall notify the State. The notice shall provide that
if the State does not initiate corrective action within 30
days after the date on which the State receives the notice,
the Attorney General will withhold additional payments to the
State for the current payment period and later payment
periods. Payments shall be withheld until such time as the
Attorney General determines that the State--
``(i) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
``(ii) will comply with paragraph (2) and the regulations
prescribed under such paragraph.
``(B) Notice.--Before giving notice under subparagraph (A),
the Attorney General shall give the chief executive officer
of the State reasonable notice and an opportunity for
comment.
``(C) Payment conditions.--The Attorney General shall make
a payment to a State under subparagraph (A) only if the
Attorney General determines that the State--
``(i) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
``(ii) will comply with paragraph (2) and regulations
prescribed under such paragraph.

``SEC. 10002. APPLICATIONS.

``(a) The Attorney General shall make grants under this
title only if a State has submitted an application to the
Attorney General in such form, and containing such
information, as is the Attorney General may reasonably
require.

``SEC. 10003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title--
``(1) $2,050,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $2,150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $1,900,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $1,900,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $468,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

``SEC. 10004. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

``Funds made available to States under this title shall not
be used to supplant State or local funds, but shall be used
to increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence of
Federal funds received under this title, be made available
from State or local sources.''.

SEC. 115. VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION AND TRUTH IN
SENTENCING GRANTS.

Subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle A--Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing
Incentive Grants

``SEC. 20101. GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.

``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make
grants to individual States and to States organized as multi-
State compacts to construct, develop, expand, modify,
operate, or improve conventional correctional facilities,
including prisons and jails, for the confinement of violent
offenders, to ensure that prison cell space is available for
the confinement of violent offenders and to implement truth
in sentencing laws for sentencing violent offenders.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subtitle, a State or States organized as multi-State
compacts shall submit an application to the Attorney General
that includes--
``(1)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), assurances
that the State or States, have implemented, or will
implement, correctional policies and programs, including
truth in sentencing laws that ensure that violent offenders
serve a substantial portion of the sentences imposed, that
are designed to provide sufficiently severe punishment for
violent offenders, including violent juvenile offenders, and
that the prison time served is appropriately related to the
determination that the inmate is a violent offender and for a
period of time deemed necessary to protect the public;
``(B) in the case of a State that on the date of enactment
of the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 1996
practices indeterminant sentencing, a demonstration that
average times served for the offenses of murder, rape,
robbery, and assault in the State exceed by at least 10
percent the national average of time served for such offenses
in all of the States;
``(2) assurances that the State or States have implemented
policies that provide for the recognition of the rights and
needs of crime victims;
``(3) assurances that funds received under this section
will be used to construct, develop, expand, modify, operate,
or improve conventional correctional facilities;
``(4) assurances that the State or States have involved
counties and other units of local government, when
appropriate, in the construction, development, expansion,
modification, operation, or improvement of correctional
facilities designed to ensure the incarceration of violent
offenders, and that the State or States will share funds
received under this section with counties and other units of
local government,

[[Page S 14477]]
taking into account the burden placed on the units of local government
when they are required to confine sentenced prisoners because
of overcrowding in State prison facilities;
``(5) assurances that funds received under this section
will be used to supplement, not supplant, other Federal,
State, and local funds;
``(6) assurances that the State or States have implemented,
or will implement not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Department of Justice Appropriations Act,
1996, policies to determine the veteran status of inmates and
to ensure that incarcerated veterans receive the veterans
benefits to which they are entitled; and
``(7) if applicable, documentation of the multi-State
compact agreement that specifies the construction,
development, expansion, modification, operation, or
improvement of correctional facilities.

``SEC. 20102. TRUTH IN SENTENCING INCENTIVE GRANTS.

``(a) Truth in Sentencing Grant Program.--Fifty percent of
the total amount of funds appropriated to carry out this
subtitle for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and
2000 shall be made available for truth in sentencing
incentive grants. To be eligible to receive such a grant, a
State must meet the requirements of section 20101(b) and
shall demonstrate that the State--
``(1) has in effect laws that require that persons
convicted of violent crimes serve not less than 85 percent of
the sentence imposed;
``(2) since 1993--
``(A) has increased the percentage of convicted violent
offenders sentenced to prison;
``(B) has increased the average prison time that will be
served in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to
prison; and
``(C) has in effect at the time of application laws
requiring that a person who is convicted of a violent crime
shall serve not less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed
if--
``(i) the person has been convicted on 1 or more prior
occasions in a court of the United States or of a State of a
violent crime or a serious drug offense; and
``(ii) each violent crime or serious drug offense was
committed after the defendant's conviction of the preceding
violent crime or serious drug offense; or
``(3) in the case of a State that on the date of enactment
of the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 1996
practices indeterminant sentencing, a demonstration that
average times served for the offenses of murder, rape,
robbery, and assault in the State exceed by at least 10
percent the national average of time served for such offenses
in all of the States.
``(b) Allocation of Truth in Sentencing Incentive Funds.--
The amount available to carry out this section for any fiscal
year shall be allocated to each eligible State in the ratio
that the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by such
State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the previous
year bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by
all States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the
previous year.

``SEC. 20103. VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION GRANTS.

``(a) Violent Offender Incarceration Grant Program.--Fifty
percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to carry
out this subtitle for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, and 2000 shall be made available for violent offender
incarceration grants. To be eligible to receive such a grant,
a State or States must meet the requirements of section
20101(b).
``(b) Allocation of Violent Offender Incarceration Funds.--
Funds made available to carry out this section shall be
allocated as follows:
``(1) 0.6 percent shall be allocated to each eligible
State, except that the United States Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each shall be
allocated 0.05 percent.
``(2) The amount remaining after application of paragraph
(1) shall be allocated to each eligible State in the ratio
that the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by such
State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the previous
year bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by
all States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the
previous year.

``SEC. 20104. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of the Department of Justice Appropriations Act,
1996, the Attorney General shall issue rules and regulations
regarding the uses of grant funds received under this
subtitle.
``(b) Best Available Data.--If data regarding part 1
violent crimes in any State for the previous year is
unavailable or substantially inaccurate, the Attorney General
shall utilize the best available comparable data regarding
the number of violent crimes for the previous year for the
State for the purposes of allocation of funds under this
subtitle.

``SEC. 20105. DEFINITIONS.

``In this subtitle--
``(1) the term `part 1 violent crimes' means murder and
non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports;
``(2) the term `State' or `States' means a State, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands; and
``(3) the term `indeterminate sentencing' means a system by
which the court has discretion in imposing the actual length
of the sentence, up to the statutory maximum, and an
administrative agency, or the court, controls release between
court-ordered minimum and maximum sentence.''.

``SEC. 20106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle--
``(1) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $2,100,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $2,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $2,270,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding provisions of 41 U.S.C. 353 or
any other provision of law, the Federal Prison System may
enter into contracts and other agreements with private
entities for the confinement of Federal prisoners for a
period not to exceed 3 years and 7 additional option years.
Sec. 117. Public Law 101-246 (104 Stat. 42) is amended by
inserting ``or Federal Bureau of Investigation'' after ``Drug
Enforcement Administration''.
Sec. 118. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the
restrictions on the commercial sale of goods and services
produced or provided by the Federal Prison Industries
provided in section 1761 of title 18, United States Code, and
any other provision of law shall not apply.
(b) Goods or services may not be sold commercially pursuant
to subsection (a) unless the President certifies that the
sale of such goods or services will not result in the loss of
jobs in the private sector or adversely effect the sale of
private sector goods or services sold on a local or regional
basis.
(c) This section shall not be construed as authorizing the
appropriations of any additional appropriations.
Sec. 119. Provision Relating to Voter Registration.--(a) In
General.--Subsection (b) of section 4 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2(b)) is amended
by striking ``March 11, 1993'' each place it appears and
inserting ``August 1, 1994''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
Sec. 120. (a) Grants to States.--(1) The Attorney General
shall make grants to States for the provision of qualified
legal services. To receive a grant under this paragraph a
State shall make an application to the Attorney General. Such
an application shall be in such form and submitted in such
manner as the Attorney General may require, except that the
Attorney General shall not impose a requirement on an
individual or person as a condition to bidding on a contract
under subsection (b) or to being awarded such a contract
which requirement is different from any other requirement of
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(2) Grants shall be made to States in such proportion as
the number of residents of each State which receives a grant
who live in households having incomes equal to or less than
the poverty line established under section 673(2) of the
Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) bears
to the total number of residents in the United States living
in such households: Provided, That, in States which have
significant numbers of such households that are also Native
American households, grants to such States shall be equal to
an amount that is 140 percent of the amount such States would
otherwise receive under this paragraph.
(3) Each State may in any fiscal year retain for
administrative costs not more than 3 percent of the amount
granted to the State under paragraph (1) in such fiscal year.
The remainder of such grant shall be paid under contracts to
qualified legal service providers in the State for the
provision in the State of qualified legal services. If a
State which has received a grant under paragraph (1) has at
the end of any fiscal year funds which have not been
obligated, such State shall return such funds to the Attorney
General.
(4) No State may receive a grant under paragraph (1) unless
the State has certified to the Attorney General that the
State will comply with and enforce the requirements of this
section.
(5) None of the funds provided under paragraph (1) shall be
used by a qualified legal service provider--
(A) to make available any funds, personnel, or equipment
for use in advocating or opposing any plan or proposal or
represent any party or participate in any other way in
litigation, that is intended to or has the effect of
altering, revising, or reapportioning a legislative,
judicial, or elective district at any level of government,
including influencing the timing or manner of the taking of a
census;
(B) to attempt to influence the issuance, amendment, or
revocation of any executive order, regulation, policy or
similar promulgation by any Federal, State, or local agency;
(C) to attempt to influence the passage or defeat of any
legislation, constitutional amendment, referendum,
initiative, confirmation proceeding, or any similar procedure
of the Congress of the United States or by any State or local
legislative body;
(D) to support or conduct training programs for the purpose
of advocating particular public policies or encouraging
political activities, labor or anti-labor activities,
boycotts, picketing, strikes, and demonstrations, including
the dissemination of information about such policies or
activities;
(E) to participate in any litigation, lobbying, rulemaking
or any other matter with respect to abortion;
(F) to provide legal assistance to an eligible client with
respect to a proceeding or litigation in which the client
seeks to obtain a dissolution of a marriage or a legal
separation from a spouse;
(G) to participate in any litigation or provide any
representation on behalf of a local, State, or Federal
prisoner;
(H) to solicit in-person any client for the purpose of
providing any legal service;

[[Page S 14478]]

(I) to pay for any personal service, advertisement,
telegram, telephone communication, letter, or printed or
written matter or to pay administrative expenses or related
expenses, associated with an activity prohibited in this
paragraph;
(J) to pay any voluntary membership dues to any private or
non-profit organization; or
(K) to provide any subgrants for the provision of qualified
legal services.
(6) A State which receives a grant under paragraph (1) and
which also distributes State funds for the provision of legal
services or which permits the distribution of interest on
lawyers' trust accounts for the provision of legal services
shall require that such State funds and such interest on
lawyers' trust accounts be used to provide qualified legal
services to qualified clients and shall impose on the use of
such State funds and such interest on lawyers' trust accounts
the limitations prescribed by paragraph (5).
(7) A qualified legal service provider of any qualified
client or any client of such provider may not claim or
collect attorneys' fees from parties to any litigation
initiated by such client.
(b) Awarding of Contracts.--(1) Each State which receives a
grant under subsection (a)(1) shall make funds under the
grant available for contracts entered into for the provision
of qualified legal services within the State.
(2)(A) The Governor of each State shall designate the
authority of the State which shall be responsible for
soliciting and awarding bids for contracts for the provision
of qualified legal services within such State.
(B) The authority of a State designated under subparagraph
(A) shall designate service areas within the State. Such
service areas shall be the counties or parishes within a
State but such authority may combine contiguous counties or
parishes to form a service area to assure the most efficient
provision of qualified legal services within available funds.
(3) A State shall allocate grant funds for contracts for
the provision of qualified legal services in a service area
on the same basis as grants are made available to States
under subsection (a)(2).
(4) A State shall award a contract for the provision of
qualified legal services in a service area to the applicant
who is best qualified, as determined by the State, and who in
its bid offers to provide, in accordance with subsection (c),
the greatest number of hours of qualified legal services in
such area.
(5) A State contract awarded under paragraph (4) shall be
in such form as the State requires. The contract shall
provide for the rendering of bills supported by time records
at the close of each month in which qualified legal services
are provided. A State shall make payment to a qualified legal
service provider at the contact rate only for hours of
qualified legal services provided and supported by
appropriate records. The contract rate shall be the total
dollar amount of the contract divided by the total hours bid
by the qualified legal service provider. A State shall have
60 days to make full payment of such bills.
(c) Requirements for the Provision of Qualified Legal
Services Under a Contract.--(1) The term of a contract
entered into under subsection (b) shall be not more than 1
year.
(2) A qualified legal service provider shall service the
legal needs of qualified clients under a contract entered
into under subsection (b) in a professional manner consistent
with applicable law.
(3) A qualified legal service provider shall maintain a
qualified client's case file, including any pleadings and
research, at least until the later of 5 years after the
resolution of client's cause of action or 5 years after the
termination of the contract under which services were
provided to such client.
(4) A qualified legal service provider shall keep daily
time records of the provision of services to a qualified
client in one tenth of an hour increments identifying such
client, the general nature of the work performed in each
increment, and the account which will be charged for such
work.
(5) Each qualified client shall be provided a self-mailing
customer satisfaction questionnaire in a form approved by the
authority granting the contract under subsection (b) which
identifies the qualified legal service provider and is
preaddressed to such authority.
(6) Any qualified client who receives legal services other
than advice or legal services provided by mail or telephone
shall execute with respect to such services a waiver of
attorney client and attorney work product privilege as a
condition to receiving such service. The waiver shall be
limited to the extent necessary to determine the quantity and
quality of the service rendered by the qualified legal
service provider.
(7) A qualified legal service provider shall make and
maintain records detailing the basis upon which the provider
determined the qualifications of qualified clients. Such
records shall be made and maintained for 5 years following
the termination of a contract under subsection (b) for the
provision of legal services to such clients.
(8) A qualified legal service provider shall consent to
audits by the General Accounting Office, the Attorney
General, and the authority which awarded a contract to such
provider. Any such audit may be conducted at the provider's
principal place of business. Such an audit shall be limited
to a determination of whether such provider is meeting the
requirements of this Act and the provider's contract under
subsection (b). In addition, a qualified legal service
provider shall conduct an annual financial audit by a
qualified certified public accountant which encompasses the
entire term of a contract awarded under subsection (b), and
shall transmit a report of such audit to the authority which
awarded a contract to such provider within 60 days of the
termination of such contract.
(9) A contract awarded under subsection (b) shall require
that all funds received by the qualified legal services
provider from any source be used exclusively to provide
qualified legal services to qualified clients and shall
impose on the use of such funds the limitations prescribed by
paragraph (a)(5).
(10) The authority which awarded a contract shall terminate
a qualified legal service provider who fails to abide by the
terms of this section. A breach of contract by a qualified
legal service provider shall require the authority to
terminate the contract, to award a new contract to a
different qualified legal services provider, and to recover
any funds improperly expended by the provider, together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and interest at the statutory rate
in the State for interest on judgments. If such a breach was
willful, the provider shall pay to the authority which
awarded the contract additional damages equal to the one half
of the amount improperly expended by the provider.
(d) For purposes of this section:
(1)(A) The term ``qualified legal service provider''
means--
(i) any individual who is licensed to practice law in a
State for not less than 3 calendar years, who has practiced
law in such State not less than 3 calendar years, and who is
so licensed during the period of a contract under subsection
(b); or
(ii) a person who employs an individual described in clause
(i) to provide qualified legal services.

Nothing in this subparagraph shall be interpreted to prohibit
a qualified legal service provider from employing an
individual who is not described in clause (i) to assist in
providing qualified legal services.
(B) No individual shall be considered a qualified legal
service provider if such individual during the 10 years
preceding the submission of a bid for a contract under
subsection (b)--
(i) has been convicted of a felony;
(ii) has been suspended or disbarred from the practice of
law for misconduct, incompetence, or neglect of a client in
any State;
(iii) has been found in contempt of a court of competent
jurisdiction in any State or Federal court;
(iv) has been sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 or an equivalent State rule of procedure
applicable in civil actions;
(v) has been sanctioned by the Legal Services Corporation;
or
(vi) is a subgrantee of a qualified legal services
provider; or if such individual has a criminal charge pending
on the date of the submission of a bid for a contract under
subsection (b).
(C) No State may impose a requirement on an individual or
person as a condition to bidding on a contract under
subsection (b) or to being awarded such a contract which
requirement is different from any other requirement of this
paragraph.
(2) The term ``qualified legal services'' means--
(A) mediation, negotiation, arbitration, counseling,
advice, instruction, referral, or representation, and
(B) legal research or drafting in support of the services
described in subparagraph (A), provided by or under the
supervision of a qualified legal service provider to a
qualified client for a qualified cause of action.
(3) The term ``qualified client'' means any individual who
is a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent
residence prior to the date of enactment of this Act who
resides in a household the income of which from any source,
which was received or held for the benefit of a member of the
household, was equal to or less than the poverty line
established under section 673(2) of the Community Services
Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)). The term ``household''
means a dwelling occupied by at least one adult.
(4)(A) The term ``qualified cause of action'' means only a
civil cause of action which results only from--
(i) landlord and tenant disputes, including an eviction
from housing except an eviction where the prima facie case
for the eviction is based on criminal conduct, including the
harboring of a nuisance who has engaged in criminal conduct;
(ii) foreclosure of a debt on a qualified client's
residence;
(iii) the filing of a petition under chapter 7 or 12 of
title 11, United States Code, or under chapter 13 of such
title unless a petition of eviction has preceded the filing
of such petition;
(iv) enforcement of a debt;
(v) enforcement of child support orders;
(vi) action to quiet title;
(vii) spousal or child abuse on behalf of the abused
party;
(viii) an insurance claim;
(ix) competency hearing; or
(x) probate.
(B) Such term does not include--
(i) a class action under Federal, State, or local law; or
(ii) any challenge to the constitutionality of any statute.
(5) The term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other territory or
possession of the United States and includes any recognized
governing body of an Indian Tribe or Alaskan Native Village
that carries out substantial governmental powers and duties.
(e)(1) The Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996
et seq.) is repealed.
(2) The assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records,
and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations,
allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, arising
from, available to, or to be made available in connection

[[Page S 14479]]
with the Legal Services Corporation shall be transferred to Office of
the Attorney General.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 1996''.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

Trade and Infrastructure Development

RELATED AGENCIES

Office of the United States Trade Representative

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, [$20,949,000] $20,889,000, of
which $2,500,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $98,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses.

International Trade Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
[$42,500,000] $34,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Operations and Administration

For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and
aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for
periods not exceeding ten years, and expenses of alteration,
repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary
demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle;
obtain insurance on official motor vehicles; and rent tie
lines and teletype equipment; [$264,885,000] $219,579,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of
section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities without regard to 15
U.S.C. 4912; and that for the purpose of this Act,
contributions under the provisions of the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act shall include payment for
assessments for services provided as part of these
activities.

Export Administration

Operations and Administration

For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; rental
of space abroad for periods not exceeding ten years, and
expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with
special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without
regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law;
[$38,644,000] $30,504,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the provisions of the first sentence
of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these
activities.

Economic Development Administration

Economic Development Assistance Programs

For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, Public Law 91-304, and such laws that were in effect
immediately before September 30, 1982, [and for trade
adjustment assistance, $328,500,000] $89,000,000: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this heading may be used directly or
indirectly for attorneys' or consultants' fees in connection
with securing grants and contracts made by the Economic
Development Administration: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Commerce may provide financial assistance for projects to be
located on military installations closed or scheduled for
closure or realignment to grantees eligible for assistance
under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965,
as amended, without it being required that the grantee have
title or ability to obtain a lease for the property, for the
useful life of the project, when in the opinion of the
Secretary of Commerce, such financial assistance is necessary
for the economic development of the area: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Commerce may, as the Secretary
considers appropriate, consult with the Secretary of Defense
regarding the title to land on military installations closed
or scheduled for closure or realignment.

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
[$20,000,000] $11,000,000: Provided, That these funds may be
used to monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the
Public Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.

Minority Business Development Agency

Minority Business Development

[For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$32,000,000.]
Of the unobligated balances contained in this account,
$1,000,000 shall be transferred to the Commerce
Reorganization Transition Fund.

[United States Travel and Tourism Administration

[Salaries and Expenses

[For necessary expenses of the United States Travel and
Tourism Administration for participation in the White House
Conference on Travel and Tourism, $2,000,000, to remain
available until December 31, 1995: Provided, That none of the
funds appropriated by this paragraph shall be available to
carry out the provisions of section 203(a) of the
International Travel Act of 1961, as amended.]

Economic and Information Infrastructure

Economic and Statistical Analysis

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, [$40,000,000] $57,220,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1997.

Economics and Statistics Administration Revolving Fund

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to disseminate
economic and statistical data products as authorized by 15
U.S.C. 1525-1527 and, notwithstanding 15 U.S.C. 4912, charge
fees necessary to recover the full costs incurred in their
production. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, receipts received
from these data dissemination activities shall be credited to
this account, to be available for carrying out these purposes
without further appropriation.

Bureau of the Census

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, [$136,000,000] $144,812,000.

Periodic Censuses and Programs

For expenses necessary to collect and publish statistics
for periodic censuses and programs provided for by law,
[$135,000,000] $193,450,000, to remain available until
expended.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
[$19,709,000] $5,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the
Secretary of Commerce is authorized to retain and use as
offsetting collections all funds transferred, or previously
transferred, from other Government agencies for spectrum
management, analysis, and operations and for all costs
incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and
related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication
Sciences of the NTIA in furtherance of its assigned functions
under this paragraph and such funds received from other
Government agencies shall remain available until expended.

(transfer of funds)

For spectrum management, $9,000,000 shall be made available
until expended to be derived by transfer from unobligated
balances of the Working Capital Fund in the Department of
Justice.

Public Broadcasting Facilities, Planning and Construction

For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, [$19,000,000] $10,000,000, to remain
available until expended as authorized by section 391 of the
Act, as amended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,200,000
shall be available for program administration as authorized
by section 391 of the Act: Provided further, That
notwithstanding the provisions of section 391 of the Act, the
prior year unobligated balances may be made available for
grants for projects for which applications have been
submitted and approved during any fiscal year.

[[Page S 14480]]

[Information Infrastructure Grants

[For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, $40,000,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as
amended: Provided, That not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be
available for program administration and other support
activities as authorized by section 391 of the Act including
support of the Advisory Council on National Information
Infrastructure: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 percent may be available
for telecommunications research activities for projects
related directly to the development of a national information
infrastructure: Provided further, That notwithstanding the
requirements of section 392(a) and 392(c) of the Act, these
funds may be used for the planning and construction of
telecommunications networks for the provision of educational,
cultural, health care, public information, public safety or
other social services.]

Patent and Trademark Office

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office
provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted
against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks;
[$90,000,000] $56,324,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the funds made available under this
heading are to be derived from deposits in the Patent and
Trademark Office Fee Surcharge Fund as authorized by law:
Provided further, That the amounts made available under the
Fund shall not exceed amounts deposited; and such fees as
shall be collected pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C.
41 and 376, shall remain available until expended.

Science and Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Scientific and Technical Research and Services

For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, [$263,000,000] $222,737,000, to
remain available until expended, of which not to exceed
$8,500,000 may be transferred to the ``Working Capital
Fund''.

Industrial Technology Services

For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and the Advanced Technology Program, [$81,100,000]
$76,600,000, to remain available until expended, of which not
to exceed $500,000 may be transferred to the ``Working
Capital Fund'': Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading in this or any other Act may be
used for the purposes of carrying out additional program
competitions under the Advanced Technology Program: Provided
further, That any unobligated balances available from
carryover of prior year appropriations under the Advanced
Technology Program may be used only for the purposes of
providing continuation grants.

Construction of Research Facilities

For [construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for] renovation of
existing facilities, not otherwise provided for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, as authorized by 15
U.S.C. 278c-278e, [$60,000,000] $24,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Operations, Research, and Facilities

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including acquisition, maintenance, operation, and hire of
aircraft; not to exceed 358 commissioned officers on the
active list; grants, contracts, or other payments to
nonprofit organizations for the purposes of conducting
activities pursuant to cooperative agreements; and
alteration, modernization, and relocation of facilities as
authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i; [$1,724,452,000]
$1,809,092,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 but consistent with other
existing law, fees shall be assessed, collected, and credited
to this appropriation as offsetting collections to be
available until expended, to recover the costs of
administering aeronautical charting programs: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated from the general
fund shall be reduced as such additional fees are received
during fiscal year 1996, so as to result in a final general
fund appropriation estimated at not more than
[$1,721,452,000] $1,806,092,000: Provided further, That any
such additional fees received in excess of $3,000,000 in
fiscal year 1996 shall not be available for obligation until
October 1, 1996: Provided further, That fees and donations
received by the National Ocean Service for the management of
the national marine sanctuaries may be retained and used for
the salaries and expenses associated with those activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That in
addition, [$57,500,000] $55,500,000 shall be derived by
transfer from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery
Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'':
Provided further, That grants to States pursuant to sections
306 and 306(a) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as
amended, shall not exceed $2,000,000.

Coastal Zone Management Fund

Of amounts collected pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1456a, not to
exceed $7,800,000, for purposes set forth in 16 U.S.C.
1456a(b)(2)(A), 16 U.S.C. 1456a(b)(2)(B)(v), and 16 U.S.C.
[1461(c)] 1461(e).

Construction

For repair and modification of, and additions to, existing
facilities and construction of new facilities, and for
facility planning and design and land acquisition not
otherwise provided for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, [$42,731,000] $50,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding and Conversion

For expenses necessary for the repair[, acquisition,
leasing, or conversion] of vessels, including related
equipment to maintain [and modernize] the existing fleet [and
to continue planning the modernization of the fleet,] for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $8,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage Compensation Fund

For carrying out the provisions of section 3 of Public Law
95-376, not to exceed $1,032,000, to be derived from receipts
collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1980 (b) and (f), to remain
available until expended.

Fishermen's Contingency Fund

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

Foreign Fishing Observer Fund

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law
96-339), the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627) and the American
Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), there are
appropriated from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery
observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed
$196,000, to remain available until expended.

fishing vessel obligations guarantees

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990, of guaranteed loans authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, $250,000:
Provided, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used to guarantee loans for the purchase of
any new or existing fishing vessel.

[Technology Administration

[Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy

[salaries and expenses

[For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $5,000,000.]

General Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the general administration of
the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not
to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $29,100,000.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public
Law 100-504), $21,849,000.

commerce reorganization transition fund

For deposit in the Commerce Reorganization Transition Fund
established under section 206(c)(1) of this Act for use in
accordance with section 206(c)(4) of this Act, $52,000,000,
in addition to amounts made available by transfer, which
amount shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
of these funds $4,000,000 shall be remitted to the Office of
Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the
United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund.

General Provisions--Department of Commerce

Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations and funds made available to the Department of
Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities
specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to
the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced
payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification
of officials designated by the Secretary that such payments
are in the public interest.
Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for
salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of
passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and
1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
5902).
Sec. 203. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and
activities that are under the control of the United States
Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
Sec. 204. None of the funds provided in this or any
previous Act, or hereinafter made

[[Page S 14481]]
available to the Department of Commerce shall be available to reimburse
the Unemployment Trust Fund or any other fund or account of
the Treasury to pay for any expenses paid before October 1,
1992, as authorized by section 8501 of title 5, United States
Code, for services performed after April 20, 1990, by
individuals appointed to temporary positions within the
Bureau of the Census for purposes relating to the 1990
decennial census of population.
Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

SEC. 206. CONSOLIDATION OF FUNCTIONS OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT.

(a) Consolidation.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce--
(A) abolish, reorganize, consolidate, or transfer such
functions that either receive funding or are eliminated under
this title as the Director considers appropriate in order to
meet the requirements and limitations set forth in this
title; and
(B) terminate or transfer such personnel associated with
such functions as the Director considers appropriate in order
to meet such requirements and limitations.
(2) Transition rules.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall establish such rules and
procedures relating to the abolishment, reorganization,
consolidation, or transfer of functions under this subsection
as the Director considers appropriate, including rules and
procedures relating to the rights and responsibilities of
personnel of the Government terminated, transferred, or
otherwise affected by such the abolishment, reorganization,
consolidation, or transfer.
(b) Buy Out Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce may, for such
officers and employees as the Secretary considers appropriate
as part of the activities of the Secretary under subsection
(a), authorize a payment to officers and employees who
voluntarily separate on or before December 15, 1995, whether
by retirement or resignation.
(2) Payment requirement.--Payment under paragraph (1) shall
be paid in accordance with the provisions of sections 3 and 4
of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public
Law 103-226; 108 Stat. 111), except that an employee of the
agency shall be deemed to be eligible for payment of a
voluntary separation incentive payment under that section if
the employee separates from service with the agency during
the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and
ending on December 15, 1995.
(3) Funding.--
(A) In general.--The payment of voluntary separation
incentive payments under this subsection shall be made from
funds in the Commerce Reorganization Transition Fund
established under subsection (c).
(B) Payment dependent on funding.--The Secretary of
Commerce may not pay voluntary separation incentive payments
under this subsection unless sufficient funds are available
in the Commerce Reorganization Fund to cover the cost of such
payments and the costs of any other payments (including
payments or deposits to retirement systems) required in
relation to such payments.
(c) Commerce Reorganization Transition Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established on the
books of the Treasury an account to be known as the
``Commerce Reorganization Transition Fund''.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the account is to provide
funds for the following:
(A) To cover the costs of actions relating to the
abolishment, reorganization, consolidation, or transfer of
functions under subsection (a).
(B) To the cover the costs of the payment of payments under
subsection (b), including any payments or deposits to
retirement systems required in relation to such payment.
(3) Deposits.--There shall be deposited into the account
such sums as may be appropriated or transferred to the
account.
(4) Use of funds.--Sums in the account shall be available
for the purpose set forth in paragraph (2).
(5) Report on account.--Not later than October 1, 1997, the
Secretary of Commerce shall transmit to the Committees on
Appropriations and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives a report containing an accounting of the
expenditures from the account established under this
subsection.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.

TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY

Supreme Court of the United States

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme
Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and
grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance and
operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to
exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate
Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; and for
miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice
may approve, $25,834,000.

Care of the Building and Grounds

For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the
Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon
him by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-13b),
$3,313,000, of which [$500,000] $565,000 shall remain
available until expended.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

salaries and expenses

For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers
and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as
authorized by law, [$14,070,000] $14,288,000.

United States Court of International Trade

Salaries and Expenses

For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries
of the officers and employees of the court, services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the
court, as authorized by law, $10,859,000.

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services

Salaries and Expenses

For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular
active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other
officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise
specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the
courts, as authorized by law, [$2,409,024,000] $2,471,195,000
(including the purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which
not to exceed $13,454,000 shall remain available until
expended for space alteration projects; of which not to
exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
furniture and furnishings related to new space alteration and
construction projects; and of which $500,000 is to remain
available until expended for acquisition of books,
periodicals, and newspapers, and all other legal reference
materials, including subscriptions.
In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of
Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed
$2,318,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.

violent crime reduction programs

For activities of the Federal Judiciary as authorized by
law, [$41,500,000] $30,000,000, to remain available until
expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund, as authorized by section 190001(a) of
Public Law 103-322.

Defender Services

For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community
Defender organizations, the compensation and reimbursement of
expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under
the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, the
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons
furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the
Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)), the compensation
(in accordance with Criminal Justice Act maximums) and
reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to assist
the court in criminal cases where the defendant has waived
representation by counsel, the compensation and reimbursement
of travel expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of
financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in
connection with transfers from the United States to foreign
countries with which the United States has a treaty for the
execution of penal sentences, and the compensation of
attorneys appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for
the protection of their employment, as authorized by 28
U.S.C. 1875(d), [$260,000,000] $274,433,000, to remain
available until expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006A(i):
Provided, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall
be available for Death Penalty Resource Centers or Post-
Conviction Defender Organizations after April 1, 1996.

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of
commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to
rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28
U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)); $59,028,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of
land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of
the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.

Court Security

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
incident to the procurement, installation, and maintenance of
security equipment and protective services for the United
States Courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas, including
building ingress-egress control, inspection of packages,
directed security patrols, and other similar activities as
authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and
Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702); [$109,724,000]
$102,000,000, to be expended directly or transferred to the
United States Marshals Service which shall be responsible for
administering

[[Page S 14482]]
elements of the Judicial Security Program consistent with standards or
guidelines agreed to by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts and the Attorney General.

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Salaries and Expenses

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

Federal Judicial Center

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as
authorized by Public Law 90-219, [$18,828,000] $17,000,000;
of which $1,800,000 shall remain available through September
30, 1997, to provide education and training to Federal court
personnel; and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized
for official reception and representation expenses.

Judicial Retirement Funds

Payment to Judiciary Trust Funds

For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $24,000,000, to the Judicial
Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c),
$7,000,000, and to the United States Court of Federal Claims
Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l),
$1,900,000.

United States Sentencing Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code,
[$8,500,000] $7,040,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is
authorized for official reception and representation
expenses.

General Provisions--The Judiciary

Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this
title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be
available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 302. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for salaries and expenses of the Special Court
established under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of
1973, Public Law 93-236.
Sec. 303. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in
this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but
no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this
section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under
section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts,
courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses
of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided,
That such available funds shall not exceed $10,000 and shall
be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts in his capacity as Secretary of
the Judicial Conference.
This title may be cited as ``The Judiciary Appropriations
Act, 1996''.

TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Administration of Foreign Affairs

Diplomatic and Consular Programs

For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the
Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including
expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities
Act of 1956, as amended; representation to certain
international organizations in which the United States
participates pursuant to treaties, ratified pursuant to the
advice and consent of the Senate, or specific Acts of
Congress; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger
motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343, 40 U.S.C.
481(c) and 22 U.S.C. 2674; and for expenses of general
administration [$1,716,878,000] $1,552,165,000: Provided,
That starting in fiscal year 1997, a system shall be in place
that allocates to each department and agency the full cost of
its presence outside of the United States.
Of the funds provided under this heading, $24,856,000 shall
be available only for the Diplomatic Telecommunications
Service for operation of existing base services and not to
exceed $17,144,000 shall be available only for the
enhancement of the Diplomatic Telecommunications Service
(DTS), except that such latter amount shall not be available
for obligation until the expiration of the 15-day period
beginning on the date on which the Secretary of State and the
Director of the Diplomatic Telecommunications Service Program
Office submit the DTS pilot program report required by
section 507 of Public Law 103-317.
In addition, not to exceed $700,000 in registration fees
collected pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, may be used in accordance with section 45 of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, 22 U.S.C.
2717; and in addition not to exceed $1,223,000 shall be
derived from fees from other executive agencies for lease or
use of facilities located at the International Center in
accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act
(Public Law 90-553, as amended by section 120 of Public Law
101-246); and in addition not to exceed $15,000 which shall
be derived from reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use
of Blair House facilities in accordance with section 46 of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C.
2718(a)).
Notwithstanding section 402 of this Act, not to exceed 20
percent of the amounts made available in this Act in the
appropriation accounts, ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs''
and ``Salaries and Expenses'' under the heading
``Administration of Foreign Affairs'' may be transferred
between such appropriation accounts: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
For an additional amount for security [enhancement]
enhancements, to counter the threat of terrorism, $9,720,000,
to remain available until expended.

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the general administration of
the Department of State and the Foreign Service, provided for
by law, including expenses authorized by section 9 of the Act
of August 31, 1964, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3721), and the
State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended,
[$363,276,000] $335,276,000.
For an additional amount for security enhancements to
counter the threat of terrorism, $1,870,000, to remain
available until expended.

foreign affairs reorganization transition fund

For deposit in the Foreign Affairs Reorganization
Transition Fund established under section 404(c)(1) of this
Act for use in accordance with section 404(c)(4) of this Act,
$26,000,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of these funds, $3,000,000 shall be remitted to the
Office of Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of
the United States to the credit of the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund: Provided further, That of
these funds $1,000,000 shall be remitted to the Office of
Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the
United States to the credit of the Foreign Service Retirement
and Disability Fund.

Capital Investment Fund

For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund,
[$16,400,000] $8,200,000, to remain available until expended,
as authorized in Public Law 103-236: Provided, That section
135(e) of Public Law 103-236 shall not apply to funds
appropriated under this heading.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), [$27,669,000]
$27,350,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, (1) the Office of the Inspector General of
the United States Information Agency is hereby merged with
the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of
State; (2) the functions exercised and assigned to the Office
of the Inspector General of the United States Information
Agency before the effective date of this Act (including all
related functions) are transferred to the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of State; and (3) the
Inspector General of the Department of State shall also serve
as the Inspector General of the United States Information
Agency.

representation allowances

For representation allowances as authorized by section 905
of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C.
4085), [$4,780,000] $4,500,000.

Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials

For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the
Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective
services in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C.
4314) and 3 U.S.C. 208, $8,579,000.

acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad

For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service
Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300), and
the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as authorized by
title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism
Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4851), [$391,760,000] $369,860,000, to
remain available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C.
2696(c): Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in
this paragraph shall be available for acquisition of
furniture and furnishings and generators for other
departments and agencies.

Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service

For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to
meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service pursuant to the requirement of 31 U.S.C.
3526(e), $6,000,000, to remain available until expended as
authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which not to exceed

[[Page S 14483]]
$1,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans
Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.

Repatriation Loans Program Account

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

Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan

For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations
Act, Public Law 96-8 (93 Stat. 14), $15,165,000.

Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund

For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $125,402,000.

International Organizations and Conferences

Contributions to International Organizations

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet
annual obligations of membership in international
multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified
pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions
or specific Acts of Congress, [$858,000,000] $550,000,000:
Provided, That any payment of arrearages shall be directed
toward special activities that are mutually agreed upon by
the United States and the respective international
organization: Provided further, That 20 percent of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph for the assessed contribution
of the United States to the United Nations shall be withheld
from obligation and expenditure until a certification is made
under section 401(b) of Public Law 103-236 for fiscal year
1996: Provided further, That certification under section
401(b) of Public Law 103-236 for fiscal year 1996 may only be
made if the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations
and International Relations of the House of Representatives
are notified of the steps taken, and anticipated, to meet the
requirements of section 401(b) of Public Law 103-236 at least
15 days in advance of the proposed certification: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution
to an international organization for the United States share
of interest costs made known to the United States Government
by such organization for loans incurred on or after October
1, 1984, through external borrowings.

Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses
of international peacekeeping activities directed to the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and
security, [$425,000,000] $250,000,000: Provided, That none of
the funds made available under this Act may be used, and
shall not be available, for obligation or expenditure for any
new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission unless,
at least fifteen days in advance of voting for the new or
expanded mission in the United Nations Security Council (or
in an emergency, as far in advance as is practicable), (1)
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate
Committees of the Congress are notified of the estimated cost
and length of the mission, the vital national interest that
will be served, and the planned exit strategy; and (2) a
reprogramming of funds pursuant to section 605 of this Act is
submitted, and the procedures therein followed, setting forth
the source of funds that will be used to pay for the cost of
the new or expanded mission: Provided further, That funds
shall be available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a
certification by the Secretary of State to the appropriate
committees of the Congress that American manufacturers and
suppliers are being given opportunities to provide equipment,
services and material for United Nations peacekeeping
activities equal to those being given to foreign
manufacturers and suppliers.

International Conferences and Contingencies

For necessary expenses authorized by section 5 of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, in addition to
funds otherwise available for these purposes, contributions
for the United States share of general expenses of
international organizations and conferences and
representation to such organizations and conferences as
provided for by 22 U.S.C. 2656 and 2672 and personal services
without regard to civil service and classification laws as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5102, $3,000,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which
not to exceed $200,000 may be expended for representation as
authorized by 22 U.S.C. 4085.

International Commissions

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

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico

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

Salaries and Expenses

For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for,
[$12,358,000] $11,500,000.

Construction

For detailed plan preparation and construction of
authorized projects, [$6,644,000] $8,000,000, to remain
available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).

American Sections, International Commissions

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for the
International Joint Commission and the International Boundary
Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by
treaties between the United States and Canada or Great
Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182; [$5,800,000]
$5,550,000, of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available
for representation expenses incurred by the International
Joint Commission.

International Fisheries Commissions

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

[payment to the asia foundation

[For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by
section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $10,000,000 to remain
available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).]

General Provisions--Department of State

Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be
available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and
differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of 5 U.S.C.; for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and hire of
passenger transportation pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1343(b).
Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
State in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the
current fiscal year for the United States Information Agency
in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,
but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 403. Funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act or any other Act may be expended for
compensation of the United States Commissioner of the
International Boundary Commission, United States and Canada,
only for actual hours worked by such Commissioner.

SEC. 404. CONSOLIDATION OF REDUNDANT FOREIGN RELATIONS
FUNCTIONS.

(a) Consolidation of Functions.--
(1) Consolidation of functions of state department, usia,
and acda.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, the Director of the
United States Information Agency and the Director of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency--
(A) identify the functions carried out by the Department of
State, by the United States Information Agency, and the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency that are redundant by reason
of being carried out, in whole or in part, by two or more of
these entities; and
(B) take appropriate actions to eliminate the redundancy in
such functions.
(2) Scope of consolidation.--In carrying out the
requirements of paragraph (1), the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget may provide for the discharge of
functions of the entities referred to in such paragraph by a
single office within one of the entities.
(3) Additional consolidation authority.--In addition to the
actions under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget may also carry out such other
actions to consolidate and reorganize the functions of the
Department of State, the United States Information Agency,
and the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as
the Director and the heads of such entities consider
appropriate to ensure the effective and efficient discharge
of the responsibilities of such entities.
(4) Actions authorized.--The actions that the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget may take under this
subsection include the following:
(A) The abolishment, reorganization, consolidation, or
transfer of functions (in whole or in part).
(B) The termination or transfer of the personnel associated
with functions so abolished, reorganized, consolidated, or
transferred.
(5) Transition rules.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall establish such rules and
procedures relating to the

[[Page S 14484]]
consolidation of foreign relations functions under this subsection as
the Director considers appropriate, including rules and
procedures relating to the rights and responsibilities of
personnel of the Government terminated, transferred, or
otherwise affected by actions to carry out the consolidation.
(b) Voluntary Separation Incentives.--
(1) Authority to pay incentives.--The head of an agency
referred to in paragraph (2) may pay voluntary incentive
payments to employees of the agency in order to avoid or
minimize the need for involuntary separations from the agency
as a result of the consolidation of foreign relations
functions under subsection (a).
(2) Covered agencies.--Paragraph (1) applies to the
following agencies:
(A) The Department of State.
(B) The United States Information Agency.
(C) The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
(3) Payment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The head of an agency referred to in
paragraph (2) shall pay voluntary separation incentive
payments under this subsection in accordance with the
provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226; 108 Stat.
111), except that an employee of the agency shall be deemed
to be eligible for payment of a voluntary separation
incentive payment under that section if the employee
separates from service with the agency during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
December 15, 1995.
(B) Subsequent employment with government.--The provisions
of subsection (d) of such section 3 shall apply to any
employee who is paid a voluntary separation incentive payment
under this subsection.
(4) Funding.--
(A) In general.--The payment of voluntary separation
incentive payments under this subsection shall be made from
funds in the Foreign Affairs Reorganization Transition Fund
established under subsection (c).
(B) Exercise of authority dependent on funding.--The head
of an agency may not pay voluntary separation incentive
payments under this subsection unless sufficient funds are
available in the Foreign Affairs Reorganization Fund to cover
the cost of such payments and the costs of any other payments
(including payments or deposits to retirement systems)
required in relation to such payments.
(5) Termination of authority.--The authority of the head of
an agency to authorize payment of voluntary separation
incentive payments under this subsection shall expire on
December 15, 1995.
(c) Foreign Affairs Reorganization Transition Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established on the
books of the Treasury an account to be known as the ``Foreign
Affairs Reorganization Transition Fund''.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the account is to provide
funds for the following:
(A) To cover the costs of actions relating to the
consolidation of redundant foreign relations functions that
are taken under subsection (a).
(B) To the cover the costs to the Government of the payment
of voluntary separation incentive payments under subsection
(b), including any payments or deposits to retirement systems
required in relation to such payment.
(3) Deposits.--There shall be deposited into the account
such sums as may be appropriated to the account.
(4) Use of funds.--Sums in the account shall remain
available until expended for the purpose set forth in
paragraph (2).
(5) Report on account.--Not later than November 15, 1996,
the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Committees on
Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committees on Appropriations and International Relations of
the House of Representatives a report containing an
accounting of--
(A) the expenditures from the account established under
this subsection; and
(B) in the event of any transfer of funds to the Department
of State under paragraph (5), the functions for which the
funds so transferred are to be expended.

RELATED AGENCIES

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Arms Control and Disarmament Activities

For necessary expenses not otherwise provided, for arms
control, nonproliferation, and disarmament activities,
[$40,000,000] $22,700,000, of which not to exceed $50,000
shall be for official reception and representation expenses
as authorized by the Act of September 26, 1961, as amended
(22 U.S.C. 2551 et seq.).

United States Information Agency

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
enable the United States Information Agency, as authorized by
the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as
amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended
(22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of
1977 (91 Stat. 1636), to carry out international
communication, educational and cultural activities; and to
carry out related activities authorized by law, including
employment, without regard to civil service and
classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to
exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 22
U.S.C. 1471, and entertainment, including official
receptions, within the United States, not to exceed $25,000
as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1474(3); [$445,645,000]
$420,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $1,400,000 may be
used for representation abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C.
1452 and 4085: Provided further, That not to exceed
$7,615,000 to remain available until expended, may be
credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments
received from or in connection with English teaching,
library, motion pictures, and publication programs as
authorized by section 810 of the United States Information
and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended: Provided
further, That not to exceed $1,700,000 to remain available
until expended may be used to carry out projects involving
security construction and related improvements for agency
facilities not physically located together with Department of
State facilities abroad.

Technology Fund

For expenses necessary to enable the United States
Information Agency to provide for the procurement of
information technology improvements, as authorized by the
United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of
1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (22
U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977
(91 Stat. 1636), [$5,050,000] $3,050,000, to remain available
until expended.

Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs,
as authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 (91 Stat. 1636),
[$192,090,000] $190,000,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2455.

Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund

For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships,
Incorporated as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
05), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September
30, 1996, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any
contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the
rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are
not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for
Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on
compensation for personal services.

Israeli Arab Scholarship Program

For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab
Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 1996, to remain
available until expended.

American Studies Collections Endowment Fund

For necessary expenses of American Studies Collections as
authorized by section 235 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, all interest
and earnings accruing to the American Studies Collections
Endowment Fund on or before September 30, 1996, to remain
available until expended.

International Broadcasting Operations

For expenses necessary to enable the United States
Information Agency, as authorized by the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended,
[the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, as amended, the
Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act,] the United States
International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, and
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, to carry out international
communication activities; [$341,000,000] $330,191,000, of
which $5,000,000 shall remain available until expended, not
to exceed $16,000 may be used for official receptions within
the United States as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1474(3), not to
exceed $35,000 may be used for representation abroad as
authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1452 and 4085, and not to exceed
$39,000 may be used for official reception and representation
expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition,
not to exceed $250,000 from fees as authorized by section 810
of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act
of 1948, as amended, to remain available until expended for
carrying out authorized purposes[: Provided, That funds
provided for broadcasting to Cuba may be used for the
purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of facilities
for radio and television transmission and reception, and
purchase and installation of necessary equipment for radio
and television transmission and reception].

broadcasting to cuba

For expenses necessary to enable the United States
Information Agency to carry out the Radio Broadcasting to
Cuba Act, as amended, the Television Broadcasting to Cuba
Act, and the International Broadcasting Act of 1994,
including the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement
of facilities for radio and television transmission and
reception, and purchase and installation of necessary
equipment for radio and television transmission and
reception, $24,809,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That funds may be used to purchase or lease,
maintain, and operate such aircraft (including aerostats) as
may be required to house and operate necessary television
broadcasting equipment.

[[Page S 14485]]

radio construction

For an additional amount for the purchase, rent,
construction, and improvement of facilities for radio
transmission and reception and purchase and installation of
necessary equipment for radio and television transmission and
reception as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1471, [$70,164,000]
$40,000,000, to remain available until expended as authorized
by 22 U.S.C. 1477b(a).

east-west center

To enable the Director of the United States Information
Agency to provide for carrying out the provisions of the
Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East
and West Act of 1960 (22 U.S.C. 2054-2057), by grant to the
Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East
and West in the State of Hawaii, $10,000,000: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the
payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5376.

north/south center

To enable the Director of the United States Information
Agency to provide for carrying out the provisions of the
North/South Center Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2075), by grant to
an educational institution in Florida known as the North/
South Center, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended.

National Endowment for Democracy

For grants made by the United States Information Agency to
the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the
National Endowment for Democracy Act, $30,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.

TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

Operating-Differential Subsidies

(liquidation of contract authority)

For the payment of obligations incurred for operating-
differential subsidies as authorized by the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936, as amended, $162,610,000, to remain available
until expended.

Operations and Training

For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, [$64,600,000] $68,600,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Transportation may use proceeds derived from the sale or
disposal of National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels that are
currently collected and retained by the Maritime
Administration, to be used for facility and ship maintenance,
modernization and repair, conversion, acquisition of
equipment, and fuel costs necessary to maintain training at
the United States Merchant Marine Academy and State maritime
academies: Provided further, That reimbursements may be made
to this appropriation from receipts to the ``Federal Ship
Financing Fund'' for administrative expenses in support of
that program in addition to any amount heretofore
appropriated.

Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account

[For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the
Merchant Marine Act of 1936, $48,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $1,000,000,000.
[In addition, for] For administrative expenses to carry out
the guaranteed loan program, not to exceed [$4,000,000]
$2,000,000, which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for Operations and Training.

administrative provisions--maritime administration

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

Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

Salaries and Expenses

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

Commission on Civil Rights

Salaries and Expenses

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

Commission on Immigration Reform

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission on Immigration
Reform pursuant to section 141(f) of the Immigration Act of
1990, [$2,377,000] $1,894,000, to remain available until
expended.

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

salaries and expenses

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31
U.S.C. 1343(b); nonmonetary awards to private citizens; not
to exceed $26,500,000, for payments to State and local
enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant
to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1991; $233,000,000: Provided, That the
Commission is authorized to make available for official
reception and representation expenses not to exceed $2,500
from available funds.

Federal Communications Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; not
to exceed $600,000 for land and structures; not to exceed
$500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to
buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed sixteen) and
hire of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; [$185,232,000] $166,185,000, of
which not to exceed $300,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 1997, for research and policy studies:
Provided, That $116,400,000 of offsetting collections shall
be assessed and collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 1996 so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996
appropriation estimated at [$68,832,000] $49,785,000:
Provided further, That any offsetting collections received in
excess of $116,400,000 in fiscal year 1996 shall remain
available until expended, but shall not be available for
obligation until October 1, 1996.

Federal Maritime Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act of
1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1111), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02;
[$15,000,000] $14,855,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$2,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.

Federal Trade Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission,
including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000
for official reception and representation expenses;
[$82,928,000] $63,142,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$3,000,000 shall be available for use to contract with a
person or persons for collection services in accordance with
the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718, as amended: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to
exceed $48,262,000 of offsetting collections derived from
fees collected for premerger notification filings under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15
U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be retained and used for necessary
expenses in this appropriation, and

[[Page S 14486]]
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be reduced as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
1996, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than [$34,666,000] $14,880,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided further, That any fees received in excess
of $48,262,000 in fiscal year 1996 shall remain available
until expended, but shall not be available for obligation
until October 1, 1996: Provided further, That none of the
funds made available to the Federal Trade Commission shall be
available for obligation for expenses authorized by section
151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242, 105 Stat. 2282-2285).

Japan-United States Friendship Commission

Japan-United States Friendship Trust Fund

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

[Legal Services Corporation

[payment to the legal services corporation

[For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
as amended, $278,000,000 of which $265,000,000 is for basic
field programs; $8,000,000 is for the Office of the Inspector
General, of which $5,750,000 shall be used to contract with
independent auditing agencies for annual financial and
program audits of all grantees in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-133; and $5,000,000 is for
management and administration.

[Administrative Provisions--Legal Services Corporation

[Sec. 501. Funds appropriated under this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be distributed as follows:
[(1) The Corporation shall define geographic areas and
funds available for each geographic area shall be on a per
capita basis pursuant to the number of poor people determined
by the Bureau of the Census to be within that geographic
area: Provided, That funds for a geographic area may be
distributed by the Corporation to one or more persons or
entities eligible for funding under section 1006(a)(1)(A) of
the Legal Services Corporation Act, subject to sections 502
and 504 of this Act.
[(2) The amount of the grants from the Corporation and of
the contracts entered into by the Corporation in accordance
with paragraph (1) shall be an equal figure per poor person
for all geographic areas, based on the most recent decennial
census of population conducted pursuant to section 141 of
title 13, United States Code.
[Sec. 502. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be used by the
Corporation in making grants or entering into contracts for
the provision of legal assistance unless the Corporation
ensures that the person or entity receiving funding to
provide such legal assistance is--
[(1) a private attorney or attorneys admitted to practice
in one of the States or the District of Columbia;
[(2) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered under the
laws of one of the States or the District of Columbia, a
purpose of which is furnishing legal assistance to eligible
clients, the majority of the board of directors or other
governing body of which is comprised of attorneys who are
admitted to practice in one of the States or the District of
Columbia and who are appointed to terms of office on such
board or body by the governing bodies of State, county, or
municipal bar associations the membership of which represents
a majority of the attorneys practicing law in the locality in
which the organization is to provide legal assistance;
[(3) a State or local government (without regard to section
1006(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Legal Services Corporation Act); or
[(4) a substate regional planning or coordination agency
which is composed of a substate area whose governing board is
controlled by locally elected officials.
[Sec. 503. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation for grants or contracts to
basic field programs may be obligated unless such grants or
contracts are awarded on a competitive basis: Provided, That
not later than sixty days after enactment of this Act, the
Legal Services Corporation shall promulgate regulations to
implement a competitive selection process: Provided further,
That such regulations shall include, but not be limited to,
the following selection criteria:
[(1) The demonstration of a full understanding of the basic
legal needs of the eligible clients to be served and a
demonstration of the capability of serving those needs.
[(2) The quality, feasibility, and cost effectiveness of
plans submitted by the applicant for the delivery of legal
assistance to the eligible clients to be served.
[(3) The experiences of the Corporation with the applicant,
if the applicant has previously received financial assistance
from the Corporation, including the applicant's record of
past compliance with Corporation policies, practices, and
restrictions:

Provided further, That, such regulations shall ensure that
timely notice for the submission of applications for awards
is published in periodicals of local and State bar
associations and in at least one daily newspaper of general
circulation in the area to be served by the person or entity
receiving the award: Provided further, No person or entity
that was previously awarded a grant or contract by the Legal
Services Corporation for the provision of legal assistance
may be given any preference in the competitive selection
process: Provided further, That for the purposes of the
funding provided in this Act, rights under sections
1007(a)(9) and 1011 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42
U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 42 U.S.C. 2996j) shall not apply.
[Sec. 504. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation may be used to provide
financial assistance to any person or entity--
[(1) that makes available any funds, personnel, or
equipment for use in advocating or opposing any plan or
proposal, or represents any party or participates in any
other way in litigation, that is intended to or has the
effect of altering, revising, or reapportioning a
legislative, judicial, or elective district at any level of
government, including influencing the timing or manner of the
taking of a census;
[(2) that attempts to influence the issuance, amendment, or
revocation of any executive order, regulation, or similar
promulgation by any Federal, State, or local agency;
[(3) that attempts to influence any decision by a Federal,
State, or local agency, except when legal assistance is
provided by an employee of a grantee to an eligible client on
a particular application, claim, or case, which directly
involves the client's legal rights or responsibilities, and
which does not involve the issuance, amendment, or revocation
of any agency promulgation described in paragraph (2);
[(4) that attempts to influence the passage or defeat of
any legislation, constitutional amendment, referendum,
initiative, or any similar procedure of the Congress of the
United States, or by any State or local legislative body;
[(5) that attempts to influence the conduct of oversight
proceedings of the Corporation or any person or entity
receiving financial assistance provided by the Corporation;
[(6) that pays for any personal service, advertisement,
telegram, telephone communication, letter, printed or written
matter, administrative expenses, or related expenses,
associated with an activity prohibited in paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), or (5);
[(7) that brings a class action suit against the Federal
Government or any State or local government;
[(8) that files a complaint or otherwise pursues litigation
against a defendant, or engages in precomplaint settlement
negotiations with a prospective defendant, unless--
[(A) all plaintiffs have been specifically identified, by
name, in any complaint filed for purposes of litigation; and
[(B) a statement or statements of facts written in English
and, if necessary, in a language which the plaintiffs
understand, which enumerate the particular facts known to the
plaintiffs on which the complaint is based, have been signed
by the plaintiffs (including named plaintiffs in a class
action), are kept on file by the person or entity provided
financial assistance by the Corporation, and are made
available to any Federal department or agency that is
auditing the activities of the Corporation or of any
recipient, and to any auditor receiving Federal funds to
conduct such auditing, including any auditor or monitor of
the Corporation:
Provided, That upon establishment of reasonable cause that an
injunction is necessary to prevent probable, serious harm to
such potential plaintiff, a court of competent jurisdiction
may enjoin the disclosure of the identity of any potential
plaintiff pending the outcome of such litigation or
negotiations after notice and an opportunity for a hearing is
provided to potential parties to the litigation or the
negotiations: Provided further, That other parties shall have
access to the statement of facts referred to in subparagraph
(B) only through the discovery process after litigation has
begun;
[(9) unless, after January 1, 1996, and prior to the
provision of financial assistance--
[(A) the governing board of a person or entity receiving
financial assistance provided by the Legal Services
Corporation has set specific priorities in writing, pursuant
to section 1007(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Legal Services Corporation
Act, of the types of matters and cases to which the staff of
the nonprofit organization shall devote its time and
resources; and
[(B) the staff of such person or entity receiving financial
assistance provided by the Legal Services Corporation has
signed a written agreement not to undertake cases or matters
other than in accordance with the specific priorities set by
such governing board, except in emergency situations defined
by such board and in accordance with such board's written
procedures for such situations:

Provided, That the staff of such person or entity receiving
financial assistance provided by the Legal Services
Corporation shall provide to their respective governing board
on a quarterly basis, and to the Corporation on an annual
basis, all cases undertaken other than those in accordance
with such priorities: Provided further, That not later than
30

[[Page S 14487]]
days after enactment of this Act, the Corporation shall promulgate a
suggested list of priorities which boards of directors may
use in setting priorities under this paragraph;
[(10) unless, prior to receiving financial assistance
provided by the Legal Services Corporation, such person or
entity agrees to maintain records of time spent on each case
or matter with respect to which that person or entity is
engaged in activities: Provided, That any non-Federal funds
received by any person or entity provided financial
assistance by the Corporation shall be accounted for and
reported as receipts and disbursements separate and distinct
from Corporation funds: Provided further, That such person or
entity receiving financial assistance provided by the
Corporation agrees (notwithstanding section 1009(d) of the
Legal Services Corporation Act) to make such records
described in this paragraph available to any Federal
department, or agency or independent auditor receiving
Federal funds to conduct an audit of the activities of the
Corporation or recipient receiving funding under this Act;
[(11) that provides legal assistance for or on behalf of
any alien, unless the alien is present in the United States
and is--
[(A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as
defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20));
[(B) an alien who is either married to a United States
citizen or is a parent or an unmarried child under the age of
twenty-one years of such a citizen and who has filed an
application for adjustment of status to permanent resident
under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and such
application has not been rejected;
[(C) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States
pursuant to an admission under section 207 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee
admission) or who has been granted asylum by the Attorney
General under such Act;
[(D) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States
as a result of the Attorney General's withholding of
deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)); or
[(E) an alien to whom section 305 of the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 applies but only to the extent that
the legal assistance provided is that described in such
section:

Provided, That an alien who is lawfully present in the United
States as a result of being granted conditional entry
pursuant to section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980,
because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, or political calamity shall be deemed, for
purposes of this section, to be an alien described in
subparagraph (C);
[(12) that supports or conducts training programs for the
purpose of advocating particular public policies or
encouraging political activities, labor or anti-labor
activities, boycotts, picketing, strikes, and demonstrations,
including the dissemination of information about such
policies or activities, except that this paragraph shall not
be construed to prohibit the training of attorneys or
paralegal personnel to prepare them to provide adequate legal
assistance to eligible clients or to advise any eligible
client as to the nature of the legislative process or inform
any eligible client of his or her rights under statute,
order, or regulation;
[(13) that provides legal assistance with respect to any
fee-generating case: Provided, That for the purposes of this
paragraph the term ``fee-generating case'' means any case
which, if undertaken on behalf of an eligible client by an
attorney in private practice may reasonably be expected to
result in a fee for legal services from an award to a client
from public funds, from the opposing party, or from any other
source;
[(14) that claims, or whose employees or clients claim, or
collect attorneys' fees from nongovernmental parties to
litigation initiated by such client with the assistance of
such recipient or its employees;
[(15) that participates in any litigation with respect to
abortion;
[(16) that participates in any litigation on behalf of a
local, State, or Federal prisoner;
[(17) that provides legal representation for any person, or
participates in any other way, in litigation, lobbying, or
rulemaking involving efforts to reform a State or Federal
welfare system, except that this paragraph shall not preclude
a recipient from representing an individual client who is
seeking specific relief from a welfare agency where such
relief does not involve an effort to amend or otherwise
challenge existing law;
[(18) that defends a person in a proceeding to evict that
person from a public housing project if that person has been
charged with the illegal sale or distribution of a controlled
substance and if the eviction proceeding is brought by a
public housing agency because the illegal drug activity of
that person threatens the health or safety of other tenants
residing in the public housing project or employees of the
public housing agency: Provided, That for the purposes of
this paragraph, the term ``controlled substance'' has the
meaning given that term in section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802): Provided further, That for
the purposes of this paragraph, the terms ``public housing
project'' and ``public housing agency'' have the meanings
given those terms in section 3 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a);
[(19) unless such person or entity agrees that it and its
employees will not accept employment resulting from in-person
unsolicited advice to a nonattorney that such nonattorney
should obtain counsel or take legal action: Provided, That
such person or entity or its employees receiving financial
assistance provided by the Corporation shall also agree that
such person or entity will not refer such nonattorney to
another person or entity or its employees that are receiving
financial assistance provided by the Legal Services
Corporation; or
[(20) unless such person or entity enters into a
contractual agreement to be subject to all provisions of
Federal law relating to the proper use of Federal funds, the
violation of which shall render any grant or contractual
agreement to provide funding null and void: Provided, That
for such purposes the Corporation shall be considered to be a
Federal agency and all funds provided by the Corporation
shall be considered to be Federal funds provided by grant or
contract.
[Sec. 505. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation or provided by the Corporation
to any entity or person may be used to pay membership dues to
any private or non-profit organization.
[Sec. 506. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation may be used by any person or
entity receiving financial assistance from the Corporation to
file or pursue a lawsuit against the Corporation.
[Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation may be used for any purpose
prohibited or contrary to any of the provisions of
authorization legislation for fiscal year 1996 for the Legal
Services Corporation that is enacted into law: Provided,
That, upon enactment of Legal Services Corporation
reauthorization legislation, funding provided in this Act
shall from that date be subject to the provisions of that
legislation and any provisions in this Act that are
inconsistent with that legislation shall no longer have
effect.]

Marine Mammal Commission

salaries and expenses

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

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Federal Holiday Commission, as authorized by Public Law 98-
399, as amended, [$250,000] $350,000.

Securities and Exchange Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases)
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
[$103,445,000] $105,257,000, of which $3,600,000 are for the
Office of Economic Analysis, to be headed by the Chief
Economist of the Commission, and of which not to exceed
$10,000 may be used toward funding a permanent secretariat
for the International Organization of Securities Commissions,
and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be available for
expenses for consultations and meetings hosted by the
Commission with foreign governmental and other regulatory
officials, members of their delegations, appropriate
representatives and staff to exchange views concerning
developments relating to securities matters, development and
implementation of cooperation agreements concerning
securities matters and provision of technical assistance for
the development of foreign securities markets, such expenses
to include necessary logistic and administrative expenses and
the expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in
attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (i)
such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such
attendance, (ii) any travel or transportation to or from such
meetings, and (iii) any other related lodging or subsistence:
Provided, That immediately upon enactment of this Act, the
rate of fees under section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77f(b)) shall increase from one-fiftieth of 1 per
centum to one [twenty-ninth] thirty-fourth of 1 per centum
and such increase shall be deposited as an offsetting
collection to this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, to recover costs of services of the securities
registration process: Provided further, That no funds may be
used for the Office of Investor Education and Assistance, and
that $1,500,000 of the funds appropriated for the Commission
shall be available for the enforcement of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 in addition to any other appropriated
funds designated by the Commission for enforcement of such
Act.

Small Business Administration

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law
103-403, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed
$3,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
[$222,325,000] $197,903,000: Provided further, That the
Administrator is authorized to charge fees to cover the cost
of publications developed by the Small Business
Administration, and certain loan servicing activities:
Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,

[[Page S 14488]]
revenues received from all such activities shall be credited to this
account, to be available for carrying out these purposes
without further appropriations.

office of inspector general

business loans program account

For [the cost of direct loans, $5,000,000, and for] the
cost of guaranteed loans, [$146,710,000] $174,726,000, as
authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which [$1,700,000]
$1,216,000, to be available until expended, shall be for the
Microloan Guarantee Program, and of which $40,510,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 1997: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out [the
direct and] guaranteed loan programs, [$92,622,000]
$77,600,000, which may be transferred to and merged with the
appropriations for Salaries and Expenses.

disaster loans program account

For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act, as amended, $34,432,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, [$78,000,000] $62,400,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriations for
Salaries and Expenses.

surety bond guarantees revolving fund

For additional capital for the ``Surety Bond Guarantees
Revolving Fund'', authorized by the Small Business Investment
Act, as amended, $2,530,000, to remain available without
fiscal year limitation as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note.

administrative [provision] provisions--small business administration

Sec. 508. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Small Business
Administration in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 509. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no funds appropriated under this Act may be used in violation
of this subsection.
(2) Notwithstanding section 8 of the Small Business Act or
any other provision of law, in carrying out subsections (a)
and (d) of section 8 of the Small Business Act, the
Administrator shall provide assistance only to qualified
small business concerns.
(3) As used in this subsection--
(A) The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration.
(B) The term ``area of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and
general economic distress'' means an area that, based on the
most recent decennial census data available from the Bureau
of the Census, meets the following criteria--
(i) The unemployment rate for the area (as determined by
the appropriate available data) is not less than 1.5 times
the national unemployment rate, and
(ii) The poverty rate for the area (as determined by the
most recent census data available) for not less than 90
percent of the population census tract (or where not tracted,
the equivalent county divisions as defined by the Bureau of
the Census for the purposes of defining poverty areas)
located entirely within the area is not less than 20 percent.
(C) The term ``small business concern'' has the same
meaning as in section 3 of the Small Business Act.
(D) Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the
term ``qualified business'' means any trade or business that
is a qualified business under the Small Business Act on the
date of enactment of this Act, except that such a business
that fails to meet the applicable location and employment
requirements under such Act shall not be a qualified
business.
(E) The term ``qualified small business concern'' means,
with respect to any fiscal year of the small business
concern, any small business concern, if for such year--
(i) every trade or business of such small business concern
is the active conduct of a qualified business within an area
of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general economic
distress;
(ii) not less than 80 percent of the total gross income of
such small business concern is derived from the active
conduct of such business; and
(iii) not less than 35 percent of the total payroll of such
small business concern is paid to employees who are residents
of an area of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general
economic distress.

State Justice Institute

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by The State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-572 (106 Stat. 4515-4516)),
$5,000,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, That
not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses.

TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 1996, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of
Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 1996, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that (1)
augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of
both Houses of Congress are notified fifteen days in advance
of such reprogramming of funds.
[Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency
repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
shipyards located outside of the United States.]
Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering
harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the
Federal entity or official to which such funds are made
available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect
from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on
October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
[Sec. 609. Limitation on the Use of Funds for Diplomatic
Facilities in Vietnam.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or
expended to pay for any cost incurred for (1) opening or
operating any United States diplomatic or consular post in
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was not operating on
July 11, 1995; (2) expanding any United States diplomatic or
consular post in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was
operating on July 11, 1995; or (3) increasing the total
number of personnel assigned to United States diplomatic or
consular posts in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam above the
levels existing on July 11, 1995.]
Sec. 610. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds (1) that the United Nations undertaking is
a peacekeeping mission, (2) that such undertaking will
involve United States Armed Forces under the command or
operational control of a foreign national, and (3) that the
President's military

[[Page S 14489]]
advisors have not submitted to the President a recommendation that such
involvement is in the national security interests of the
United States and the President has not submitted to the
Congress such a recommendation.
Sec. 611. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used to provide the following amenities or personal
comforts in the Federal prison system--
(1) in-cell television viewing except for prisoners who are
segregated from the general prison population for their own
safety;
(2) the viewing of R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, through
whatever medium presented;
(3) any instruction (live or through broadcasts) or
training equipment for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or
other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting
equipment of any sort;
(4) possession of in-cell coffee pots, hot plates, or
heating elements; or
(5) the use or possession of any electric or electronic
musical instrument.
Sec. 612. None of the funds made available in title II for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the
heading ``Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding and Conversion''
may be used to implement sections 603, 604, and 605 of Public
Law 102-567.
Sec. 613. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for ``USIA Television Marti Program'' under the
Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act or any other program of
United States Government television broadcasts to Cuba, when
it is made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that such use would be
inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the March 1995
Office of Cuba Broadcasting Reinventing Plan of the United
States Information Agency.
Sec. 614. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no funds appropriated under this Act may be used in violation
of the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3).
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the
Federal Government nor any officer, employee, or department
or agency of the Federal Government--
(A) may intentionally discriminate against, or may grant a
preference to, any individual or group based in whole or in
part on race, color, national origin, or sex, in connection
with--
(i) a Federal contract or subcontract;
(ii) Federal employment; or
(iii) any other federally conducted program or activity;
(B) may require or encourage any Federal contractor or
subcontractor to intentionally discriminate against, or grant
a preference to, any individual or group based in whole or in
part on race, color, national origin, or sex; or
(C) may enter into a consent decree that requires,
authorizes, or permits any activity prohibited by
subparagraph (A) or (B).
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prohibit or limit any effort by the Federal Government or any
officer, employee, or department or agency of the Federal
Government--
(A) to recruit qualified women or qualified minorities into
an applicant pool for Federal employment or to encourage
businesses owned by women or by minorities to bid for Federal
contracts or subcontracts, if such recruitment or
encouragement does not involve using a numerical objective,
or otherwise granting a preference, based in whole or in part
on race, color, national origin, or sex, in selecting any
individual or group for the relevant employment, contract or
subcontract, benefit, opportunity, or program; or
(B) to require or encourage any Federal contractor or
subcontractor to recruit qualified women or qualified
minorities into an applicant pool for employment or to
encourage businesses owned by women or by minorities to bid
for Federal contracts or subcontracts, if such requirement or
encouragement does not involve using a numerical objective,
or otherwise granting a preference, based in whole or in part
on race, color, national origin, or sex, in selecting any
individual or group for the relevant employment, contract or
subcontract, benefit, opportunity, or program.
(4)(A) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prohibit or limit any Act that is designated to benefit an
institution that is a historically Black college or
university on the basis that the institution is a
historically Black college or university.
(B) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prohibit or limit any action taken--
(i) pursuant to a law enacted under the constitutional
papers of Congress relating to the Indian tribes; or
(ii) under a treaty between an Indian tribe and the United
States.
(C) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prohibit or limit any classification based on sex if--
(i) sex is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Federal
Government entity or Federal contractor or subcontractor
involved;
(ii) the classification is designed to protect the privacy
of individuals; or
(iii)(I) the occupancy of the position for which the
classification is made, or access to the premises in or on
which any part of the duties of such position is performed or
is to be performed, is subject to any requirement imposed in
the interest of the national security of the United States
under any security program in effect pursuant to or
administered under any Act or any Executive order of the
President; or
(II) the classification is applied with respect to a member
of the Armed Forces serving on active duty in a theatre of
combat operations (as determined by the Secretary of
Defense).
(5)(A) In any action involving a violation of this
subsection, a court may award only injunctive or equitable
relief (including but not limited to back pay), a reasonable
attorney's fee, and costs.
(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect
any remedy available under any other law.
(6)(A) This subsection shall not affect any case pending on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) This subsection shall not affect any contract,
subcontract, or consent decree in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act, including any option exercised under
such contract or subcontract before or after such date of
enactment.
(7) This subsection does not prohibit or limit the
availability of funds to implement a--
(A) court order or consent decree issued before the date of
enactment of this Act; or
(B) court order or consent decree that--
(i) is issued on or after the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(ii) provides a remedy based on a finding or discrimination
by a person to whom the order applies.
(8) As used in this subsection--
(A) The term ``Federal Government'' means the executive and
legislative branches of the Government of the United States.
(B) The term ``grant a preference'' means use of any
preferential treatment and includes but is not limited to any
use of a quota, set-aside, numerical goal, timetable, or
other numerical objective.
(C) The term ``historically Black college or university''
means a part B institution, as defined in section 322(2) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (920 U.S.C. 1061(2)).
Sec. 615. (1) This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Turning
Out Prisoners Act''.
(2) In General.--Section 3626 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison
conditions

``(a) Requirements for Relief.--
``(1) Limitations on prospective relief.--Prospective
relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions
shall extend no further than necessary to remove the
conditions that are causing the deprivation of the Federal
rights of individual plaintiffs in that civil action. The
court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief
unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn and
the least intrusive means to remedy the violation of the
Federal right. In determining the intrusiveness of the
relief, the court shall give substantial weight to any
adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a
criminal justice system caused by the relief.
``(2) Prison population reduction relief.--In any civil
action with respect to prison conditions, the court shall not
grant or approve any relief the purpose or effect of which is
to reduce or limit the prison population, unless the
plaintiff proves that crowding is the primary cause of the
deprivation of the Federal right and no other relief will
remedy that deprivation.
``(b) Termination of Relief.--
``(1) Automatic termination of prospective relief after 2-
year period.--In any civil action with respect to prison
conditions, any prospective relief shall automatically
terminate 2 years after the later of--
``(A) the date the court found the violation of a Federal
right that was the basis for the relief; or
``(B) the date of the enactment of the Stop Turning Out
Prisoners Act.
``(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In any
civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant
or intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination
of any prospective relief, if that relief was approved or
granted in the absence of a finding by the court that prison
conditions violated a Federal right.
``(c) Procedure for Motions Affecting Prospective Relief.--
``(1) Generally.--The court shall promptly rule on any
motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil
action with respect to prison conditions.
``(2) Automatic stay.--Any prospective relief subject to a
pending motion shall be automatically stayed during the
period--
``(A) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is filed,
in the case of a motion made under subsection (b); and
``(B) beginning on the 180th day after such motion is
filed, in the case of a motion made under any other law;
and ending on the date the court enters a final order ruling
on that motion.
``(d) Standing.--Any Federal, State, or local official or
unit of government--
``(1) whose jurisdiction or function includes the
prosecution or custody of persons in a prison subject to; or
``(2) who otherwise is or may be affected by;
any relief the purpose or effect of which is to reduce or
limit the prison population shall have standing to oppose the
imposition or continuation in effect of that relief and may
intervene in any proceeding relating to that relief. Standing
shall be liberally conferred under this subsection so as to
effectuate the remedial purposes of this section.
``(e) Special Masters.--In any civil action in a Federal
court with respect to prison conditions, any special master
or monitor shall be a United States magistrate and shall make
proposed findings on the record on complicated factual issues
submitted to that special master or monitor by the court, but
shall have no other function. The parties may not by consent
extend the function of a special master beyond that permitted
under this subsection.
``(f) Attorney's Fees.--No attorney's fee under section 722
of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988)
may be granted to a plaintiff in a civil action with respect
to prison conditions except to the extent such fee is--
``(1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual
violation of the plaintiff's Federal rights; and

[[Page S 14490]]

``(2) proportionally related to the extent the plaintiff
obtains court ordered relief for that violation.
``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `prison' means any Federal, State, or local
facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles or adults
accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated
delinquent for, violations of criminal law;
``(2) the term `relief' means all relief in any form which
may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent
decrees and settlement agreements; and
``(3) the term `prospective relief' means all relief other
than compensatory monetary damages.''.
(3) Application of Amendment.--Section 3626 of title 18,
United States Code, as amended by this section, shall apply
with respect to all relief (as defined in such section)
whether such relief was originally granted or approved
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter C of chapter 229 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``crowding'' and
inserting ``conditions''.

TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

General Administration

working capital fund

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$35,000,000 are rescinded.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

information infrastructure grants

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$36,769,000 are rescinded.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

construction of research facilities

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$152,993,000 are rescinded.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Administration of Foreign Affairs

acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$115,000,000 are rescinded.

RELATED AGENCIES

United States Information Agency

radio construction

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$7,400,000 are rescinded.
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1996''.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have before us a very complicated bill,
a very controversial bill. We are attempting to establish a sequence of
activity with a goal of trying to expedite its consideration.
In order that we might try to get all this to come together in an
orderly fashion, because I know many of our colleagues hope to be gone
this weekend--even though, knowing I would be managing the bill, I plan
to be here tomorrow and Saturday, so I am in no hurry; I want to be
sure my colleagues understand that--but in order to try to expedite our
consideration here, we have put together an amendment that will be
offered by Senator Hatfield, the distinguished chairman of the full
committee, an amendment that is cosponsored by Senator Hollings.
It has to do with adding to our 602(b) allocation; that is,
allocating additional money to the subcommittee and then disbursing
that money in such a way as to deal with some of the concerns that have
been raised against the bill. And so that we could deal with this in an
orderly fashion, I would like to propound a unanimous-consent request
that we have opening statements by the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee, by myself, by any other Senator who would like to
make an opening statement; that then it be in order for us to submit
for consideration managers' amendments that have been agreed to on both
sides and any debate there might be on them; and then I would like it
to be in order for the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator
Hatfield, to offer his amendment with Senator Hollings because it
addresses numerous issues.
If we do not do it in that way, we are probably going to simply use
up time as we try to deal with those issues one by one. We can
certainly proceed without this unanimous-consent request, but I hope
our colleagues will indulge us since our objective is simply to try to
expedite consideration of the bill.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this procedure has been agreed to, so I
hope we can proceed along that line.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from Texas
yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I would be very happy to yield.
Mr. BYRD. The distinguished chairman spoke of a reallocation of
resources?
Mr. GRAMM. Yes, I did.
Mr. BYRD. The chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the
full committee are authorized to approve such reallocation. Nobody has
proposed this to the ranking member as yet about such a reallocation of
resources.
Would the Senator inform me as to whether or not I am going to be
contacted on that matter?
Mr. GRAMM. Well, if I might say to the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia, this is not my amendment. There has been a series of
discussions among Members. Basically what the Senator from Oregon has
been doing is trying to find a way through our impasse.
As I am sure our colleagues are aware, our appropriations bill has
$4.26 billion less than requested by the President for our
subcommittee. It has $1.9 billion less than a freeze. And it has $870
million less than the House.
Senator Hatfield has been working with Senator Hollings and others to
try to allocate funds to this subcommittee. I was unaware, I must say,
that that had not been discussed with the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia.
I have an outline of the amendment. But probably what I should do
under this circumstance is simply ask unanimous consent that we be able
to do opening statements, that we be able to do the technical managers'
amendments we have agreed to, give the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia an opportunity to discuss this with Senator Hatfield, who is
in a meeting with the Secretary of Energy on something very important
in his State right now.
When the agreement has been reached and the ranking member, Senator
Byrd, is satisfied, then we can proceed with it. And, again, this is
not my amendment; I have not been directly involved in it even though I
have concluded that this is a prudent thing for us to do.
Mr. BYRD. Well, I certainly thank the distinguished Senator. I know
that it is an oversight, an inadvertent one. I want to make clear that
such authorizations of reallocations have to be made by both the
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. And we make
those after contacting various and sundry subcommittee chairmen. And I
do not anticipate any problem along that line. But I thought I had
better make mention of this before it becomes a problem.
Mr. GRAMM. Well, Mr. President, let me just then ask unanimous
consent that we have opening statements by Senator Hollings and myself
and any other Member who would wish to make an opening statement, that
it also be in order for us to offer managers' amendments where we have
agreement on both sides of the aisle, and that when an agreement is
reached between the distinguished chairman of the full committee and
the ranking member, Senator Byrd, that at that point it be in order for
Senator Hatfield to offer his amendment which deals with some 20
different subjects. I think by doing it that way, we can expedite
consideration.
So I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to have opening
statements, that it be in order for me to offer, on behalf of myself
and Senator Hollings, managers' amendments where there is agreement on
both sides of the aisle, and that it then be in order, when Senator
Byrd has agreed, for the distinguished chairman of the full committee,
Senator Hatfield, to offer an amendment on behalf of himself and
Senator Hollings.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not
sure I heard the entire request. I apologize to the Senator from Texas.
We would certainly have no objection to opening statements at this
point. Because no one has had the opportunity to see these amendments,
we have had requests on our side that prior to the time we agree to any
kind of unanimous-consent agreement which would

[[Page S 14491]]
involve these amendments that Senators have the opportunity to look at
them.
So, we would have to object to anything beyond the opportunity to
make opening statements at this point.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we are certainly narrowing it down to
opening statements.
So with that, I ask unanimous consent that we begin opening
statements and that it not be in order to offer an amendment until
those opening statements are completed; at that point that--let me
state it this way: I ask unanimous consent that it be in order now to
have opening statements; that at the conclusion of the opening
statements, subject to the agreement of the minority leader, at that
point that it be in order for the distinguished Senator from Oregon,
Senator Hatfield, to offer an amendment on behalf of himself and
Senator Hollings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me try to give an opening statement on
a very complicated bill without getting into too many of the details
but in such a way as to basically cover the issues that are involved in
this bill.
I think there are many reasons why this is a very complicated and a
very controversial bill. One reason is money. This bill, probably more
than any other appropriation that we will consider this year, has a
very tight budget. It, in fact, provides $4.26 billion less for
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations than was requested by the
President.
It provides almost $2 billion less than a nominal freeze in the
current level of appropriations for Commerce-State-Justice. And I
remind my colleagues that, compared to some of the larger appropriation
accounts, this is a fairly small appropriations bill in terms of actual
dollar outlays. So when we are talking about $2 billion less for fiscal
year 1996 than we are spending this year, we are talking about a
substantial reduction in the ability to expend money for the carrying
out of functions in the Department of Commerce, the Department of
State, and the Department of Justice.
The bill also has almost $900 million less than our counterparts in
the House had. And this is the first point I want my colleagues to
understand. When the President criticized this bill for not providing
funding for purposes for which he requested funding, it is important
for our colleagues--and, quite frankly, it is important for those who
are following this debate--to understand that we are operating under a
totally different budget than the President proposed.
Our budget comes into balance in 7 years. Our budget substantially
reduces discretionary spending. Our budget imposes very real
constraints on spending money.
The President, in proposing $4.3 billion more for these three
Departments of Government than we proposed, does so in a budget that
will not be in balance by the second coming. It does so in a budget
that will not bring the deficit below $200 billion in a decade.
So the fact that the President, in his budget, can request funding
for many functions that we do not fund is simply a testament to the
fact that our budget is a binding budget that is balanced over 7 years
and the President's budget is not.
There are several ways to approach the writing of an appropriations
bill where you have to cut $4.3 billion. One way--and, quite frankly,
in no way being critical, but I want people to understand why this is
such a controversial bill--one way is to take the approach which has
been taken in most other appropriations bills, and that is to simply
take the level of savings that is dictated, nick a whole bunch of
programs a little bit and, basically, take the approach that you are
going to sort of hunker down and not fundamentally change anything.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that this is roughly equivalent to an
action that a family which is running out of money might take at the
end of the month when they say, ``Well, we're running out of money and
what we're going to do is spend a little bit less going to the movie
and spend a little bit less on milk for the children.''
As we know, families do not operate that way. Families set
priorities. Families decide toward the end of the month when they are
running out of money that they are not going to go to the movie, but
that they are going to continue to buy their children milk.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I decided that if we were shooting
with real bullets, if we were going to write an appropriations bill now
that set out a path to balance the budget over 7 years, that we ought
to recognize, to begin with, that we are going to have less money next
year than we had this year, less the next, and less in each successive
year for the next 6 years.
So I made the decision to terminate programs, to set priorities. My
original recommendation terminated some 12 programs outright. It also
set very strong priorities. It was my decision as chairman of the
subcommittee that not all programs in the Commerce, State, Justice
appropriations bill were created equally. I believe that the American
people have very strong preferences, and what I have tried to do within
the monetary constraints that I have had as chairman, and this has been
supported by the majority in both the subcommittee and the full
committee, is to try to fund the President's effort in fighting crime.
I am very proud of the fact that this bill fully funds the FBI and the
DEA. It fully funds our efforts to incarcerate violent criminals. It
provides a strong funding increase for the courts to hire prosecutors
to provide the system of criminal and civil justice that we need to
deal with the problems that we face.
This bill provides a substantial increase in funding for the Justice
Department, funding for our effort to fight violent crime, funding for
our effort to fight drugs.
I will come back in a moment and talk about changes in how the
Justice Department would function, but let me make this point. While we
provide, basically, the same level of funding requested by the
President, we have in subcommittee and full committee on this bill
changed the allocation of funding. In the crime trust fund, we spend
less money on social programs, we spend more money building prisons. It
is a belief of the subcommittee and the full committee that we need to
get tough on violent crime, and we try to do that in this crime bill.
The second area that we fund in this bill has to do with the
Department of State. I have to say, Mr. President, that I have been
somewhat disappointed. I visited with the Secretary of State. I
explained to the Secretary of State the simple arithmetic of this bill,
and the simple arithmetic of this bill is as follows:
If we provide roughly the level of funding requested by the President
for the Justice Department, if we provide funding for half of the
increase requested by the Federal judiciary, what that means is, given
the amount of money we have left, that we have to cut every other
program by an average of 36 percent. That is the cold reality that we
are looking at.
I tried to explain to the Secretary of State that that was basically
where we were and that that meant that we were going to have to reduce
the level of funding for the State Department by roughly 20 percent.
That is actually better treatment than we provided for the Commerce
Department in this bill.
We have not adopted the authorization bill for the State Department,
but a majority of the Members of the Senate have voted for that
authorization. It has been filibustered. We have been unable to get 60
votes and, as a result, what I did in writing the appropriations bill
is I took the authorization bill which has received a majority vote in
the Senate on a cloture motion and I used it as the blueprint to write
funding for the State Department.
The basic reductions that occur in the State Department budget have
to do with American payments for membership in world organizations. The
distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, in his
authorization bill, dramatically reduces the amount of taxpayer funding
that goes to world organizations to promote objectives that, at least
in the minds of the majority of the Members of the Senate, did not
reflect the will of the American people.
I think it is important to note, and I want to be sure that it is
part of the Record, that despite all of the moaning from the State
Department that somehow not a sufficient account is taken in this bill
that representing

[[Page S 14492]]
America abroad today is a dangerous business, something that I
understand, I appreciate the sacrifice that is made by people who work
in the State Department.
As a result, I have fully funded every penny requested by the
President in his budget for such expenditures. Even though he spends
$4.3 billion more in his budget than we are allowed to spend in ours, I
fund every penny the President requests for security abroad for both
our Embassies and our personnel.
So the criticism of the State Department that somehow we are
underfunding the State Department and the needs of its people is simply
verifiably false.
This is a tough budget. It does reflect the fact that the American
people do not believe that we are getting our money's worth with all of
these world organizations where we pay the bulk of the dues and have a
relatively small say in what they do and on how our money is spent.
I think the plain truth is the American people understand that in the
postwar period, America has been like a little rich kid in the middle
of a slum with a cake. The whole world has looked at this cake and
wanted a piece of it. We literally have run all over the world handing
out pieces of this cake. Nobody has loved us for it. In fact, in many
cases, they have not loved us, thinking they should have gotten more.
The fundamental philosophy behind this appropriations bill is we need
to stop sharing the cake, and we need to start sharing the recipe we
used to bake the cake, which is free enterprise, individual liberty,
and private property.

So in the State Department appropriations bill, we provide $4.4
billion. The President requested $5.6 billion. Much of this reduction
is taken in membership in world organizations. And, quite frankly,
while this can be debated forever, I would be perfectly content to take
my appropriations bill, take the President's budget, to tear the title
page off, to put each of them on the table in every kitchen of every
working American and let them decide whether they want money spent
funding the war on violent crime in America, the war on drugs, gaining
control of our borders, or whether they want the money spent paying
dues to organizations around the world where the United States is now a
member of these organizations and, in many cases, is paying the bulk of
the dues.
I do not think there is any doubt that the American people would
choose the position that I have chosen. It seems to me that is why the
State Department has not wanted to debate the real issue here.
In terms of the Commerce Department, let me remind my colleagues that
the budget that we adopted in the Senate was a budget that called for
the elimination of the Commerce Department. I have listened to my
colleagues talk about eliminating departments, and I then look at their
willingness to vote to actually cut the programs, and I often see a
gulf between the rhetoric and the reality. It is almost as if when
people are talking about eliminating departments, they want to go down
and take down the flag and take down the plaque off the wall, but they
want the Government to keep doing the things the Department has been
doing.
When we adopted a budget that called for the elimination of the
Commerce Department, when the Government Operations Committee reported
a bill to eliminate the Commerce Department, I, as chairman of this
subcommittee, believed that they were serious. And, as a result, we
dramatically reduce spending in the Commerce Department. We set up a
procedure to provide funds for current employees, and we provide the
mechanism that would allow us, if in fact we pass the authorizing bill,
to terminate the Department, and to do it in an orderly fashion.
Now, many of the people who voted for the budget to eliminate the
Department want to preserve some of its programs and, obviously, we are
going to have votes on those. There are many programs within the
Commerce Department that this bill eliminates outright. But, basically,
it is a bill that begins the process of dramatically reducing the level
of expenditures for activities where the Government is attempting to
pick winners and losers in the American economy. There is a fundamental
philosophical difference between the two parties on this issue. The
party which I represent--the philosophy I believe in--believes that the
market system ought to be the basic determining factor of who gets
money to invest; that Government does not have the wisdom to make that
decision and, quite frankly, even if it had the wisdom to make that
decision, since it is inherently a political decision, it would not
make that decision very well.
That is an outline of the expenditures of the bill. As I said, the
bill eliminates some dozen programs from the Minority Business
Development Agency to the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, to
the Technology Administration, to the information infrastructure
grants, to the Death Penalty Resource Centers, to the Competitive
Policy Council, the Ounce of Prevention Council, and the bill
eliminates Legal Services as a Federal program.
Now, let me talk about the language changes in the bill, because
almost every one of these provisions is controversial. So let me try to
tick through basically what the bill does.
The House appropriations bill appropriated to their crime bill, which
was part of the Contract With America. The Senate has not passed a
crime bill. The crime bill passed in the House contemplated and, in
fact, provided a dramatic change in the President's program to provide
funds to State and local governments. We had no corresponding bill pass
in the Senate, but we do have a bill that has been introduced by
Senator Hatch in conjunction with Senator Dole. To make the House and
Senate crime bills conformable, it was decided by the subcommittee and
the full committee to write in the allocation formula from the Dole-
Hatfield proposal, so that both appropriations bills are moving in the
same direction toward block grants. Needless to say, with Senator
Biden, this has been a very controversial subject, and we have worked
out an agreement where Senator Biden will offer a substitute for this
provision.
Senator Hatch and Senator Dole would like to change their proposal,
which was written into the bill, and so they will basically put the
ball in the air. Each will submit alternatives, and we will determine,
based on a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, what direction we move
in.
But let me be sure that everybody understands what the bill before us
does in this area. The bill before us would allow communities to carry
out the community policing program exactly as the President proposed,
if they choose to. In the bill before us, we would allocate funds to
local police departments, and they would have the ability to do
community policing exactly as the President has proposed, if they
choose to do it. The objection that has been leveled against this block
grant is not that they cannot do what the President has proposed we do,
but that they have the option of doing it in a different way. The
objection to our language is not a dispute about the President's
program so much as it is a dispute in the ability of local government
and local chiefs of police to decide to use the money in a different
way if they think that will work better for them.
We have set out a guideline on how the money could be used. If people
chose to do community policing, to put more policemen on the beat, as
our crime bill last year proposed, and as the President supports, they
could do that. If they decide that they want to have more policemen on
the beat, but they want to use the funds for training, they could do
that. If they decide that they want to work overtime to get better
trained police officers on the street now while they bring new trainees
into the police academy, they could do that. If they decide they need
to use the funds to buy equipment to make their system more efficient,
they could do that. But they have the capacity to carry out the program
as the President has proposed, if they choose to.
The second change in language has to do with the Legal Services
Corporation. It is not news to any of my colleagues that I am not a fan
of the Legal Services Corporation. I believe that is has some
legitimate functions. But I think that, in many cases, they have not
carried those functions out.

[[Page S 14493]]
Legal Services Corporation today has a lawsuit underway against every
State in the Union that has tried to reform welfare. Every time any
State in the Union has had a mandatory work requirement, the Legal
Services Corporation has filed a lawsuit against them. Any time any
State in the Union has tried to deny additional benefits to welfare
recipients who have additional children on welfare, the Legal Services
Corporation has filed a lawsuit against them.
The Legal Services Corporation has a long history of using taxpayer
funds to promote causes which are not taxpayers' causes. My view is,
Mr. President, that if someone wants to file a lawsuit against the
State of New Jersey saying that they cannot have a mandatory work
requirement for welfare recipients because it violates the
constitutional rights of welfare recipients to have to work, people
ought to have a right to file that lawsuit. But they ought not to use
taxpayers' money to do it.
In any case, after many years of battling on this issue, this year I
proposed--and was successful--in the initial mark to eliminate the
Legal Services Corporation outright.
I did not have the votes in subcommittee to do that. An agreement was
reached where we eliminate the Federal Legal Services Corporation. We
take roughly half the money that it is now spending and we give that
money in a block grant to State governments. Then State governments,
within a set of guidelines which limit the ability of organizations
that take Federal taxpayers' money to engage, basically, in the
promotion of class action suits, opposing welfare, and a series of
other restrictions based on past concerns--have block grants to spend
on legal services. It provides roughly half the funds that the existing
program provides.
Another controversial area of language in the bill has to do with
prisoners' work. This is an issue which I feel very strongly about. I
do not have much doubt in my mind that when the votes are counted on
the floor of the Senate, I am going to lose on this issue. But I want
the American people to know about it. Part of my reward for being
chairman is that now people have to take this provision out.
Let me define the problem. To keep someone in the Federal
penitentiary this year is going to cost the Federal taxpayers $22,000.
We could send somebody to Harvard for what we are going to pay to keep
them in the Federal penitentiary. We are paying more to keep someone in
the Federal penitentiary than they would make if they could earn twice
the minimum wage working.
Now, why is that so? Part of the reason is because of the way we
build prisons. I have tried in this bill to begin moving us in the
direction of stopping the building of Federal prisons like Holiday
Inns, taking out the air conditioner, the color television, the weight
room. The key ingredient in this direction is requiring Federal
prisoners to work.
Now, this is where we run headlong into greedy special interests.
This is not just the greedy special interests of organized labor. It is
also, quite frankly, the greedy special interests of corporate America.
It is the greedy special interests of big business, and it is the
greedy special interests of small business.
We have three laws in effect that basically criminalize working
Federal prisoners. It is basically criminal in America for prisoners to
work in any conventional sense of working. Most Americans have not the
foggiest idea this is true, and they would go absolutely berserk if
they understood it.
These three laws basically go back to the Depression era when we took
a criminal justice system where prisoners were working, where they were
to a substantial degree paying the cost of their own incarceration, and
in the Depression era we started eliminating their ability to work.
Now, some people could argue--though I would never make the
argument--that it may have made sense in the Depression because by not
having prisoners do something, someone else could do it and it would
create a job. If one could have made that argument in the Depression,
they cannot make that argument today.
We have one Federal statute that makes it illegal for prisoners to
work in producing anything sold in interstate commerce. We have a law
that makes it illegal for a prisoner to produce anything that is
transported in interstate commerce. We have another law that makes it
illegal for prisoners to produce anything that is sold within the State
in which it is produced. Then we have another provision that sets out
guidelines where, if prisoners did produce something that was sold in
the private market, they would have to be paid union scale.
Let me translate all of those amendments and what they mean. What
that means, in essence, is you cannot make prisoners work in producing
anything to sell in the private sector of the economy.
All over the country we have 100,000 people in the Federal
penitentiary. We have 1 million people incarcerated in America. By and
large, except for producing a handful of things that are relatively
insignificant in value as compared to the total economy, they cannot
work.
Now, we have a bunch of programs in States where prisoners produce
car tags. We have a Federal program where they produce furniture for
the Federal Government. But by and large these laws prevent us from
putting prisoners to work. I would like prisoners to work 10 hours a
day 6 days a week. I would like to turn our Federal prisons into
industrial parks.
What I have done in this bill is I have overturned these three laws,
and I have set out a simple guideline. What the bill says is that it is
legal for prisoners to be required to work so long as the President
certifies that what they produce is not sold in such a way as to glut a
local market or to glut the national market.
What I foresee under this provision, if it becomes law, is that we
could turn our Federal prisons into industrial parks. Many of the goods
that are produced abroad, component parts from everything from air
conditioners to wheelbarrows to automobiles, we could produce some of
those component parts with prison labor.
If we stopped building prisons like Holiday Inns, we could probably
cut the $22,000 in half. If we required prisoners to work, we could
probably cut the $11,000 of net cost in half. I believe that within a
decade we could cut the cost of incarcerating people by 75 percent. But
we are probably not going to do it. Let me tell you why. Because
organized labor and because a few industries that do not want any
competition will support the offering of an amendment that will
continue to criminalize prison labor in America.
Now, I offered this provision in our bill because I think it is
needed. I think when you have 1 million people incarcerated, it is
inhumane not to have an orderly system where they can work. I will not
drag this dead cat across the table too many more times here, but I
want to remind my colleagues that when Alexis de Tocqueville came to
America in the 1830's and went back home and wrote ``Democracy in
America,'' one part of American life that he commented on was our
prison system and how enlightened it was because we worked prisoners
hard. Prisoners at that time were working 12, 14 hours a day 6 days a
week, and de Tocqueville noted how enlightened it was because by making
prisoners work it made life in prison bearable.
If we made prisoners work today, not only would we save money, but
people when they got out of prison would have a skill that they learned
working in prison. If we made them go to school at night, they would
know how to read and write, and having worked 10 hours a day 6 days a
week, go to school at night, serve their full term, when they get out
of prison they would not want to go back.
That is not going to happen because this provision is going to be
stricken out by special interests. I know it, but I want people to have
to vote on it, and I want people to be able to look at their vote.
Prisoners in America should be required to work. They should be allowed
to work in producing things that we can sell.
Every year our dear colleague, Senator Helms, offers an amendment to
ban trade with countries that make prisoners work. Every year I wonder
why we cannot make our prisoners work. How is it that we have people
who are working two and three jobs,

[[Page S 14494]]
struggling to make ends meet, and we are paying $22,000 a year to keep
somebody in prison, and then we cannot force them to work to produce
something of value to pay for their own incarceration?
It is called greedy, petty, special interests. The world ought to
know about it. I hope to awaken them by putting this provision in this
bill that somebody has to take out.
Now let me talk very briefly about two other language provisions in
the bill. One has to do with the 8(a) program. The 8(a) program is
designed to help disadvantaged businesses. The basic idea of the 8(a)
program was that there are some businesses that are disadvantaged and
that we want to try to help them get on the playing field and be more
competitive.
The problem is that over the years, disadvantaged has come to mean
minority or female. You cannot be disadvantaged, under the 8(a)
contract, if you are not a minority and if you are male. So what I try
to do is open up the 8(a) contract and say, no matter what your gender
is, no matter what your race is, if you are operating in a depressed
area, if you are a small, struggling business and you are hiring people
who live in a distressed area, you ought to be treated in exactly the
same way as someone doing exactly the same things you are who is from a
different ethnic group or from a different gender.
We do not eliminate the 8(a) program, we simply open it up to people
who are disadvantaged because they are small business people in
depressed areas with high unemployment and they are hiring people from
those areas.
This is a controversial subject. I understand that. But I believe,
again, if we could put this proposal on the kitchen table in every
kitchen in America and ask, if somebody is a small business person, if
they are operating in an area of high unemployment, if they are hiring
people who are from a high unemployment area, why should they be
discriminated against based on race or gender? I think America has
asked that question and I think America has answered it. They are
waiting for the U.S. Senate to answer it and I want to give them a
chance to answer it today.
The final provision I want to talk about in the bill, in terms of
language, has to do with quotas and set-asides. I understand where the
Senate stands on this issue. Of all people here, I understand it. I
offered an amendment earlier this year to ban set-asides, to open up
competition, and to say that in bidding on a Government contract you
have to be judged on merit; that you cannot be judged based on gender
or race. The American people say, by an 80-percent margin, that they
support the merit system. America was built on it. Discriminating
against people is fundamentally un-American, but the Senate supports
discrimination and proved it on that night in that amendment.
This is my bill, as chairman of this subcommittee, and I am very
proud of the fact that we have, in this bill, in the jurisdiction of
Commerce, State, Justice under this bill, we say that it is illegal to
discriminate against anybody in hiring, promotion, and contracting, and
it is illegal to discriminate in favor of anybody. It is simple
language. In fact, it is the language which the distinguished majority
leader, Senator Dole, has worked out. I had worked out similar language
but, frankly, I thought his language was better so I included it.
It is basically a commitment to merit. I have to believe, based on
our past vote, that this provision will be stripped out. But, again,
America ought to know who is and who is not for quotas; who is and who
is not for set-asides. Let me make it clear that the language in this
bill preserves our total effort of outreach. It preserves our ability
to go out and recruit people to apply for jobs. It gives us the full
ability to work, to see that everybody gets on the playing field. But
it requires that, once people are on the playing field, when it comes
to being hired, being promoted, or getting a contract, that must be
done by merit.
So this is a very controversial bill. It is no accident that we have
kept it to the end. I am quite proud of the bill. Obviously, others
oppose it. And the way democracy works is that we propose and we
debate, and I accept the outcome of it. But I think this bill
represents a dramatic change and, quite frankly, I have been
disappointed in the other appropriations bills in that we have
committed to a budget that calls for a dramatic change but everybody
seems to be waiting until next year or the next year or the next year
to make these changes. I wanted to make them now. I may not be here 2
years from now. I do not know. I may not be on this committee next
Monday--I do not know that either. But I do know that I believe this
represents a dramatic break with the past.
This bill terminates programs. This bill dramatically changes the way
we operate the Federal Government. And I think it gives people a very
clear choice. It defines a movement in the direction that I would like
to see us go. I am proud that the subcommittee and full committee
supported the effort to bring the bill to this point. I know there are
some people on the subcommittee and full committee who, now that we are
on the floor, will abandon us on some of these issues. But I think we
have before us a good bill and, Mr. President, I appreciate the
indulgence of the Chair as I outlined the bill.
Let me yield the floor for the distinguished ranking member, a man
who has served on this subcommittee as both chairman and ranking
member, a man for whom I have very great respect, the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against H.R. 2076,
the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill.
For me, this is unprecedented. Never in my 25 years on the
Appropriations Committee--or my 18 years as serving as either the
chairman or ranking minority member of this subcommittee--have I
opposed this bill. And never in my career here have I seen an
appropriations bill prepared in such a partisan manner and voted out of
committee on straight party lines.
I am against this bill because I simply cannot go along with its
recommendations and because of its extreme nature. This bill represents
a 180-degree departure from the way we on this committee have
approached our job when senators Rudman, Weicker, Pastore, Laxalt, and
Domenici and I were chairman or ranking member. In the past, we focused
on the business of governing. We worked together to ensure that the
agencies under our jurisdiction are well-run and appropriately funded.
Our job always was to see to it that the taxpayers' dollars were well
spent. If a program was worth it, we sought to fund it adequately. At
the same time, we conducted budget scrubs to ensure that we achieved
savings from delayed contracts, program changes, and other technical
matters.
But Mr. President, that is not what today's bill is about. It is not
about governing. It is about politics and making philosophical policy
statements. It is about picking winners and losers. It is about
throwing money at one part of this bill, the Department of Justice, and
about wreaking havoc on the rest of the bill. In many ways, this bill
seems more like a budget resolution than an appropriations bill.
Mr. President, government is not a dirty word. I know that there are
some who have come to Washington intending to have a fire sale. Well,
those people will probably like this bill because it is a bonfire.
Agency after agency is eliminated or subjected to unprecedented
reductions of 20 percent or more. This bill slashes programs with
little description or detail of what is being cut. For example, the
International Trade Administration is cut by $47 million below a
freeze. But the report does not direct how the reduction should be
made. Should it be from the Import Administration that protects U.S.
industry from foreign dumping? Or should it come from the foreign
commercial service that promotes U.S. industry overseas or from trade
and industry sector analysis? This bill just does not say.
So, we have wholesale elimination of agencies. And we will have
wholesale reductions in force and office closures. They are not being
highlighted in this report, but mark my words on that.

[[Page S 14495]]
Take the Small Business Administration. My friend SBA Administrator
Phil Lader tells me that his appropriation for salaries and expenses
means that the SBA will have to lay off 1,200 of their 3,100 employees.
Mr. President, maybe I am old fashioned, but I will not join in this
fad that denigrates public service. In the 25 years I have worked on
this bill, I have learned that much of it supports what we in the
budget game call salaries and expenses. What that means is that most of
this bill funds people. And I have come to have great respect for the
dedicated public servants who work hard to serve the people of this
country.
I think of Emilio Iodice, of the International Trade Administration,
our senior commercial officer in Madrid, Spain, who is hustling day in
and day out to get contracts for American business. I think of Dr. Neal
Frank and Bob Sheets, of NOAA, who have run the hurricane center in
Miami, FL, and who worked around the clock to warn us of killer storms.
I think of Ambassador Princeton Lyman in South Africa who is helping
that nation build a lasting democracy and of the many foreign service
officers I have met. In my view, these State Department and USIA
foreign service officers truly are the best and the brightest. I
sometimes wonder how many of us could pass their stringent entry
requirements. And of course, I think of the many professional
comptrollers who with us on a day-to-day basis--people like Mike Roper
at Justice, Mark Brown at Commerce, and Stan Silverman at USIA.
With this bill, I worry about the message that we are sending to
these dedicated public servants and young people who might want to
enter government service. I think we should be praising these people
for their service, not denigrating them.

Justice Increases

In the Commerce, Justice and State hearing room in the Capitol, there
is a painting of Edmund Randolph, our first Attorney General. I think
about him when I look at what is happening to this Justice budget in
this bill. We are throwing money at a problem without being
responsible. Do my colleagues know when funding for the justice
department hit the $3 billion level? It was 1983. In other words, it
took 194 years for the Justice Department's budget to reach $3 billion.
And that is how much the increase is for Justice in this bill for just
1 year. That is nothing short of amazing.
I think most of us who were around in the early 1980's realize that
we tried to throw too much money at Defense too quickly. And as some
will remember, I was one of those who pushed hard to increase Defense
in 1980. But, I fear that this is exactly what we are doing with
Justice in the 1990's. This year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
is unable to spend almost $50 million that we gave it last year to hire
more agents. Of course, the bureau will find other uses for the money.
But this bill before us plans to give the FBI an increase of almost
half a billion dollars above this year--an increase of 20 percent in
one year. I am all for my good friend Judge Freeh and the dedicated
agents who serve us. But a 20-percent increase in 1 year? And when I
look at the Immigration Service, we are adding 1,300 border patrol
agents per year, which again, is more than a 20-percent annual
increase.
Now I stand second to none in my support for the Justice Department.
During the span that I last served as subcommittee chairman of this
appropriations subcommittee, the Justice Department grew from $3.9
billion in 1986 to $13.7 billion in 1994. In the Senate, Attorney
General Janet Reno probably does not have a bigger fan than me. But we
have got to slow down and take a look at where all this money is going.
We have got to stop the bidding war to see who can throw more money at
law enforcement to rack up political points.
Mr. President, this bill is largely the story of two bills. For
Justice and judiciary, it represents increases and for the remainder of
the bill it will cause destruction. It did not have to be done this
way. I would urge my colleagues to look at how much more reasonable and
moderate the bill is that the House sent to us. The Contract With
America crowd developed a much more responsible bill.
I would like to describe some of the recommendations for my
colleagues.
For the Commerce Department, the bill: Eliminates entirely several
Commerce technology programs: the Technology Administration, new
Advanced Technology Program and manufacturing extension program grants.
It eliminates previous funding to modernize National Institute of
Standards and Technology laboratories.
The bill eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency, a
program created during the Nixon administration to empower minority
entrepreneurs, and to expand minority-owned businesses.
The bill eliminates the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration.
The bill cuts the International Trade Administration by $45 million
or 17 percent below a freeze. This would result in office closures
around the country and overseas, and debilitate our trade promotion
efforts for U.S. industry.
It cuts the Economic Development Administration [EDA] from its
current level of $410 million to $100 million. It reduces one of the
only programs with a direct charter to assist communities impacted by
defense base closures and realignments.
It severely reduces the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration [NTIA] operations, the public broadcasting and
facilities program, and it terminates the information infrastructure
grant program and the children's educational television program.
Mr. President, the bill authorizes and appropriates funds for a new
Commerce Reorganization transition fund which finances personnel
separation costs and termination costs for the various agencies
proposed for elimination.
It provides $395 million for economic statistics and the Census
Bureau, an increase of $84.5 million above the House bill, and $70.4
million above this year.
It provides $1.867 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA], a decrease of $45 million below the current
year, but $92 million above the House bill. Like the House, the NOAA
fleet modernization program is terminated.
For the State Department and international affairs agencies, the bill
severely cuts State Department operations funding $340 million below
this year's level. This will result in the closing of many embassies
and consulates around the world and the layoff of 1,100 foreign service
and civil service employees.
The bill rescinds $140 million in prior year appropriations for
embassy construction, repairs and maintenance. This will likely result
in the cancellation of our new embassy in Ottawa, Canada, and the
elimination of repairs, maintenance and security improvements around
the world.
The bill assumes S. 908, Senator Helms' authorization, which never
proceeded in the Senate because of its controversial provisions. This
bill, however, provides $890 million less funding for the State
Department than Senator Helms proposed to authorize.
The bill authorizes and funds a new Foreign Affairs reorganization
transition fund and provides $26 million for this account. Bill
language directs the director of OMB rather than the Secretary of State
to consolidate programs under State, USIA and ACDA.
Funding for international organizations is cut by 37 percent below
current levels. This year the United States paid $873 million to the
United Nations, the Organization of American States and 49 other
international organizations. These assessments are based on treaty
obligations. In 1996, the administration requested $923 million for
these obligations. The bill provides only $550 million. We would have
to pull out of a lot of international organizations or simply refuse to
pay our bills.
The U.S. Information Agency [USIA] is devastated under the
recommended bill. USIA is cut $364 million below the current year and
$53 million below the House bill.
This bill cuts international educational exchanges, like the
Fulbright program, by $43 million below the current year.
The bill provides $355 million for international broadcasting--the
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe Liberty, and Radio and TV Marti. It
is far below last year's level, but above the House.
For independent and regulatory agencies, the bill terminates the
Legal

[[Page S 14496]]
Services Corporation, current funding of $400 million, and replaces it
with a civil legal assistance block grant under the Justice Department.
The bill carries 13 pages of legislation including a long list of
restrictions on the use of these funds. For example, the block grant
could not be used for helping a poor person seek a legal separation
from an abusive spouse.
The Corporation was created during the Nixon Administration. I worked
closely with Lewis Powell in the endeavor, and I stood with my friend,
Warren Rudman, in his yeoman efforts to save the LSC. Like the Senator
from Texas, I have had concerns about the LSC being involved in class-
action suits. But the House bill had already dealt with that, and it
retained funding for the LSC.
The bill cuts all regulatory agencies at least 20 percent below a
freeze. In each case, the bill uses fee collections to cut
appropriations even though these fees often were created to enhance
operations. The recommended bill will result in significant reductions
in personnel and operations.
The Federal Trade Commission [FTC] is proposed to receive $79 million
instead of $98 million as proposed by the House and provided currently.
The FTC is charged with consumer protection and anti-trust duties.
Again, we are looking at a one-third reduction in staff and
cancellation of many important programs such as the FTC's efforts to
combat telemarketing fraud.
The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] is proposed to receive
$166 million instead of the current level of $185 million. We keep
giving new responsibilities to the FCC under the communications bills,
but here we are cutting them below current levels.
The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] is funded at $238
million instead of the current level of $297 million. Further, the bill
reduces charges to individuals registering securities and shifts $60
million in costs to the federal taxpayers. So I guess that says we want
to combat violent crime in Justice, but white-collar crime by Ivan
Boesky is fine.
The Competitiveness Policy Council is eliminated.
The Maritime Administration is funded at $70.6 million instead of
$94.7 million, the current level, and far below the administration's
request of $309 million.
The Small Business Administration [SBA] is funded at $558 million,
$359 million below this year, and $73 million below the request. SBA
says that they will have to reduce over a third of their workforce
based on the committee's report language direction to fund grants and
loans instead of personnel. This ignores many of the streamlining
efforts that Erskine Bowles and Phil Lader have already accomplished,
resulting in reduction of 500 positions during the past 2 years.

Rewriting the Crime bill/legislation

Finally, I oppose this bill because it proposes to terminate the
successful Cops on the Beat program and other authorized Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund programs. In their place, the appropriations bill
essentially authorizes a new Crime bill. Talk about breaking new ground
for legislation on an appropriations measure.
The Cops on the Beat or Community Oriented Policing program is one of
the most efficient and effective programs that has ever been created.
Within a year of passage, 25,000 additional police are on the street in
America. We will be debating this program soon, in more detail. But I
must say that I simply do not understand why any member would want to
terminate this program.
Drug courts is another authorized program. It was Janet Reno's
creation, based on her experience in Miami. This is not a soft
prevention program. Drug courts work and are getting non-violent
defenders off of illicit substances and back into society.
This bill is block grant crazy. Legal services--They say, ``Let us
make it into a block grant.'' Community policing and drug courts--They
say, ``Let us make it into a block grant.'' I guess I do not
understand. I remember the Republican filibuster against the President
Clinton's stimulus package in the spring of 1993. As I recall, the
principal argument against that bill was that it was funding block
grants and recipients had a wide discretion of how they could use block
grants. In law enforcement in the past, we had a block grant program--
LEAA--and it was a disaster.
Mr. President, this bill contains many other pieces of legislation.
It takes the limits off of sales from prison labor, and it changes
affirmative action and procurement regulations.
I hope that my colleagues will carefully examine this bill. Many have
said, ``Yes, it is a travesty, but the President will veto it.'' That
may be true. All indications are that it could not be signed in its
current form.
I, for one, hope that the Senate will not go on record by supporting
such an extreme, irresponsible measure. I hope we can make some changes
to this bill and improve it.
Mr. President, obviously I am not disposed to speak at length, but I
have to comment about my distinguished colleague and his opening
statement on two or three items. Just in closing, he said: This is
open. This is the way we do it. It is open to debate. We debate these
things, and we vote on them and we make decisions.
Unfortunately, having been on this committee for over 25 years, in
this subcommittee we did not debate, we did not discuss, and we did not
do anything other than vote. That is why the bill comes on a bipartisan
split, so to speak, of 15-13. It reminds me of Mao Tse-tung when he got
a birthday wish. It said, ``From the Central Committee, by a vote of 15
to 13, we wish you a happy birthday.''
This bill is an atrocity. In my experience in particular measures, it
is voted that way because, very conscientiously, we did not have a
chance to debate and rectify certain things. But I do not want to dwell
on that too much at length because the distinguished chairman of the
full committee is henceforth coming to the floor to try to give us an
additional allocation and correct some things, like the elimination of
the Minority Business Enterprise Administration--an entity that started
out with President Nixon back 25 years ago in 1970--and various other
things like that which were eliminated.
The bill is called an atrocity because the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, for whom I have great respect, says we overturned
laws. He is dead right in this particular measure. It is not the
function of an Appropriations Committee to overturn laws. On the
contrary, we are supposed to conform to the authorized law, or the law
authorizing the amounts, and thereupon appropriate within those
particular amounts.
Here we see a measure that takes a bill that has been debated fully
and voted three readings in the House, three in the Senate--with
respect to cops on the beat--signed into formal law, the law of the
land, and participated in with enthusiasm by the overwhelming majority
of the police forces over the entire country. It is a program that is
working and working extremely well.
Without any authorization, that law, as provided by way of money in
this measure, is overturned. It is just repealed. The formal law is
totally disregarded, and in its place, we have a so-called block grant
approach.
Similarly, with respect to the Legal Services Corporation, that was
more or less created by the distinguished former Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court, Justice Powell, when he was president of the
American Bar Association. Here is a corporate entity, the Legal
Services Corporation, worked in by the private sector, by the
professional attorney sector and by the Federal Government in a most
successful fashion, but it is not within this bill. That endeavor that
has been going on successfully for years is totally overturned and
repealed. A new program is put in. It is not authorized.
Of course, the parliamentary tactic is to raise a point of order. But
in the spirit of trying to move along, we can have some votes around
here on points of order and everything else. But I am not trying to
turn back anything parliamentarily. I am trying to turn it back on the
basis of merit.
But if you go through this particular measure, they come down real
hard on the future of this country with respect to, for example, the
programs within the Department of Commerce and the Department of State.
The Department of State is not really left with an operating budget. We
have been closing consulates and closing down various

[[Page S 14497]]
endeavors on behalf of the Department of State over the last 15 years.
Somehow, somewhere, people have forgotten that, after all, we had
President Reagan come to town with spending cuts, and then President
Bush. After 8 years of President Reagan and President Bush for 4 years,
we had 12 years of spending cuts. Then we had, of course, President
Clinton come to town and cut out another $500 billion in spending cuts.
So what we are on to is the tail end, so to speak, of 15 years of
various spending cuts whereby programs like WIC, Head Start, title I
for the disadvantaged, and many others, are only half funded, as are
many programs in health research. That is the reason we just rejected,
by way of extended debate, the Labor, Health, and Human Resources
appropriations bill. For every dollar we spend over at NIH, we save the
taxpayers $13.50.
So these money-saving programs have run into a frontal assault of a
so-called political contract that is devastating to the functioning of
our society.
I almost wish when it comes to the Department of Commerce that
President Clinton had said we ought to get rid of the Department of
Commerce. If President Clinton said we have to get rid of the
Department of Commerce, the whole business community--all of that crowd
that runs under the white tent for NAFTA and for GATT, and all the
Republican crowd, all of those executives, that Business Round Table--
would come running up here: ``What do you mean this Democratic
President is trying to do away with the voice of business at the
Cabinet table?'' You cannot find them today. Why? Because the
Republicans thought of that idea.
Yes, labor is to have a voice at the Cabinet table, but not commerce,
the business leadership. Agriculture is to have a voice at the Cabinet
table, but they want to do away with the Department. You will not find
agriculture in the Constitution. You will not find the Labor Department
there. But you will find, under article I, section 8 of the
Constitution, that the Congress is hereby authorized to regulate
foreign commerce. We are doing away with constitutional
responsibilities in a willy-nilly contract fashion. Now with the fall
of the wall, we really look upon the State Department to promulgate our
values the world around and capitalism the world around along with the
Department of Commerce.
Very interestingly, that is exactly what they are doing. Secretary
Christopher and Secretary Brown have been doing an outstanding job, but
there is no acknowledgment or recognition of it whatever in this
particular appropriation. Rather, they tried to do away with the
technology, the advanced technology program, the manufacturing centers,
the Office of Technology and all, as we go on down the list--these
various endeavors to keep America competitive.
Our foreign policy, our security as a nation, our success in this
global competition, rests like a stool on three legs. We have, on the
one leg, the values of a nation which are very strong and are
unquestioned. America voluntarily will try to feed the hungry in
Somalia, voluntarily will try to set up democracy in Haiti, and now is
trying to help, of course, in Bosnia and in the Mideast where they are
meeting right now. With respect to our values, it is very strong, and
with respect to our military leg, it is unquestioned. But with respect
to the economic leg, over the past 45, almost 50 years, it is fractured
and willingly so.
We set up the Marshall plan. We sent our money and our technology and
our expertise to countries abroad in the conflict between capitalism
and communism, and capitalism has won out. And we are all very grateful
for that. But during that 50-year period, what we had to do was sort of
sacrifice our economy and give up markets with the assault on market
share. We had to give up markets to our friends in the Pacific rim, in
Europe, and otherwise around, with a sort of nudist trade policy--
running around here like ninnies hollering ``free trade, free trade''--
when there was not any such thing, and it is not now. We all understand
that.
But now with the fall of the wall comes the opportunity to rebuild
the strength of the economy. Yes, in many instances, that means more
government. I want a Senator to say that on the floor of this U.S.
Senate. What we need is more in education, more in the inner-city
restructuring, more in transportation, more in science and technology,
and more in medical research. That is exactly what we are not doing in
this particular measure here.
Let me go right to the point about the President's budget for which
we get a gratuitous statement from our distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee. He said again that the President's budget would not be in
balance at the second coming, and had $200 billion deficits as far as
the eye can see. If you want to read the gratuitous statement, you just
look at the committee report of State, Justice, Commerce, and on page
4. I will quote this one sentence:

The administration's request in a budget that made no
attempt to balance the budget, not in 7 years, not in 10
years, not ever.

Here comes a committee report from a crowd that we could not get a
single vote from to cut $500 million in spending and raise revenues to
pay for some of these programs. Yes, we raised taxes on Social
Security, and $25 billion of the increased revenue on Social Security
we gave to what? To Medicare. They are running all over the Hill. ``It
is going broke. It is going broke.'' Last year they said, ``What is the
matter? Nothing is wrong with America's health programs. It is the best
health system in the world. What is the matter?
I can show you the same crowd that they quote now as saying it is
going broke in the year 2002. Last year, that same entity reported it
was going broke in the year 2001. At least we got one year's grace out
of the discipline that we set for spending cuts and revenue increases
and foregoing programs.
Let me qualify. I speak about this budget because I can tell you here
and now they act like they have a budget that we have to conform to so
their budget balances in the year 2002. Absolutely false. For one, this
particular Senator voted against that silly Reaganomics which at the
time was called by the then majority leader a ``river boat
gamble,'' the then Vice President as ``voodoo,'' and now we have
``voodoo'' all over again--going on all over this Hill. We do not have
a sense of history whatever. I opposed that voodoo and proposed instead
a budget freeze like the mayor of a city or the Governor of a State.
What they do is just take this year's budget for next year. We would
save billions. We could not succeed.

I then joined with the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee in
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and we said let's have not only freezes, but we
are going to have automatic spending cuts across the board. And that
worked. Mr. President, it worked, until 1990, when they repealed it.
And at 12:41 a.m., October 19, 1990, I raised a point of order against
the repeal. And let the Record show who voted to repeal it.
Now they are running around and saying it did not work. They repealed
it because it was working. It was going to cause cuts across the board.
I went along in 1988 with tax reform in order to close loopholes.
So we had budget freezes, we had budget cuts, and we had loophole
closings. And then, if you please, Mr. President, I came with increased
taxes, a value-added tax proposed in the Budget Committee where I got
eight votes, and I got Republican colleagues to go along. And we had a
discipline trying to offset this deficit and an end of increased
deficits as far as the eye can see.
Right now, the deficit that is projected--we will get it --but it is
not 100 something, not 200. It is near $300 billion. I will enter the
exact figure in the Record. All you need do is figure out how much the
Government takes in and how much it spends and find the difference.
I do know that as a result the interest costs for the fiscal year
beginning on Sunday, October 1, fiscal year 1996, the interest costs on
the national debt--as a result of that voodoo and that riverboat
gamble--is $348 billion. We only have 365 days a year, so that is $1
billion a day practically that we go down to the bank the first thing
in the morning and borrow--$1 billion a day.
None of these plans, neither the Republican nor the Democratic plan,
saves $1 billion a day.
I try my best to keep pointing this out to get level so we all speak
the same language. Only this past week, I

[[Page S 14498]]
wrote the Congressional Budget Office. I said that my friends on the
other side of the aisle continued to talk in terms of a balanced budget
by the year 2002.
I ask unanimous consent that I may include the letter in the Record
dated September 25 from the Congressional Budget Office, June E.
O'Neill.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, September 25, 1995.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: This is in response to your letter of
September 20 concerning CBO's scoring of the budget
resolution for fiscal year 1996 adopted by the Congress.
Because a budget resolution represents a general plan for
future Congressional action rather than specific legislative
proposals, CBO cannot provide estimates for a budget
resolution in the same sense that it estimates appropriation
bills or bills that provide changes in direct spending or
revenues. CBO has compared the spending, revenues, and
deficits proposed by the budget resolution with those
projected by CBO in Chapter Three of its August 1995 report,
The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update. A copy of that
report has been enclosed.
If you wish further details about this comparison, we will
be pleased to provide them. The staff contact is Jim Horney.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
(For June E. O'Neill).

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Republican budget, the Kasich budget, the Gingrich
budget, or whatever budget you want to call it that they are talking
about balancing, has never been scored.
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is here and we
worked together when he was ranking member and I was chairman. I can
tell you here and now, after we passed that budget in May, we sent over
the assumptions so that the Congressional Budget Office could score it.
Those scores have never been sent over. From time to time they have
asked questions: If we do this, we save that; if we do this, we save
that.
But we do not have a CBO-scored figure for President Clinton's budget
and we do not have a CBO figure for the Republican budget.
Watching all of this as it occurs, at this particular time, I can
guarantee you that it will not be balanced in the year 2002. And
anybody who wants to bet me, pick out the odds and the amount. I will
jump off the Capitol dome if this budget is balanced by the year 2002.
I can tell you that here and now.
What happens is exactly what happened, as the distinguished Presiding
Officer and I viewed it this morning in the Committee of Commerce. We
were allocated $15 billion. What did we do? We took $8.3 billion that
we have already allocated in the telecom bill. So we double-counted
that already. Talk about smoke and mirrors. We are not going to have
smoke and mirrors. I understand, of course, that in the Finance
Committee they were $80 billion shy last week.
Someone said, no, they got up, meeting last night, to about $15
billion, and they are still trying to find it. But if they go through
with the contract and do away with the Social Security tax increase,
they will have to find another $25 billion. They are shy there.
I can go to welfare reform. We passed welfare reform. It was a $63
billion savings. The budget that they say is going to be balanced
called for a $113 billion savings. That is $50 billion shy there. The
agricultural and everything crowd said, no, we had not met our figure.
It is smoke and mirrors.
So what you see now is the moment of truth. And I only mention this
to get that moment of truth out. We ought to level with each other. You
cannot get on top of this cancer of interest costs on the national debt
unless you do all of the above. All of the above includes spending
cuts, spending freezes, loophole closings, tax increases, and denying
new programs.
We just voted earlier this week--I hated to vote against the
distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and her
AmeriCorps Program--but I can tell you now that that program was going
to cost billions and billions. I did not think we ought to start new
programs that we could not afford and specifically not start an
AmeriCorps Program for education whereby in order to get 25,000
scholarships we had to do away with 346,000 student loans.
That is what we did. We took the money from the student loans and put
it into a new program and talked about voluntarism. I happen to have
been down there the Sunday after Hugo hit us in our own backyard in
South Carolina. There was the mayor and me and we had 1,500 to 2,000
volunteers that were working in the rain. We asked for a show of hands
and we had them from 38 States. People volunteer.
When little Mr. Segal called me about this particular program and
said we already have 2,000 out there working in the flood year before
last, I said, ``Young man, you have 2 million out there working without
this program. You do not need a program at the Federal Government level
to start voluntarism.''
So the pressures brought on this particular budget are really
politically manufactured where we are not going to balance anybody's
budget. We are just going to get rid of the Government. That has been
the cry of the contract--that the Government is not the solution, the
Government is the problem, the Government is the enemy.
So what you have here is a $283 billion estimated deficit for 1995.
That is the accurate figure as between what we will take in and what we
will spend. So let us not get high and mighty and start criticizing
about how I got a balanced budget 7 years from now when people will be
lucky to be around 7 years from now and they will know good and well
they will come again.
I remember when we used to balance the budget year to year. In fact,
President Reagan said, ``I'm going to balance that budget in a year.''
He got into Washington and said, ``Whoops, this is going to take me 3
years. I did not realize it was so bad.''
Here was a gentleman who was going to do it in a year. Then we got to
3 years. Then under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings we got to 5 years. Now, this
crowd comes with 7 years. And I can tell you within the next election
we will come and have--excuse me, President Clinton has already gotten
to 10 years. Now he has come back to 9.
We are going up, up, and away; 15 years. Say anything except to do
the job and tell the American people that we have to deny programs and
we have to raise taxes. We have to cut spending. We have to freeze
spending. We have to close loopholes. We have to do all of the above to
save $1 billion a day. This particular budget that we have that we are
working on at this particular time does not come near to saving $1
billion a day to get us really rid of any kind of deficit at any time
during that 7-year period.
Now, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee
talks about philosophy--and I must touch on that and then we can go to
these amendments--the philosophy here that they are trying to justify
these programs to get things back to where they can do it as they
please.
They said, if they really want to buy equipment, then they can do
that. If they want to put policemen on the beat, then they can do that.
It is the old adage that the best government is that closest to the
American people, the Jeffersonian philosophy. And I generally adhere to
that except through hard experience.
Within the field of law and law enforcement, we have had our
experience. We had what you call the legal assistance enforcement
program, LEAA, and that particular program gave block grants back to
the States and communities. And when we looked around, we had--please,
my gracious--down in Hampton, VA, they bought a tank and put it on the
courthouse lawn and thought the courthouse was going to be attacked.
The sheriff down in Alabama, he bought a tank because he was going to
have crowd control. The Governor in Indiana, he bought an airplane so
they could fly to New York and buy clothes. And they had all kinds of
embarrassments where the money never got through to the policemen on
the beat.
Now, there is no education in the second kick of a mule. We learned
from hard experience. So we came around with community policing and
policemen on the beat and said, in order to qualify, you have to come
with a match of 25 percent. And it is working extremely well.
Now they come with the philosophy of getting the grants back, which
reminds me--and I have, of course, a memory that is resented many, many

[[Page S 14499]]
times. But I am referring to the stimulus bill where when President
Clinton came to town, we were going to stimulate the economy. And the
distinguished chairman of my subcommittee, now who believes in block
grants, said, heavens above, ``We are going to use it for cemeteries,
for whitewater canoeing, for fisheries, atlases, for studies of the
sickle fin chub,'' and all these different other programs back at the
local level. And the Senator slaughtered President Clinton's stimulus
program--just killed it dead in its tracks here on the floor of the
U.S. Senate.
Now we come with the philosophy: Whoopee, let us get the money back
to the Government; we are not smart enough to do anything here in
Washington; only the people back home are smart enough. So here we go
again. Here we go again, changing the formative law and making it into
block grants. Taking working programs like policemen on the beat and
the Legal Services Corporation. Abolishing these laws in that sense and
providing monies for a program that has already been derided in the
most expert fashion by my distinguished chairman.
I can tell you now that we could not possibly go along with the block
grants. I think the President said he is going to veto that particular
approach. Maybe we can reconcile it. I hope some of the defects of this
particular bill can be cared for in Senator Hatfield's and my
amendment. We worked until 1 in the morning on this particular
amendment. I think it will meet generally with the approval of the
colleagues.
And a reallocation here, I am grateful for that help. Of course,
there are fundamentals still involved. And I will say it right to the
point. We will be debating these things, as the distinguished chairman
says. What we have done is really savaged Commerce and its programs,
the State Department, and, more or less, force-fed a goose in Justice.
When I say ``force-fed a goose in Justice,'' I look at the particular
figures.
I can see that it took us from 1789 to 1983 or 1984 to get to a $3
billion Justice Department budget. But it has only taken us the last 15
years to quadruple, quintuple--excuse me--and go up, up and away to
$16.95 billion in this particular 1996 appropriation. I know we have
had various crime bills. I know we have had the problems and everything
else of that kind. But I can tell you now that we have, with all the
budgetary constrictions, to get a little bit better balance in this
particular measure.
And in some of these, I am definitely of a mind where the Senator
from Texas and I agree that you should not abuse the use of legal
services money to sue the State and Governor and Legislature of New
Jersey over welfare reform. We agreed that we could work the prisoners.
I have worked prisoners as a Governor. I put in a laundry program. I
put in a furniture repair program. I even had a Jaycee chapter as well
as our educational programs behind the wall.
We agree on many, many things. But generally speaking, we did not
have a chance to debate these things. Unfortunately, we had not
conformed the appropriations to the basic statutes, whatever. We have
just run willy-nilly through the programs trying to abolish departments
and the working programs that have done so much for our society.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the Senate is considering the appropriations bill for
the Commerce, Justice and State Departments. It would be tempting to
address this bill in the same fashion as I have other measures during
this session which have contained drastic--indeed, draconian--spending
cuts. The natural inclination is to talk about how the cuts will affect
specific programs or policies, many of which are vital to the security
of our Nation or the well-being of our people.
In this context, I would be led to talk about how the CJS
appropriations bill, as reported by the committee, lops off more than
$1 billion--I repeat, more than $1 billion--from the President's
request for the foreign affairs agencies. There will be dramatic
reductions in spending for the administration of foreign affairs, for
the acquisition and maintenance of buildings, for the U.S. assessed
contributions to the United Nations, for U.S. contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping, and for international exchange programs.
I understand that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee may
offer an amendment which may add additional funds to the foreign
affairs account--which I applaud and will support. I must speak now,
however, to the bill as reported by the committee.
Many of my colleagues know that these are programs and functions that
are extremely important to me. When I recently announced my intention
not to seek reelection to the Senate, some of my fellow Senators
graciously came to the floor to say some very kind things about me. For
that I am deeply grateful, and indeed humbled. One thing that struck me
that day was how many of my colleagues mentioned my support for the
United Nations, and the fact that I have carried a copy of the charter
with me for many years.
I have not carried it with me all of this time just for show and
tell. I carry it because I believe in it, and I think that it has
represented--and continues to represent--one of our best hopes for
international peace and security. If we proceed with the reductions in
funding for the U.S. contributions to the regular and peacekeeping
budgets, however, the charter will become nothing more than pretty
words. There will be no point, and no joy, in carrying it in my pocket.
I have also been a consistent advocate of the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency [ACDA]. More than three decades ago, President
Kennedy and the Congress decided to create by statute the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency--which was then and remains now the only
separate agency of its type in the world. If the Congress eviscerates
ACDA and perversely rewards its employees by discharging them, we will
do grievous damage to our ability to lead the world in effective arms
control, to verify compliance of often hostile nations with their arms
control obligations to us, and to deal effectively with new arms
control and proliferation threats.
As I said moments ago, it would be tempting to continue at length
about the impact of this and other bills on programs such as arms
control, the United Nations and U.N. peacekeeping. Today, however, I
want to discuss this bill in broader and more far-reaching terms.
Whether or not the Senate cares to admit it, our decisions and actions
this year are going to have a direct and negative impact on America's
place in the world, and on our fundamental relationships with other
world powers.
I am very proud of the U.S. record of leadership, achievement, and
engagement in international relations. Twice in the 20th century, our
Nation stood with its allies to fight on a global scale against
aggression. During the cold war, the United States took the lead to
contain the hegemonistic designs of the former Soviet Union. In the
early 1990's, the United States led an international coalition of
forces in turning back Iraq's illegal grab of Kuwait.
Equally as important, however, are the battles we did not fight--the
conflicts that we avoided, the crises that we averted through
diplomatic discussion and pressure. Even if we made mistakes from time
to time, we were successful in all of these endeavors because of our
belief in principles, our commitment to do what we thought right and
our willingness to be actively engaged. Our decisions, policies, and
programs were often costly in both human and material terms, but they
made our world a safer place, and our Nation a better and more
profitable place to live.
Our motivation sadly seems to have changed. Decisions are being made
out of political expediency rather than sound judgment. Our impulse as
politicians--particularly this year--is to rush willy-nilly to make
budget cuts for their own sake, without regard to the consequences.
Instead of using reason and analysis to construct a foreign policy, we
are using calculators.
We must stop, think, and take a good hard look at how the United
States can expect to project its power and influence under the
circumstances now proposed. The State Department and the foreign
affairs agencies--our Nation's eyes, ears, and voice to the world--
cannot carry out its mission if they haven't the personnel, resources,
and infrastructure required by the times.

[[Page S 14500]]

It is not just a matter of doing more with less. I know the fiscal
imperatives of our time, and appreciate that we are required to spend
less and consolidate functions and responsibilities. The spending
reductions in this bill are so severe, however, that the United States
will be forced to close dozens of critical posts overseas, to renege on
treaty commitments, and simply disengage from diplomatic activity. That
is not sound fiscal policy, and it is certainly not leadership. It is
isolationism. We are shutting ourselves off from the world, and our
Nation's security and economy will suffer.
I do not use the term isolationism lightly. It is a serious charge,
but one that I think is accurate. We must acknowledge the impact of
this bill on our ability to work with other nations, and understand
that by violating our international commitments, we will undermine our
own national security. And make no mistake, this bill will force us to
violate our international commitments and will have an adverse impact
on virtually every aspect of the quality of life of our citizens.
Allow me to give some examples. In 1990, the Bush administration
pledged that the United States would meet its treaty obligation to pay
its U.N. dues in full, and that we would pay off our arrears. This bill
would violate that pledge, and we will become the world's biggest
deadbeat. At a certain point--which is fast approaching--we will lose
our vote in the U.N. General Assembly because of the size of our
arrears. This bill will also affect our obligations to NATO, to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, to the International
Telecommunications Union, and to the World Health Organization. In
other words, we will have a diminished role to play in the critical
fields of international security, nuclear nonproliferation, global
communications, and international health.
We also would hamstring the work of lesser-known but important
organizations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law
and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law.
Both of these are making vital contributions to simplifying and
unifying the international legal system. How many times have we
interceded on behalf of constituents in international adoptions, or in
cases of parental abduction, or in the enforcement of legal judgments?
This bill will afford our constituents less protection in such matters,
and we will be responsible.
As a broader, practical matter, American citizens will be far less
able to rely on U.S. Government support abroad as a result of this
bill, whether it be in consular, commercial, or political matters. My
guess, and it pains me to say this, is that the Congress will try to
duck its responsibility for such an outcome. Instead of facing up to
our constituents and explaining why they cannot find support or relief,
Members will try to shift the blame to the State Department and our
overseas employees.
Recently, some have found it fashionable--and even humorous--to
characterize the Foreign Service as a coddled group of elitist
intellectuals who shun hard work. As a former Foreign Service officer,
I reject the characterization and am compelled to pay tribute to the
dedicated and capable men and women who comprise our diplomatic corps.
I know how hard they work, and how dedicated they are to serving our
Nation's interests. Some of them, as we have just seen in Bosnia, have
made the supreme sacrifice of giving their lives in service to the
country.
Mr. President, we should honor these men and women and give them our
full appreciation. At a minimum, we should see that they have a basic
level of support to handle their ever-increasing responsibilities. We
would never send our soldiers to war without support in depth; why
would we send our diplomats--whose service is no less noble or
patriotic than that of any soldier--to do political battle with
virtually no support at all?
Mr. President, we are forsaking the lessons of history for political
opportunism. The proponents of this bill will insist that they are not
isolationists, but they must realize that their proposals will lead us
into isolationism. We cannot influence the decisions of international
bodies if we are not there to participate. And if we try to participate
without paying our bills, no one will listen to us. That is isolation
in the truest sense of the word. Mark my words: if we continue down the
path we are now heading, our children will be left with one of two
choices. The first is to accept that their forebears let their country
become a xenophobic, second-rate power with a shrunken and insulated
economy. The second is to re-fight the battles for which our generation
already has paid so dearly. Neither, in my view, is an acceptable
choice.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise for a couple of minutes. First, I
ask unanimous consent, if Senator Gramm and Senator Hollings will
consider this, that the Domenici-Hollings amendment on legal services
follow the amendment to be offered by Senator Hatfield.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We have no objection.
Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I have been talking to
several other Members. We are trying to work out an agreement where we
might actually reduce it down to four amendments that we would have on
the bill. The Senator's would be one of those amendments, but it may
very well be--as you know, there is competition for these offsets.
Before I can accept that unanimous-consent request, I have to go back
and talk to the people that I am talking to on the other side of the
aisle.
So if the Senator will withhold, I will go back and talk to them and
maybe look at these offsets and see if we can work it out. I want to be
sure that the same resources are not being promised to two or three
different places.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw his unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. No, I reserve it for a moment. I will just stay here in
any event, I say to the Senator. If we do not agree to it, I will be
here until Senator Hatfield's amendment is disposed of and then seek
the floor. I withhold my request.
Mr. President, might I just comment to my good friend Senator
Hollings, I want to share a thought with him. He was talking about
jumping off the Capitol at the end of this year if we do not have a
balanced budget.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No, when you say it is going to be balanced.
Mr. DOMENICI. What I suggest to my good friend, maybe in the
meantime, there are those hang gliders. Our Governor does that.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. You go off and learn how to jump off mountains and you
do not crash.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
Mr. DOMENICI. Since I am so sure we are going to get one, I would not
want the Senator to fall off the Capitol. I would like him to get
trained a little so when he jumps off, he will be all right. It is just
a constructive idea because I have so much respect and admiration for
the Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I will put you in there with me.
Mr. DOMENICI. If you are good, I will join you.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just want to comment on Senator
Hollings's rather lengthy and, clearly, from his standpoint, a very
important speech about a balanced budget.
I first want to say, if we accomplish in the next 45 days what was in
the budget reconciliation instruction, and if we stick to the caps on
appropriations, which we have done, I understand even points of order
have been sustained on the floor without even the thought of exceeding
the caps, my guess is the unexpected result will be the Congressional
Budget Office will tell us that we are on a path to a balanced budget,
and we will get there.
In fact, I would not be surprised if when we finish that exercise
that they do not tell us that there is, indeed, some kind of a small
surplus. And I just want the Senators who are voting for all of that to
know they did price out that budget resolution. They priced it out so
that they could tell us that, in fact, there was going to be a rather
substantial economic dividend that put us in the black. I know my good
friend does not agree with that. He did not vote for it and does not
support it. I

[[Page S 14501]]
think it is a very historic budget resolution. In all respects, it does
what the Senator suggests, save one. In all respects, it does the kinds
of things we said we ought to do. It just does not raise taxes. The
rest is there--the reform and the elimination of programs, the
suggestions, the freezes--they are all part of this very difficult
effort.

I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record at this point the actual record of the gross Federal debt
beginning in 1945 going right on down to the estimated 1996 debt, and
the real deficit going from 1945 down to 1996 with the gross interest
costs, which has only been computed to be included since 1962.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross
Federal Real Change Gross
Year debt deficit (in interest
(billions) percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1945......................... 260.1 ........ (.......) ........
1946......................... 271.0 +10.9 (+4.2) ........
1947......................... 257.1 -13.9 (-5.1) ........
1948......................... 252.0 -5.1 (-2.0) ........
1949......................... 252.6 +0.6 (.......) ........
1950......................... 256.9 +4.3 (+1.7) ........
1951......................... 255.3 -1.6 (-0.6) ........
1952......................... 259.1 +3.8 (+1.5) ........
1953......................... 266.0 +6.9 (+2.7) ........
1954......................... 270.8 +4.8 (+1.9) ........
1955......................... 274.4 +3.6 (+1.3) ........
1956......................... 272.7 -1.7 (-0.6) ........
1957......................... 272.3 -0.4 (-0.1) ........
1958......................... 279.7 +7.4 (+2.7) ........
1959......................... 287.5 +7.8 (+2.8) ........
1960......................... 290.5 +3.0 (+1.0) ........
1961......................... 292.6 +2.1 (+0.7) ........
1962......................... 302.9 +10.3 (+3.5) 9.1
1963......................... 310.3 +7.4 (+2.4) 9.9
1964......................... 316.1 +5.8 (+1.8) 10.7
1965......................... 322.3 +6.2 (+2.0) 11.3
1966......................... 328.5 +6.2 (+1.9) 12.0
1967......................... 340.4 +11.9 (+3.6) 13.4
1968......................... 368.7 +28.3 (+8.3) 14.6
1969......................... 365.8 -2.9 (-0.8) 16.6
1970......................... 380.9 +15.1 (+4.1) 19.3
1971......................... 408.2 +27.3 (+7.2) 21.0
1972......................... 435.9 +27.7 (+6.8) 21.8
1973......................... 466.3 +30.4 (+7.0) 24.2
1974......................... 483.9 +17.6 (+3.8) 29.3
1975......................... 541.9 +58.0 (+12.0) 32.7
1976......................... 629.0 +87.1 (+16.1) 37.1
1977......................... 706.4 +77.4 (+12.3) 41.9
1978......................... 776.6 +70.2 (+9.9) 48.7
1979......................... 829.5 +52.9 (+6.8) 59.9
1980......................... 909.1 +79.6 (+9.6) 74.8
1981......................... 994.8 +85.7 (+9.4) 95.5
1982......................... 1,137.3 +142.5 (+14.3) 117.2
1983......................... 1,371.7 +234.4 (+20.6) 128.7
1984......................... 1,564.7 +193.0 (+14.1) 153.9
1985......................... 1,817.6 +252.9 (+16.2) 178.9
1986......................... 2,120.6 +303.0 (+16.7) 190.3
1987......................... 2,346.1 +225.5 (+10.6) 195.3
1988......................... 2,601.3 +255.2 (+10.9) 214.1
1989......................... 2,868.0 +266.7 (+10.3) 240.9
1990......................... 3,206.6 +338.6 (+11.8) 264.7
1991......................... 3,598.5 +391.9 (+12.2) 285.5
1992......................... 4,002.1 +403.6 (+11.2) 292.3
1993......................... 4,351.4 +349.3 (+8.7) 292.5
1994......................... 4,643.7 +292.3 (+6.7) 296.3
1995......................... 4,927.0 +283.3 (+6.1) 336.0
1996 est..................... 5,238.0 +311.0 (+6.3) 348.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee is talking and the Senator from South Carolina is talking,
but the facts speak more loudly than each of us. For example, the
gentleman talking then was the President when he came to town. In 1980,
we were paying interest costs of $74.8 billion on a national debt of
over 200-some years of history, with all the wars from the
Revolutionary War up to and including World War I, World War II, Korea
and Vietnam. Now, it is estimated to go to $348 billion just in
interest costs. That was the crowd that came and talked and said they
were going to save us from waste, fraud, and abuse. In fact, I got an
award from the Grace Commission, working with them. By 1989, we had to
report it, and 85 percent of the Grace Commission recommendations had
been implemented.
However, wanting to do away with waste, as we talked--look what
actually occurred. It has gone to the greatest waste in the history of
the Government--from $74.8 billion to $348 billion. Over $200 billion
just in increased in costs for nothing. If we had the two-hundred-
seventy-some billion dollars here now for these things, you would not
have extended debate on labor, health and human resources. We would
have the money for those programs. You would not have an amendment on
Legal Services. We would have provided for it and for cops on the beat
and for the State Department, and the strengthening of our technology,
and all.
My point is that we keep on talking, and we get estimates from the
CBO and all of these econometric models and all the economists that we
keep following and, as old Tennessee Ernie said, we are another day
older and deeper in debt.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a moment?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to acknowledge that the
person who educated me on gross interest over against net interest was
the Senator from South Carolina.
Administrations like to put net interest into their budgets. We do
not do that with any other function of Government. We do not say the
Justice Department took in so many dollars in fines and everything,
therefore, their budget is that much less. It is the gross expenditure
of the Justice Department. But because administrations like to fuzz
things up a little bit, they were using net interest. The real figure
is gross interest. I want to acknowledge Senator Fritz Hollings for
having educated me on this. And I hope he is educating a lot of other
people, too.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in a moment we will have an amendment by
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, which is going to
shift the allocation among the subcommittees providing additional
funding for Commerce, State, Justice and in the process solving many of
the problems that hold this bill up.
While we are waiting on that--and I understand the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia has now signed off on that amendment--I want
to say, as the new chairman of this subcommittee, that I have had an
opportunity, for the first time, to work with the distinguished Senator
of the full committee, Senator Hatfield, in that capacity. I think it
is fair to say that the success that I have had in bringing the bill to
this point is, in no small part, due to the assistance that I have had
from the distinguished Senator from Oregon. I simply want to say that
the Senator from Oregon has not only been very helpful to me in this
bill, but I think he epitomizes what the skilled and dedicated
legislator is all about.
I had a great deal of respect for Senator Hatfield before we started
trying to put together this very difficult bill. I have even more
respect for him now. In case we have the miracle of miracles and we
work out an agreement and this bill quickly becomes law and everybody
scatters to the far ends of the continent, and maybe in some cases to
the far ends of the world, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate
the distinguished chairman for the personal help and council he has
given to me. He certainly is deserving of our thanks and our
appreciation.
Let me, in waiting for the amendment to be ready, simply 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. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
temporarily set aside for the purpose of considering a technical
amendment which has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2813

(Purpose: To make certain technical corrections)

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

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment
numbered 2813.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 15, line 23 strike ``148,280,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``168,280,000''.
On page 15, line 24 strike ``and''.
On page 16, line 2 after ``103-322'' insert ``; and of
which $2,000,000 shall be for activities authorized by
section 210501 of Public Law 103-322''.
On page 20, line 8 strike ``$114,463,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$104,463,000''.
On page 115, line 9 strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$22,000,000''.
On page 123, line 1 strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``300,000''.
On page 151, line 16 strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(2)''.
On page 151, line 18, strike ``(2) and (3)'' and insert
``(3) and (4)''.

[[Page S 14502]]

On page 151, line 19 strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
On page 152, line 13 strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
On page 153, line 14 strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 154, line 21 strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 155, line 3 strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
On page 155, line 9 strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
On page 155, line 19 strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
On page 151, line 16 after ``Sec. 614.'' insert ``(1) This
Act may be cited as the ``Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.''
On page 161, line 25 strike ``$115,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$140,000,000''.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the bill that is currently before the
Senate, H.R. 2076, fiscal year 1996 Commerce, State, Justice
appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, contains several inadvertent errors. This amendment is
purely technical in nature and is intended to accurately reflect the
amendments which were adopted in both subcommittee and full committee.
This amendment has been cleared by the distinguished floor manager on
the other side. It is simply necessary to straighten out all of the
drafting errors that have been created in getting the bill to this
point.
Mr. HOLLINGS. It is cleared on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2813) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
corrections to the committee report that I send to the desk be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Errata: Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and
Related Agencies Report 104-139

Page 20, paragraph 2, sentence 2 should read:
``Of these funds, $275,000,000, including $107,720,000 in
program increases, are derived from the violent crime
reduction trust fund [VCRTF], as authorized in section 521 of
Senate bill 735.''
Page 27, under Border Control Systems Modernization, the
first sentence should read:
``A total of $158,500,000 is recommended, of which
$104,453,000 is provided from the violent crime reduction
trust fund, to continue the border system modernization
effort started last year.''
Page 30, last paragraph, delete the following report
language:
``The Committee recommendation assumes that the 300 agents
relocated to the front lines of the border will include the
agents noted by the Department as well as agents currently
assigned to the San Clemente and Temecula checkpoints in
California.''
On page 37, the entry for the Committee recommendation for
State and local block grant/COPS should be $1,690,000. A new
entry should be added for Police corps. 1995 appropriation is
zero. 1996 request is zero. House allowance is zero.
Committee recommendation is $10,000.
On page 60, under National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration the paragraph should read:
``The Committee recommends a total of $1,866,569,000 in new
budget (obligational) authority for all National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] appropriations. This level
of funding is $45,135,000 below fiscal year 1995, and is
$230,140,000 below the budget request. This recommendation is
$92,159,000 above the House allowance, and includes transfers
totaling $55,500,000 and fees totaling $3,000,000.''
On page 68, under National Marine Fisheries Service the
paragraph should read:
``The Committee recommendation provides a total of
$288,567,000 for the programs of the National Marine
Fisheries Service [NMFS] for fiscal year 1996. This amount is
$27,261,000 less than the budget request, and is $19,917,000
more than the current year funding level. The amount provided
under the Committee recommendation is $37,240,000 above the
House allowance. The Committee has recommended funding, as
shown in the preceding table, for a variety of important
research and information programs which are designed to
promote a sustainable use of valuable marine resources.''
Page 77, under Fishing Vessel Obligations Guarantees:
``Committee recommendation--250,000.''
Page 78, under National Technical Information Service,
second sentence should read: ``This is a decrease of
$7,000,000 below the current available appropriation.''
Page 86, under U.S. Sentencing Commission, first sentence
should read: ``The Committee recommends $7,040,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the U.S. Sentencing Commission for
fiscal year 1996.''
Page 112, under Radio Construction: ``Committee
recommendation--22,000,000.''
The bill includes $22,000,000 in new budget authority for
the ``Radio construction'' account for fiscal year 1996. This
amount is $63,919,000 less than the budget request,
$47,314,000 less than fiscal year 1995 funding levels, and
$48,164,000 below the House allowance.
Page 113, last paragraph, last line should read: ``FTUI,
and Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)--in
equal amounts.''
Page 133 under Department of State Acquisition and
Maintenance of Buildings Abroad, line 1 should read: ``The
Committee recommends a rescission of $140,000,000 from the
projected end-of-year carryover balances in the ``Acquisition
and maintenance of buildings abroad'' account at the State
Department.''

Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Amendment No. 2814 to the Committee Amendment on Page 2, line 9,
through Page 3, line 5

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

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] for himself and Mr.
Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 2814, to the
committee amendment on page 2, line 9, through page 3, line
5.

Mr. HATFIELD. 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 end of the committee amendment beginning on page 2,
line 9, insert the following:
The amount from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for
the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs is reduced by $75,000,000.
The following sums are appropriated in addition to such
sums provided elsewhere in this Act,
For the Department of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, $75,000,000.
For the Department of Commerce, International Trade
Administration, ``Operations and Administration'',
$46,500,000; for the Export Administration, ``Operations and
Administration'', $8,100,000; for the Minority Business
Development Agency, ``Minority Business Development'',
$32,789,000; for the National Telecommunication and
Information Administration, ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$3,000,000; for the Patent and Trademark Office ``Salaries
and Expenses'', $26,000,000; for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, ``Industrial Technology Services'',
$25,000,000; for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, ``Construction of Research Facilities'',
$3,000,000; and the amount for the Commerce Reorganization
Transition Fund is reduced by $10,000,000.
For the Department of State, Administration of Foreign
Affairs ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'', $135,635,000;
for ``Salaries and Expenses'', $32,724,000; for the ``Capital
Investment Fund'', $8,200,000.
For the United States Information Agency, ``Salaries and
Expenses'', $9,000,000; for the ``Technology Fund'',
$2,000,000; for the ``Educational and Cultural Exchange
Programs'', $20,000,000 of which $10,000,000 if for the
Fulbright program; for the Eisenhower Exchanges, $837,000;
for the ``International Broadcasting Operations'',
$10,000,000; and for the East-West Center, $10,000,000.
For the United States Sentencing Commission, ``Salaries and
Expenses'', $1,460,000; for the International Trade
Commission, ``Salaries and Expenses'', $4,250,000; for the
Federal Trade Commission ``Salaries and Expenses'',
$9,893,000; for the Marine Mammal Commission, ``Salaries and
Expenses'', $384,000; for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, ``Salaries and Expenses'', $29,740,000; and for
the Small Business Administration, $30,000,000.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first I want to express my deep
appreciation for the kind words expressed by the chairman of our
subcommittee, Senator Gramm of Texas, and to say in response that it
has been one of those wonderful occasions and experiences that
sometimes happen in the Senate, and that is when we get down together
one-on-one to negotiate and to try to find out the other person's
perspective, the other person's viewpoint, the other person's
priorities, and come to a new appreciation that this indeed, is one of
the strengths of this institution--its

[[Page S 14503]]
diversity. And at the same time there is diversity in this institution,
it does not mean that it means stalemate. It does not equal stalemate
diversity.
I could find no person with greater sensitivity and words indeed than
that personified by Mr. Gramm in working out the differences and also,
at the same time, working for the same goal.
I come to appreciate, from time to time, the strength of diversity. I
sometimes also think that if I listened more, spoke less, I would hear
what the other person might be saying a little more clearly than
depending upon imagery or upon labels such that we oftentimes use in
shortcut methods. That also does not build for personal relationships.
Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment on behalf of
Senator Hollings, myself, and on behalf of the Appropriations Committee
in general.
I filed an amended application for the Commerce, Justice and State
bill that allows an additional $500 million in budget authority and
$325 million in outlays to be spent on the bill.
Now, this begs for, again, a quick description again of our process.
I know beyond the beltway that is not necessarily perhaps a very high
item of interest. For our own colleagues to understand that at the
beginning of any appropriations cycle that the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, along with consultation and along with staff
and so forth, creates what we call the 602(b) allocations.
Now, we do not follow the House of Representatives. In other words,
we have our own methods and our own priorities and so forth. So that
reflects basically, once the committee has adopted the chairman's mark,
that represents basically a committee action.
In this particular case, we had $1 billion--I am talking now in round
numbers--$1 billion in a 602(b) allocation to this subcommittee headed
by Senator Gramm and with the former chair of the committee and now the
ranking member, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, $1 billion under
the House of Representatives.
Now, there were obvious problems just from that allocation. These
people had to work within that framework once adopted by the committee.
They did so. That meant that they had to not just reduce and diminish
some of the expenditures that have been built up over a period of time,
but they also had to select between agencies and between programs
within agencies.
Now, when we go to the House of Representatives for a conference
ultimately as we do with each bill, the chairman of the House
committee, Robert Livingston of Louisiana, and I have the
responsibilities under the Budget Act that we have to find a way to
bring those two committees together on an agreed target figure.
Normally, what we do is to strike the difference. We say, all right,
that is $500 million for the Senate in this case and $500 million less
for the House. You take that as your target figure to make your
adjustments.
In this particular case, probably one of the most severely hit of all
subcommittees in the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, and they
had an extraordinarily difficult time in the Senate to even get in the
ballpark of meeting with the House floor conference.
Why wait until that moment when Congressman Livingston and I have to
get together to fix that target, why not do it now? That is all this
amendment represents. We are saying, in effect, we had the previous
bill, HUD, independent agencies. We had to adjust that downward in
terms of meeting a figure to the House figure for HUD, independent
agency, the Senate HUD, independent agency, to get together for
conference.
What I have done at this point is to advance that moment of time and
decision that would have to take place with Congressman Livingston and
myself, taking from the HUD bill we have just completed on the floor
and transferring that budget outlay figure that we have just announced
here this afternoon at $325 million.
I had a reserve fund in the so-called BA that we could draw from in
the full committee, and we drew from that, to create now this
amendment. In other words, this amendment does not add a single penny
to our overall commitments under the budget resolution.
What we are doing is making a fine adjustment that has to occur
anyway, and we are doing it in advance of the time in order to make
this bill more acceptable and to be a broader base of support for the
bill, but also to be more equitable and fair in the bill.
My phone has been ringing off the hook for the last 3 weeks since the
committee reported the bill. I know that it has been so in the case of
Senators Gramm and Hollings, as well, and probably many others who
serve on the Appropriations Committee.
Now, this small increase of funds, we have made a printout of each
account to which we are adding funds in the Commerce Department, the
State Department, and some of agencies funded under this bill. We also
have reiterated our commitment for the Byrne-formula grants in the
Justice Department. Each member has before him or her the full
amendment in detail. I will only refer to that.
Now, what this overall amendment does is to keep the spending levels
closer to a freeze and closer to actions taken by the authorizing
committees.
So this is not just trying to get an adjustment for this bill here in
the Senate, and for the conference to come with the House, but also to
tie in with the authorized levels provided by Senator Helms in the case
of Foreign Relations Committee and the State Department.
You will find on this printout such examples, if you look at the
columns where this so-called outlays and this adjustment takes place in
the last two columns of the figures. As an example, we are taking
domestic and counselor programs and funding them with replacement of
money at about $115.8 million at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
authorizing level. That is how you work these charts back and forth.
The amendment provides additional funds for six independent agencies.
Those six independent agencies are U.S. Sentencing Commission,
International Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Marine Mammal
Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business
Administration.
Now, in the case of the Federal Trade Commission and the
International Trade Commission and all of these, what we have done is
to have a freeze minus 10 percent in the amendment. That contrasts to a
freeze minus 20 percent which was in the bill that is now before the
Senate. That, again, is representative of another type of handling of
these additions.
In the case of the Small Business Administration, we propose to add
an additional $30 million, which should be sufficient funding to
administrator the loan volume recommended in the committee bill.
Again, we refer back to not only our previous work but to authorizing
committees as well. There are many competing demands in this bill and
it makes it very difficult, even with this amendment.
Let me make very clear, this amendment does not solve all of our
problems. But I do think it can solve sufficient problems to get this
bill wrapped into the CR, down to the White House, eventually to be
vetoed. I have to be straightforward. My impression, maybe this
amendment is going to help in some way alleviate that probability that
is now very clear that the President intends to veto this bill.
Maybe we can again, hopefully, make that a lesser possibility than it
is under the bill that we have before us.
So, Mr. President, I am not going to go on about these changes. I am
very happy to respond to specific questions that people may have, but I
do want to say that it has been through the cooperative spirit of the
leadership of this subcommittee and the leadership of the full Senate
that we are hoping, today, to offer this amendment, have it adopted,
and thereby move on to address other issues in this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me rise in gratitude to our
distinguished full committee chairman and also the subcommittee
chairman for allowing us to proceed, and to note a softening and
thawing on behalf of the distinguished subcommittee chairman, which is
very becoming.
Senator Hatfield has really saved us. I read Mary McGrory this
morning, and she said Ross Perot had given

[[Page S 14504]]
President Clinton oxygen. I feel like, in this amendment, which I am
proud to cosponsor, we are getting oxygen. It keeps some very important
programs alive.
The distinguished full committee chairman, Senator Hatfield, has been
very sensitive and very understanding and very realistic. There is none
of this kind of pork or any of these other kind of things. This
amendment adds back funds to high priority commerce programs--$46.5
million for the International Trade Administration--we just had lunch
on yesterday with the Special Trade Representative. We are trying to
get more competitive and more realistic in a trade policy in this
country, and we need these additional funds to just bring them up to
where they would be at a freeze.
There is $32 million for the Minority Business Development Agency;
$25 million for NIST--the National Bureau of Standards, manufacturing
centers, the information technology centers; $8.1 million for the
Export Administration; and finally for the front line--after the fall
of the wall--namely, our State Department, which the distinguished
ranking member, Senator Pell, has just addressed. $177 million is added
to their operating accounts to bring them back to the level proposed in
S. 908, Senator Helms' Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
For the USIA, we are adding back $20 million for the international
education exchanges, including $10 million for the Fulbright program.
We also add back funds for the USIA operations, international
broadcasting, and technology modernization. And for the independent
agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Small Business
Administration and others, we have added back certain funds that could
be available now with this new allocation.
I thank particularly the staffs on both sides, Scott Gudes, Mark Van
Der Water, David Taylor, Scott Corwin, and Steve McMillen, who worked
until about 2 o'clock this morning, trying to bring this about.
I am very much appreciative to Senator Hatfield, and I hope we can
adopt this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the chairman of
the full committee and to the Senator from South Carolina for
addressing a concern I have been discussing with them for many months,
the East-West Center. It is a very important national asset, and I
thank them very much.
For those not familiar with the East-West Center, it is a world-class
American institution dedicated to promoting better understanding and
relationships with the countries of Asia and the Pacific.
It was created by a bipartisan government 35 years ago that foresaw
the need for a better understanding between the United States and the
Asia-Pacific region. The importance of the East-West Center is
important now more than ever.
The Asia-Pacific region is the fastest growing region in the world.
Today, over half of the population of the world is in Asia. This region
has about 20 percent of the land mass and over 60 percent of the gross
product of the world.
For every jumbo jet that flies over the Atlantic Ocean, four fly over
the Pacific Ocean. Our trade with Asia is four times larger than our
trade with Europe.
It has become the fastest growing economy. Trade with Asia provides
nearly 3 million jobs to Americans and, by the year 2003, our exports
to Asia will be more than double those to Europe.
I would like to share two concrete examples of the East-West Center's
success in the Asia-Pacific. There was a time when our relations with
Indonesia were next to nil. Our Ambassador was recalled. There were no
exchanges or any formal conversation.
Indonesia cut off all ties with the United States. It would not
permit any of its citizens to become Fulbright scholars, but it
continued to send men and women to the East-West Center.
The same thing with Burma. Our relationship with Burma over the years
has been hot and cold. At one time, Burma sent our Ambassador home and
closed our consulates. But Burma sent students to the East-West Center.
It was convinced that this was a unique spot on the globe where men
and women could freely discuss issues of the day.
The East-West Center now has 42,000 alumni globally; a network of
distinguished colleagues in government, business, the media, academia,
and the professions.
The student degree program, with 4,000 graduates, is a major
component of cultural and technical interchange at the Center.
As you can see, the East-West Center is a national resource that must
be funded at a responsible level. I ask my colleagues to support this
national institution.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator
from Hawaii, the senior Senator from Utah, the senior Senator from
Alaska, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, and the
chairmen of the subcommittee and full committee, in offering this
amendment to restore funding for the East-West Center.
Over the past 35 years, the East-West Center has established its
reputation as one of the most respected and authoritative institutions
dedicated to the advancement of international cooperation throughout
Asia and the Pacific. The Center plays a key role in promoting
constructive American involvement in the region through its
educational, dialogue, research, and outreach programs. The Center
addresses critical issues of importance to the Asia-Pacific region and
United States interests in the region, including international
economics and politics, energy and natural resources, population, the
environment, technology, and culture.
The achievements of the East-West Center bear repetition. Since its
creation by Congress in 1960, the Center has welcomed over 53,000
participants from over 60 nations and territories to research,
education, and conference programs.
Scholars, statesmen, government officials, journalists, teachers, and
business executives from the United States and the nations of Asia and
the Pacific have benefited from studies at the Center. These government
and private sector leaders comprise an influential network of East-West
Center alumni throughout the Asia-Pacific region. I continually
encounter proud Center alumni in meetings with Asian and Pacific island
government officials and business leaders.
The success of the Center as a forum for the promotion of
international cooperation and the strength of the positive personal
relationships developed at the Center are reflected in the prestige it
enjoys in the region. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Fiji, Papua New
Guinea, Pakistan, and other American allies in the region--over 20
countries in all--support the Center's programs with contributions. The
Center has also received endowments from benefactors in recognition of
its contributions and value.
Mr. President, the countries of Asia and the Pacific are critically
important to the United States and our political and economic interests
into the next century. By the year 2000, the Asia-Pacific region will
be the world's largest producer and consumer of goods and services. The
markets for energy resources, telecommunications, and air travel are
fast becoming the world's largest.
Future economic growth and job creation in the United States is
closely linked to our ability to identify and secure opportunities in
the world's fastest growing economies. The East-West Center provides
leadership and advice on economic issues, including APEC [Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation] and the U.S.-Pacific Island Joint Commercial
Commission.
Mr. President, given the strategic and economic importance of the
Asia-Pacific region to U.S. interests, and the credibility and trust
enjoyed by the East-West Center in the region, I believe it is unwise
to slash funding for the Center. We have closed, or are in the process
of closing, AID offices in the region. These actions are sending
signals to our friends and others in the region that our interest is
waning.
For over 3 decades we have invested in the East-West Center, creating
an important resource that promotes regional understanding and
cooperation, provides expertise on complex regional issues, and advises
U.S. foreign policy decisionmaking. If we fail to provide

[[Page S 14505]]
the Center adequate funding and a reasonable transition period to self-
sufficiency, we will discard a valuable resource--a first-class
institution that has earned an international reputation for its
research scholarship and academic programs. Given the increasing
significance of Asia and the Pacific islands to our interests and
security, such action is short-sighted and ill-advised. I urge my
colleagues to support our amendment.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the things that is deficient, in my
view, about the legislation before us--and I will shortly send an
amendment to the desk about it that I think we have worked out--and
that is, in fairness to my friend from Texas, the chairman of the
committee, in his, if I have this correct, 602(b) allocation, initially
he got less money in that allocation. I am not being critical of the
chairman. He got less money in that allocation than was needed to fund
some of the things I think he believes should have been funded, and I
strongly believe, along with Senator Hatch and a number of my
Republican as well as Democratic colleagues, should be funded.
In this case the present appropriations bill before us funds the
Violence Against Women Act law at $75 million less than is needed. It
is funded at $100 million. I am going to shortly send an amendment to
the desk to increase that funding. I ask to be corrected if I am
mistaken here, but I will, on behalf of Senator Gramm and myself, send
to the desk, along with Senators Hatch and Wellstone and others, an
amendment that would restore the $75 million in this account.
I understand the reason we have been able to work this out is a
consequence of the generosity of the distinguished chairman of the full
committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, this
subcommittee, who have come up with this agreement that, in turn, has
had the effect of providing an additional $75 million for the violent
crime trust fund. It is that from which this is funded.
Of all the legislation I have ever worked on here in the Senate, this
one, the Violence Against Women Act, has been, in my case, my first
priority and proudest accomplishment. When it passed the Senate with
overwhelming bipartisan support I was hopeful that support would be
maintained. Frankly, I lost faith there for a little while when the
appropriations bill first came out.
I am actually waiting for the amendment so I can send it to the desk.
I will explain the rest of it while I am waiting.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield for an observation.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not raise this officially, but I do not believe
the Senator can offer an amendment at this point. I do not believe this
amendment is amendable at this point.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, I have
overwhelming confidence in his parliamentary skills. If he says it,
there must be a likelihood he is correct, in which case I make a
parliamentary inquiry: When is it appropriate for the Senator from
Delaware to introduce an amendment that would, in fact, restore the $75
million to the violence against women account?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. When we dispose of the Hatfield amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. That is a very useful piece of information, Mr. President.
I thank him very much, and, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous
consent that, upon disposal of the Hatfield amendment, I be recognized
to offer my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I will not object if I
can add my unanimous consent to it that immediately thereafter we have
a Domenici amendment on legal services.
Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just take a moment, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I will just
take a minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. No problem.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to just emphasize what the
Senator from Delaware said, including being an original cosponsor to
this amendment. I will wait. I am very pleased an agreement has been
worked out. I will wait until the Senator from Delaware introduces his
amendment. My understanding is we have a good agreement here. At that
point in time I would like to talk about the importance of what we have
done.
So I just ask unanimous consent I be included as an original
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to ask Senator Hatfield,
the sponsor of the amendment, a clarification question.
First of all, I strongly compliment my colleague on the amendment. I
certainly intend wholeheartedly to support it. Under Small Business
Administration you have an overall $30 million add-on. Am I correct
that in the specifics, that for women's outreach programs, you have
increased that to $4 million?
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. And for the information centers, women's counselling,
$200,000. Is that correct?
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HATFIELD. Those are within the overall 30.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for his answers. I want to commend
him for that.
I want to suggest that, if there is any area that we are being
successful as a nation in encouraging new entrants into the business
field, it is women ownership of business. It is skyrocketing in
America, and some of it has to do with very effective programs when you
are bringing women in and they are talking about what they might want
to do in business, and providing a lot of information about how to
obtain loans and the like. I think we ought to maximize that effort at
this point.
I thank the Senator for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Oregon.
The amendment (No. 2814) was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm, and Senator
Hollings particularly for his cosponsorship.
I also want to thank Scott Gudes, Scott Corwin, David Taylor, and
Mark Van de Water, four members of our respective staffs who sat up and
worked this out in detail until about 2 a.m. this morning.
They certainly deserve the accolades and appreciation of the whole
Senate.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to particularly thank Mark Van de Water of
Senator Hatfield's staff. We really appreciate it very, very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
anyone who wishes to be added as a cosponsor on this amendment be able
to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2815

(Purpose: To restore funding for grants to combat violence against
women)

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

The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), for himself, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mr.

[[Page S 14506]]
Gramm, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an
amendment numbered 2815.

Mr. BIDEN. 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 25, line 19, strike ``$100,900,000'' and insert
``$175,400,000''.
On page 25, line 22, strike ``$4,250,000'' and insert
``$6,000,000''.
On page 26, line 1, strike ``$61,000,000'' and insert
``$130,000,000''.
On page 26, line 7, strike ``$6,000,000'' and insert
``$7,000,000''.
On page 26, line 10, insert after ``Act;'' the following:
``$1,000,000 for training programs to assist probation and
parole officers who work with released sex offenders, as
authorized by section 40152(c) of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; $500,000 for Federal
victim's counselors, as authorized by section 40114 of that
Act; $50,000 for grants for televised testimony, as
authorized by section 1001(a)(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968; $200,000 for the study of State
databases on the incidence of sexual and domestic violence,
as authorized by section 40292 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; $1,500,000 for national
stalker and domestic violence reduction, as authorized by
section 40603 of that Act;''

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to restore $75
million in funding for the Justice Department programs contained in the
Violence Against Women Act, and I am pleased that many of my
colleagues, including Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Hatch of Utah,
are cosponsors of this amendment.
Of all the legislation I have ever worked on here in the Senate, this
one--the Violence Against Women Act--has been my first priority and my
proudest accomplishment. When it passed the Senate with overwhelming
bipartisan support, I thought we were well on our way to making a
significant commitment to the women of America. I though we made more
than a paper commitment. But passing the law, without following through
and providing the funding is meaningless.
For too long, we have looked the other way when it comes to this kind
of violence. For too long, we have turned our back on the women injured
by men who say they love them. For too long, we have considered this
kind of violence a private misfortune rather than a public injustice.
Last year, we took a historic step in the right direction when we
passed the Violence Against Women Act. We made a commitment to the
women and children of this country. We said: We will no longer look the
other way--the violence your suffer will no longer be yours alone. Help
is on the way.
And just in case my colleagues have forgotten, let me once again
remind them of the dimensions of this problem:
The No. 1 threat to the health of America's women is a violent attack
at the hands of a man. It is not breast cancer, it's not heart attacks,
it's not strikes. Its violence against women by men.
These attacks have many names. They are called rape, assault,
felonies. And the attackers have many faces. They are friends,
relatives, spouses, and strangers.
The statistics are terrifying:
Every 18 seconds, a woman is beaten by her spouse, boyfriend, or
other intimate partner.
Every 5 minutes, a woman is raped.
Nearly two out of three female victims of violence are related to, or
know, their attackers.
As many as 35 percent of all women who visit emergency rooms are
there because of family violence.
This violence also takes a tragic toll on our children:
Three million children each year witness violence in their homes.
Studies show that these kids are more likely to drop out of school;
abuse alcohol and drugs; attempt suicide; and, sadly, grow up to be
abusers themselves.
The violence women suffer reflects as much a failure of our Nation's
collective moral conscience as it does the failure of our Nation's laws
and regulations.
How else can we explain the results of a study of junior high school
students conducted in Rhode Island a few years ago?
In the study, the students were asked: When does a man have the right
to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent?
It seems like an outrageous question doesn't it? but 80 percent of
the students said that a man had the right to use force on his wife, 70
percent said he had the right to use force if the couple was engaged,
and 61 percent said force was OK if the couple had already had sexual
relations, and 30 percent said force was justified if the man knew that
the woman had had sex with other men.

And the appalling answers do not stop.
About 25 percent of the boys said it was OK to force sex on a girl if
the boy had spent $10 on her--and, astoundingly, 20 percent of the
girls who were interviewed agreed.
If these are the attitudes we have communicated to our youth, it is
hardly surprising that we tolerate a level of violence against women
unprecedented in our history.
Somehow, we seem to forget that a society suffers what it tolerates.
That's why we cannot retreat from the commitment we made last year
with passage of the Violence Against Women Act. The act, let me remind
my colleagues, has four basic goals: To make our streets and homes
safer for women; to make the criminal justice system more responsive to
women; to start changing attitudes--beginning with our kids--about
violence against women; and to extend to women the equal protection of
our Nation's laws.
The Senate, the House, and the President--we all agreed last year
that Federal dollars should be committed to these goals. Specifically,
we authorized funding to:
Hire more police and prosecutors specially trained and devoted to
combating family violence;
Train police, prosecutors, and judges in the ways of family
violence--so they can better understand and respond to the problem;
Implement tougher arrest policies, including mandatory arrest for
anyone who violates a protection order--so that the burden of seeking
an arrest does not fall on the women who may fear further violence;
Expand and improve victim-service programs and provide specially
trained family violence court advocates;
Fund rape crisis centers and open more battered women shelters; and
Fund family violence education courses in our schools.
In the past 12 months, the Violence Against Women Act has already
been put into action. In States and communities all across the county,
Federal dollars are helping coalitions of police, prosecutors, judges,
and victim service organizations work together--to make arrests, win
convictions, secure tough sentences, and offer women the information
and practical resources they need.

As many of you may already know, the first conviction and sentencing
under the act took place recently in West Virginia.
It is a case about Christopher Bailey and his wife, Sonja, and it is
enough to take your breath away. Christopher Bailey severely beat
Sonja, forced her into the trunk of his car, and drove aimlessly across
West Virginia and Kentucky for 6 days.
Sonja suffered massive head injuries and severe kidney and liver
dysfunctions. Her face was black and blue, and her eyes were swollen
shut. She had burn marks on her neck, wrists, and ankles.
Today, Sonja remains in a coma.
Christopher Bailey was convicted under a new provision in the
Violence Against Women Act, and for kidnapping. Early this month he was
sentenced to serve the rest of his days in prison.
Obviously, Bailey's conviction won't bring Sonja out of her coma. But
it does send a clear message all across our land: violence against
women will not be tolerated--it will be punished, and it will be
punished severely.
Today, we here in the Senate must send that same message. We must
keep the promise we made last year, and restore funding for the Justice
Department programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act.
Last year, the Congress authorized over $176 million for the Violence
Against Women Act Justice Department programs. This bill as reported by
committee cut more than $76 million from these programs.
The most devastating cut was made to the grant program at the heart
of

[[Page S 14507]]
the act: The program to bring together State and local police,
prosecutors, and victims advocates to target family violence and rape.
Last year, we authorized $130 million for that program. This bill
only allocates $61 million--so $69 million dollars were cut from the
police, prosecution, and victim services grants--that means more than 1
out of every 2 dollars were cut.
This is money for more police and prosecutors to crack down on
violence against women; to train police, prosecutors, and judges so
they can understand better and respond more effectively to violence
against women; and to develop, enlarge and strengthen programs for
victims of violence--like rape crisis centers, battered women's
shelters, and special victim advocates.
This bill also cuts $1 million earmarked especially for rural areas
to combat family violence, and the bill completely eliminated the $1.5
million targeted to combat stalking against women.
In restoring $75 million in funding for the Violence Against Women
Act, this amendment does not take any new money out of the taxpayer's
pockets. Instead, the money comes out of other places in the bill--
where there's much more money appropriated than was requested by the
President.
These cuts would have had a devastating impact on the lives of women
and children in America. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues are
joining me in restoring virtually all of the funding for the Violence
Against Women Act.
Let me also point out: the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, chaired by my distinguished
friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, has
recommended full funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs
within the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services
for rape education and prevention, domestic violence community
demonstration projects, a domestic violence hotline, and battered women
shelters.
In fact, recognizing the urgency of this problem, the subcommittee
wrote in an additional $2.4 million for battered women shelters--
shelters which serve as a refuge for women and their children when they
are hurt and most vulnerable--and in greatest need of our compassion
and support.
I applaud the subcommittee's efforts to honor the commitment that we
made last year to the women and children of America. And I hope that
when the HHS appropriations bill comes to the floor, the full Senate
will honor that commitment as well.
But right here, right now, we must not retreat on the bill at hand.
We cannot--we must not--turn back now. For too long, our society has
turned its back on the nightmare that is violence against women.
Obviously, we cannot legislate humanity and kindness. And we cannot
outlaw hatred and ignorance.
But we can help make America a safer place for women--and I call on
everyone here to help do just that.
I hope all of my colleagues will join me in restoring full funding to
the Violence Against Women Act programs. The women and children of
America are counting on us.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hollings be added
as an original cosponsor, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator
Gramm of Texas is already the original cosponsor, Senator Hatch,
Senator Boxer, Senator Wellstone, and others who will come to the floor
I am sure who wish to be part of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that they be added.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the interest of time because there are
other amendments and a lot more to do on this bill, let me briefly
explain this amendment and then yield to the chairman of the
subcommittee for any comments that he would like to make, and he surely
knows the mechanics of this better than I.
Mr. President, in order to restore every single piece of the Violence
Against Women Act funding, there is a requirement that would be
required that we would have to have had $76.7 million.
Just to give my colleagues an idea what I mean about that, the
violence against women grants; pro-arrest policy; rural domestic
violence, court-appointed special counsel, national stalker reduction,
training programs, Federal victims counselors, grants for televised
testimony, State databases, national baseline study for campus sexual
assault, equal justice for women in courts, training grants for State
courts, training for Federal and judicial personnel, Federal Judicial
Center, and Administrative Office of the Courts, are all recipients of
some portion of the violence against women funding.
Unfortunately, all we have available is $75 million, not $76.7
million to make this account totally whole.
So my amendment lays out which portions of all of those functions
that I have just read are fully funded and which are not able to be
funded with this addition of $75 million.
I want to put this in context. We are going to be funding $175
million out of $76.7 million. This is a $75 million increase. I wish it
were a $76.7 million increase, but then again, as my friend, the
chairman of the full committee is saying, I am being a little greedy in
that regard. I realize every program has to take a little bit of hit.
So what we do in a nutshell is we add $75 million in the accounts
that we may call the violence against women grants, pro-arrest policy,
the rural domestic violence, court-appointed advocate programs,
national stalker legislation, training programs, Federal victims
counselors--we are not able to fully fund the grants for televised
testimony. That was originally in our legislation--$250 million. It is
funded at only $50 million. We are able to fund fully the State
database. We are not able to fund the national baseline study on campus
sexual assault at this moment. We are not able to fund equal justice
for women in State courts, training for Federal judicial personnel,
Federal Judicial Center, and Administrative Office of the Courts.
So that is what the additional $75 million goes to make whole.
I would be delighted to yield to the chairman of the committee for
any comments, and thank him, by the way, for keeping--as he always does
with me and with everyone else I know--a commitment. He told me that if
he had the money he would make this account at least mostly whole. He
got the money, and he did just that. And I thank him for that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Biden for working with
me on this amendment. We had provided in the appropriations bill a
tripling of funding for violence against women, which represented our
largest increase in expenditure in the bill. Our problem was that,
given the overall financial constraint we had, there was no way we
could fund the authorized level of the program.
So Senator Biden and I were in a position that we both wanted to
provide more money. This has been one of the top priorities of the
bill. But yet we were still short of the full program that the Senate
had authorized.
When the distinguished chairman of the committee allocated additional
funds to the subcommittee, as he did in his amendment that was just
adopted a moment ago, it allowed us to go ahead and to fully fund this
program.
I am, therefore, very happy to join my colleague from Delaware in
this amendment. I think given the funds that are now available that
this represents a wise expenditure of money.
I join my colleague in supporting this amendment, and urge our
colleagues to adopt it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to thank both of my
colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, and the Senator from Texas and,
of course, the Senator from Oregon, Chairman Hatfield.
I also see the Senator from Utah whom I think has been a real leader
in this area. I am really pleased that we have come together in a
bipartisan way on this issue.

[[Page S 14508]]

Mr. President, I could take a tremendous amount of time. But I think
there are other Senators who want to make some brief comments on this
as well. So let me just try to summarize several hours worth of what I
would like to say on this issue.
In my State of Minnesota I think a lot of people are lighting a
candle in this area. The statistics nationally are really grim. I think
the FBI statistics is something like every 15 seconds a woman is
battered in our country.
Mr. President, I think that we are taking this seriously now in a way
that we have not before as a country, both as a crime and also in terms
of the kind of things that we need to do to prevent it.
Mr. President, I think what this Violence Against Women Act funding
does--I am so pleased that we were able to go up from $100 million to
$175 million, is it provides funds to communities who can make good and
positive things happen.
Mr. President, I think this is not bragging to say that Minnesota
really is one of the leaders in the Nation--I think I would probably
argue leader in the Nation. I think the general view that we have in my
State is we are never going to be able to reduce the violence in our
communities unless we are able to reduce the violence in our homes. It
spills out into the streets. It spills out into the neighborhoods. It
spills out into the community.
I think the second view that we have in Minnesota--and I think it is
a view around the country--is that, whereas, when I was a kid, if we
knew something was wrong in another home, whether it be a woman who was
battered or a child--sometimes a man, but unfortunately mainly women
and children, not that I think it is good that men are battered--I
think it is awful that so many women and children have to pay this
price. I think now we have reached the conclusion, as opposed to a
point in time when we said it was no one's business, I think we are now
seeing it as everybody's business. This is the kind of problem that
could be tackled at the community level. It is the kind of problem that
could be tackled by the law enforcement community. It is the kind of
problem that could be tackled by the clergy. It is the kind of problem
that can be tackled by women and others who are down there in the
trenches in the battered women's shelters. It is the kind of problem
that can be tackled in our schools where children learn alternatives to
violence as a way of solving disputes. We really think as a country we
can take this problem on.
I think this amendment which has been accepted by both sides is an
extremely powerful, an extremely personal, and an extremely important
message by the U.S. Senate that we are not going to back down from this
national commitment.
I am proud to be a cosponsor. I thank the Senator from Delaware for
his very fine remarks.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I
thank my colleague, friend, and cosponsor, Senator Biden, for his
leadership in this area.
Mr. President, this really has a dramatic imprint on America. It is
already starting to put people in jail that are violating the rights of
women in our society. Frankly, it is a tough law. It is a good law. It
is one that needs to be fully funded, and I am happy that we have the
cooperation and the support of the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee in this matter as well.
As most of my colleagues are aware, I have long opposed programs I
believed were mere pork projects. In fact, I led the battle against
last year's crime bill because I felt that it had ballooned in terms of
unjustified costs. The Violence Against Women Act, however, is an
important program that deserves to be fully funded. The act provides
for: Rape prevention education; battered women shelters; grants to
encourage arrest policies in domestic violence cases; the investigation
and prosecution of domestic violence and child abuse in rural areas;
treatment and counseling for victims; and for developing community
domestic violence and child abuse education programs.
These programs are important. Prosecutors and police officers must
become more sensitized to the problem of violence against women. Women
who are abused by their spouses must have a place to stay and must have
counseling available to repair their shattered lives. Resources need to
be channeled to stem the tide of violence directed against women.
Mr. President, no matter what anybody said, violence against women is
a problem in America today. According to the Justice Department data,
nearly half a million women were forcibly raped last year--a half
million, in the greatest society in the world.
Some studies estimate that the total number of rapes including those
not reported to the authorities exceed 2 million women a year. That is
outrageous and it has to stop.
Indeed, according to a recent report by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, a woman faces four times the chance of being raped today
than in 1960. Similarly, domestic violence strikes at the heart of the
most important political unit in America, and that is the family. The
family should be a safe harbor for those tossed about by the storms of
life, not a place of abuse or of degradation. It is a sad fact of life,
however, that the reports of domestic violence have been on the rise.
To this end, Senator Biden, Senator Specter, and I worked last year
to see that the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law.
According to both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
however, the Justice Department has only spent $2 million of the total
$25 million provided for fiscal year 1995. We have to restore this
funding. The act is a small, albeit vital, step toward addressing the
problem of family violence and violence against women generally.
So I certainly urge all colleagues to be supportive of this
amendment. I am pleased to stand and support this excellent bill, and I
compliment my friend and colleague from Delaware for his leadership in
this matter, as well as those in the Chamber and others who have
contributed to the bill and to the funding of it. And I particularly
thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their
willingness to fully fund this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in saying a few words
in support of this amendment. I particularly thank the Senator from
Delaware, Senator Biden, for negotiating on our behalf on this side of
the aisle, his conversations that he has had with all of us, the dialog
that he engaged in an effort to try to achieve a sensible strategy to
save some of the programs in a bill that to many of us is still flawed.
The Senator from Utah just talked about rape and the problem of
violence with respect to rape in particular, but the truth is that
family violence, as we have all learned, is the No. 1 cause of all
kinds of physical injury to women in this country. And when you
translate the effect of family violence into the impact on several
million young children, that impact plays out in a way that diminishes
the capacity of those children to be able to learn, to be able to go to
school, to be able to carry on normal relationships, and that flows
into their adolescence and subsequent adulthood in ways that simply
diminish the capacity of people to be able to participate as good
citizens.
We all deplore the implosion within a large segment of America's
population with respect to a fundamental structure--the family.
Finally, with the Violence Against Women Act, we gave people hope that
a particular kind of behavior was going to be properly singled out and
treated. To have even thought of doing away with it was astonishing to
me.
We do not need to talk further about that because we are restoring
it. I am glad that the Senate has come to its senses with respect to
it.
I might mention that the Violence Against Women Act not only speaks
to the problem of the physical abuse against a woman. We just had a
very long debate about welfare and the family cap. And my good friend
from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, spoke extraordinarily eloquently in
the Chamber about the problem of punishing innocent children and
creating further

[[Page S 14509]]
problems in the cycle but also about the problem of increased incentive
to have abortions as a consequence of illegitimate pregnancies.
Mr. President, when you consider violence against women, the truth
is--and it has been ignored by prosecutors across America and by State
governments across America--a large percentage of those unwanted
pregnancies in America are the pregnancies of 13- and 14- and 15- and
16-year-olds by virtue of the actions of 24- and 25- and 26-year-olds.
The last time most of us looked, that constituted statutory rape in
this country.
A Congressman has just been tried on the basis of actions of an adult
with a teenager, and the truth is that here in America a large
percentage of preying on the young is taking place. The unwanted
pregnancies that we see in this country are in fact criminal actions.
So this act in effect allows us to also focus on that totally ignored
aspect of illegitimacy.
And the truth is, if there was a stronger capacity within the welfare
system to identity those people, we might begin to hold people
accountable for their actions, but not do it in a way that creates a
huge problem for the totally innocent child born as a consequence of
those actions.
So, Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Delaware. I think
this is a very important outcome. And I thank the Senator from Texas
for acknowledging that this act that only recently went into effect is
working, it is having a profound impact and it is healthy for this
country to allow it to continue to work.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Biden amendment
to increase by $75 million the appropriation for enforcement of the
Violence Against Women's Act. As an original cosponsor of the
amendment, it is vitally important that Congress does not waiver in its
commitment to ensure that women in America are free from the
devastation of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a social sickness, and women and children are
its most common casualties. Violence against women in the home is a
heinous crime being committed behind locked doors and pulled shades in
cities and towns across America. By committing this additional funding
to the Violence Against Women's Act, Congress will give women the tools
to bring this crime out of the shadows.
Mr. President, a policeman recently said, ``The most dangerous place
to be is in one's home between Saturday night at 6 p.m. and Sunday at 6
p.m.'' He forgot to add, ``Especially if you're a woman.'' A 10-year
study found that in cases where the identity of the killer is known,
over one half of all women murdered in America were killed by a current
or former male partner or by a male family member. Studies have also
shown that violence against women in the home causes more total
injuries to women than rape, muggings, and car accidents combined.
In my home State of New Jersey, there were 66,248 domestic violence
offenses reported by the police in 1993. Overall, women were the
victims in 83 percent of all domestic violence offenses. Mr. President,
41 women lost their lives as a result of domestic violence disputes in
my home State in 1993. These are not nameless, faceless statistics, Mr.
President, these are women who endured torture and abuse during their
marriages and were violently murdered.
Mr. President, I have introduced a bill to create community response
teams around the country. Community response teams work in tandem with
police to help victims of domestic violence right when a crisis occurs.
By working together, community response teams and police can provide
victims with the services so essential to them after they have been
battered or beaten in their home.
Mr. President, an increasing number of jurisdictions in the State of
New Jersey are employing community response teams. For example, in
Middlesex County, which includes South River, there are currently five
jurisdictions with community response teams. South River, with a
population of approximately 15,000, has a community response team
employing 7 community volunteers. In Woodbridge, a community response
team of approximately 30 volunteers is serving a population of 100,000.
These community response teams, serving both large and small
communities, are effectively assisting women who are suffering physical
and mental abuse.
Mr. President, Violence Against Women's Act funding is available for
these successful programs in New Jersey to continue to aid victims of
domestic violence. In addition, Violence Against Women's Act funding
will assist in the fight against domestic violence by providing needed
resources to prosecutors and police officers.
Mr. President, if domestic violence is to be obliterated in our
society, we need to provide communities with the resources they need to
prevent instances of violence and protect victims from further abuse.
By providing additional funding to the Violence Against Women's Act,
Congress will strengthen the lines of defense in the battle against
domestic violence.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Biden
amendment, which restores the $75 million shortfall in funding for
programs to prevent violence against women.
After years of hearings, reports and statistics we learned that our
society and our criminal justice system has been ignoring violence
against women, often with tragic consequences for women, their
children, and ultimately, for society itself.
We learned that one-fifth of all aggravated assaults in the United
States occurred in the home; 3 to 4 million American women a year are
victims of family violence; one-third of all American women who are
murdered die at the hands of a husband or boyfriend; one third of all
women who go to emergency rooms in this country are there because of
family violence; an estimated 700,000 American women are raped each
year; children in violent homes are 1,500 times more likely to be
abused or neglected; over the last 10 years, crimes against women have
risen nearly three times as fast as the total crime rate; 98 percent of
the victims of rape never see their attacker caught, tried or
imprisoned; over half of all rape prosecutions are either dismissed
before trial or result in an acquittal; and almost half of all
convicted rapists can expect to serve an average of a year or less
behind bars.
The solution to the problem is not to treat women as victims--it is
empowerment. And that is what the act does. It allows women to take
charge of their lives through such things as rape prevention programs
or counseling provided at federally funded battered women's shelters.
The Violence Against Women Act is the first comprehensive approach to
fighting all forms of violence against women. The law made a
substantial commitment of Federal funds over a 6-year period to combat
family violence and sexual assault. The commitment we made sends
resources and support to those devoted to responding to and preventing
violence against women.
I urge every Senator to support this amendment. Let us not go back on
our promises made to the women of this country.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Biden's
amendment to restore full funding for the Violence Against Women Act.
This amendment would restore $76 million to programs in the Violence
Against Women Act--training for police, prosecutors, and victims
advocates to target family violence and rape; programs to reduce sexual
abuse and exploitation of young people; training for judges and
prosecutors on victims of child abuse; training for state court judges
on rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, and programs to address
domestic violence in rural areas.
Last year, $240 million was promised by Congress for the Violence
Against Women Act [VAWA] programs for fiscal year 1996--$176.7 million
for VAWA programs administered by the Department of Justice, and $61.9
million for VAWA programs administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services.
All of this is funded out of $4.2 billion provided by the crime trust
fund in 1996. Funding in the crime trust fund comes from eliminating
123,000 federal jobs and cutting domestic discretionary spending. Full
funding of the Violence Against Women Programs has no effect on the
budget deficit and requires no new taxes. Now, I want my

[[Page S 14510]]
colleagues to clearly understand what this all means. Last year, as a
country we decided that addressing crime was a top priority. We decided
that savings from streamlining the Federal Government and cutting other
domestic programs would go to fight crime.
As a country we made a commitment to breaking the cycle of violence
and see that a person's home is the safe place it should be. Last year,
as part of the crime bill Congress passed the Violence Against Women
Act, we made a bipartisan commitment to address domestic violence. But
now, only a year later, we are considering a bill to cut funding for
these programs.
I must, at the same time, commend my colleagues on the Appropriation
Subcommittee on Labor/HHS for their efforts and wisdom in more than
fully funding the Violence Against Women Act Program under their
jurisdiction.
But we must remember all the programs in the Violence Against Women
Act are a package. Senator Biden and others worked for 5 years on this
piece of legislation. All the pieces of it fit together. They all must
be in place for it to work effectively. For example, we can encourage
arrests by police officers but if they are not properly trained to
understand the dynamics of domestic violence, an arrest could make the
situation more explosive. Likewise, if more batterers are being
arrested but judges are not trained to understand or take domestic
violence seriously batterers are likely to go free or charged with
lesser offenses.

Violence Against Women Act programs must be fully funded. Anything
less would result in a betrayal of the bipartisan promise Congress
made. Domestic violence should be a priority for national crime-
fighting efforts. But without adequate funding we cannot address this
serious problem.
We know all too well that it is the violence in the home that seeps
out into our streets. If we do not stop the violence in the home we
will never stop it in the streets. We knew this when we passed the
crime bill last year and it is still true today.
Domestic violence is one of the most serious issues we face. It knows
no boarders. Neither race, gender, geographic or economic status
shields someone from domestic violence. As a matter of fact, next week
my wife Sheila and I are sponsoring the display of 50 photographs by
Donna Ferrato, an award winning photojournalist. These photographs
provide powerful and graphic evidence of this crisis, and I invite my
colleagues to view them, I am only disappointed that these photos could
not be displayed while we debate this issue.
Mr. President, nationwide, every 15 seconds a woman is beaten by a
husband or boyfriend, over 4,000 women are killed every year by their
abuser, and every 6 minutes a woman is forcibly raped.
We know that the majority, 70 percent, of men who batter women also
batter their children. Or children may be injured during an incident of
parental battery. We also know that 25-45 percent of all women who are
battered are battered during pregnancy. Battering during pregnancy is
the most common cause of birth defects.
Children are also scarred emotionally by witnessing the abuse of
their mothers. They are traumatized by fear for their mother and their
own helplessness in protecting her. They may blame themselves for not
preventing the violence or even for causing it. This can manifest
itself in aggression, sleeping disorders, or withdrawal.
When a woman and her children are struggling to leave violent homes,
they face many barriers. Many people ask why she does not leave? Often
the response to this question is merely another question: why does he
beat her? I feel that particular response ignores the realities of
women's lives. One reason women do not leave is fear. If she leaves, he
will find her and kill her. Batterers often threaten to harm or take
the children away to force her to stay. Leaving him never guarantees
safety for a woman or her children. In almost three-quarters of
reported spouse assaults, the victim was divorced or separated at the
time of the attack.
Women are also dependent on the abusers for financial reasons. If
they decide to leave, often they can not afford housing or food for
themselves and children.
Abusers also play on emotions to trap victims into staying. He will
threaten to kill himself. This plays on many victims desires not for
the marriage to end, just the violence.
Domestic violence is a community issue. It is no longer an issue for
women; it is an issue for all women, men, and children. Communities
need to work together. It was the Violence Against Women Act that was
intended not only to strengthen the laws concerning general violence,
it was to provide some of the necessary resources to communities to
address the violence in their own communities.
It was intended to help law enforcement officers to make responsible
arrests and understand the dynamics of domestic violence--to learn not
ask her what she did to make him mad. It was to help train judges to
treat domestic violence as a crime and hold the abusers accountable for
the violence.
How ironic it is that last year around this time we were celebrating
the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. We were celebrating
because, finally, the Federal Government had taken a very bold step to
make the protection of women in their homes a top priority for this
Nation. And now, 2 days before the beginning of Domestic Violence
Awareness Month we are considering a bill that cuts the funding for
these important programs.
As I travel and meet more and more women and children who are victims
of domestic violence, I become even more outraged that a woman's home
can be the most dangerous, violent, or deadly place she can be; if she
is a mother, the same is true for her children. It was with the passage
of the Violence Against Women Act that Congress said loudly and clearly
it is time to stop the cycle of violence, it is time to make homes safe
again, and it is time to help communities across the country deal with
this crisis. Without full funding, Congress will turn its back on women
and their families. And it will turn its back on communities that are
struggling to deal with increasing crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would first like to thank my colleague
from Delaware, Senator Biden, for crafting and offering this amendment
as well as my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his leadership.
Mr. President, I want to speak to you today not just as a U.S.
Senator, or a citizen of Maine, or even as a Republican. I want to
speak to you as a woman, and I want to speak to you on behalf of the
135 million women of America about an issue that has more likely than
not touched each of our lives at some point in time.
Let me just say that it is not an uncommon occurrence in Congress for
either Chamber to authorize funding for a particular program but not to
fully fund that program at the authorized levels. It happens often,
and, in some circumstances, there may be justifiable reasons to take
such a course of action.
By not fully funding some wasteful programs, we might even save the
taxpayers of America some of their hard earned tax dollars and use them
towards programs that work and that make a difference in the daily
lives of America's families.
But I think it would come as a great surprise to many Americans--
especially to those 135 million women--to know that a program such as
the Violence Against Women Act, which was passed as part of last year's
crime bill in Congress, has not yet been fully funded.
Now, I think it is safe to say that the Violence Against Women Act is
one program that deserves its full funding. It is not wasteful. It is
not unnecessary. It is not--and should not be--a target of waste
watchers. And it is not to be overlooked. But it has been.
Fortunately, today, we have an opportunity to correct this oversight.
For those who may be wary of its funding--or who may doubt its
necessity in this era of penny-pinching and budget scrutiny--let me
just take a moment to paint a picture of life in America's streets and
homes for some women.
It is a picture where more than 2.5 million women annually are
victims of violent crimes.
It is a picture where an estimated 5,000 women are beaten to death
each year.

[[Page S 14511]]

It is a picture where in the 1990's, one out of every eight women
have been the victim of a forcible rape.
It is a picture where every 15 seconds in America, a woman is
battered--and where every 6 minutes, a woman is raped.
It is a picture where, between 1989 and 1993, the number of known
rape offenses increased by 11 percent--despite more awareness of
violence against women.
It is a picture where a woman in our country is more likely to be
assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by a male partner than by any
other assailant.
It is a picture where at least a third of all female emergency room
patients are battered women, while a third of all homeless women and
children are without shelter because they are fleeing domestic
violence.
And the litany of tragedy and violence goes on to paint an even
fuller, starker, and more disheartening picture.
This is an issue about a woman's safety, a woman's rights, and our
ability as a nation to protect those inalienable rights as guaranteed
under the Constitution.
But how can we defend a woman's right to ``life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness'' when we cannot protect her from ``rape, battery,
and the onslaught of violence.''
Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act is a critical tool in
our fight to combat domestic violence across America. It is an
essential bill for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our
relatives, our friends, and our coworkers.
It contains provisions that enhance penalties for sex offenders;
provides grants to States to improve law enforcement, prosecution, and
victims services in cases of violent crimes against women; authorizes
over $200 million for rape prevention and education programs; provides
funds for the creation of a national domestic violence hotline as well
as battered women's shelters; and does much more.
These provisions will help become a shield for women and deliver
justice to victims of hateful and brutal assaults. Already, within the
past year, two individuals have been imprisoned for life terms under
this act for beating their spouses or girlfriends.
While I will be the first to say that violence knows no gender
barriers and is clearly a threat to both men and women alike, no one
can turn a blind eye to the fact that women are especially to be found
in the scope of danger and crime.
Consider that women are six times--6 times--more likely than men to
experience violence committed by an intimate. Consider that women and
girls are victimized by relatives at four times the rate of males. And
consider that an astounding 95 percent of violence victims are, in
fact, women.
But the men of America have a stake in this legislation as well,
which is why the fight here on the floor has been joined by such men as
Senators Biden and Hatch. Namely, the fathers, sons, and brothers of
the women of America who face the threat of violence each and every
day. They deserve to know that the women who mean the most to them and
their lives are safe on the streets of our cities.
It is for these reasons that I and 29 of my Senate colleagues
requested that we fully fund the Violence Against Women Act in an
August 9 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The Violence Against Women Act should be fully funded as it is
supposed to be fully paid for out of the crime trust fund that Congress
created last year. But the bill before us does not provide for it.
Rather, the moneys within the crime trust fund have been what they call
``re-prioritized,'' which in English means that the Violence Against
Women Act has been short-changed to the tune of about $75 million.
In fiscal year 1995, total funding for this program was $26 million.
The House Appropriations Committee appropriated $125 million for the
program for fiscal year 1996, and the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee funded $100 million--a threefold increase over current
funding, but still far short--woefully short--of what American women
need and deserve to combat violence and domestic abuse.
Today, we are proposing a remedy to meet this crisis of funding head-
on.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware and the Senator
from Texas provides the additional $75 million needed to fully fund the
Violence Against Women Act.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that--as a former Cochair of
the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues--I understand and know
first-hand the importance of making women's health and women's safety a
priority for Congress, because we must speak out for the 135 million
women and girls of America.
We cannot let them down. We can no longer treat the Violence Against
Women Act as a political football and simply fumble away women's needs
and concerns.
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I was taught by a fellow from South
Carolina when I first got here 23 years ago that when you won, sit
down. I mean, we won in the sense that everyone wins here. Women of
America win.
I would like to ask unanimous consent--I will be very brief--that the
following Senators be also added as original cosponsors: Senator
Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, and
Senator Santorum, the Presiding Officer, from Pennsylvania.
Let me just say in closing, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays
at that point, that there are certain facts people should keep in mind.
I think of all the facts that affect women in this Nation as a
consequence of violence, the thing that surprises me, that surprises
most Americans most often are the following:
That family violence is the No. 1 cause of injury to adult women in
America--No. 1, No. 1--not breast cancer, not heart attacks, not
strokes. The No. 1 cause of injury to women in America is family
violence, in almost every instance the fist of a man, supposedly
someone who loves them.
The second point that people should keep in mind and why this is so
important: Every 18 seconds a woman is beaten by her spouse, boyfriend,
or other intimate partner in the United States, making the home the
most dangerous place in the world to live for being a women in a
democracy. As many as 35 percent of all the women who will visit an
emergency room in any of our cities tonight, one-third of all the women
who will walk into an emergency room in Washington, DC; Wilmington, DE;
Boston, MA; Butte, MT, one-third of them tonight who walk in will be
there as a consequence of the fist of a man. They will be there because
a man has injured them.
Three million children a year witness family violence in their homes.
And as a consequence, the statistics are overwhelming. I will not bore
you, but those children significantly have a greater likelihood of
dropping out of school, becoming alcohol and drug abusers. They are the
highest percentage of suicide attempts, and, most frightening of all,
they become abusers--abusers. They become the abusers.
So, for these and 1,000 other reasons we could all speak to, I think
this is a very, very important error we are correcting in this bill.
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. BIDEN. I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think we are going to decide to stack
votes. So what I would like to do, unless someone else wants to speak
on this amendment, is to suggest the absence of a quorum until we can
decide if we are going to do that, in which case we would simply make
this the first vote when we do the stacked votes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator suggests the absence of
a quorum, I want to make it clear it is perfectly fine with me whatever
way the Senator wishes to proceed.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask if it would be permissible then to
proceed

[[Page S 14512]]
simply to speak on some issues with respect to the crime bill instead
of putting in a quorum call.
I know, Mr. President, that discussions are going on now. We are
negotiating, and Senator Biden is representing our side, with respect
to the issue of cops, police. I would like to talk for a few minutes,
if I may, Mr. President, about this issue of cops. It is one that I
have been deeply involved in and concerned about for all the time I
have been in the Senate. And in the last few years we finally have been
able to elicit a response to try to meet one of the great needs of the
country.
There is not one of us who has not been touched at one time or
another in one way or another and sometimes very personally. I remember
listening to the Senator from North Dakota in his own personal tale of
what happened to his wife right here over on Capitol Hill. There are
dozens of other examples. We have had a Senator randomly shot in the
past here in Washington. We have had countless citizens in this city
right around us shot. It is a war zone. It is the murder capital of the
country. And it ought to have set a better example for what response
should have been from the U.S. Congress.
Such a random act of violence occurred just a couple days ago in
Massachusetts to a young prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Paul
McLaughlin, the son of a friend of mine, former Lieutenant Governor and
U.S. attorney. But this young assistant attorney general, himself
involved in working to fight the problem of gang warfare and gang
criminal activity, was simply gunned down going to his car coming home
in the evening after his normal 12-hour day in a prosecutor's office. A
hooded young person walked up and blew him away.
I talked this afternoon with his father. And there is no way to
express the sorrow that he and his family feel and no way for us to
express our sorrow on their behalf.
But I can say, Mr. President, with clarity that what the State and
local entities have been doing over the course of the past years and
the Federal response to that is truly unconscionable because we have
literally been disarming in the face of an increasing threat on an
annual basis, a threat that is measurable. And all of us have come to
understand, I hope finally, that nothing is more important in terms of
really fighting crime than to put police officers on the streets of the
country.
Mr. President, I have quoted the statistics before, but somehow they
do not always seem to break through. But 15 years ago in this country
we had 3.5 police officers per violent crime. Today we have, depending
on the statistics, a range of 3.5 to 4.6 violent crimes per police
officer. You can go into any of the major criminal activity communities
in this country and you will find they are operating with less police
today with a greater threat than they were 10 or 15 years ago with a
lesser threat.
Ask anyone in those communities about the relationship between the
community and police. By and large the police come in, they drive
through in a cruiser, they are gone. People do not know them. It is a
sign of transient authority, not the sign of a present authority that
makes an impact on people's lives. The word ``cop'' came from the
British concept of ``constable on patrol.'' And it meant on patrol on
foot, walking within a community. We used to do that in America. That
was the nature of policing originally. The police officer knew the
community, the people knew the police officer. There was a relationship
with the police officer. The police officer was a role model. So,
indeed, criminal activity rarely took place right under the nose of a
police officer on patrol.
Now, in recent days, we have sent a message to people in this country
that most crimes are very difficult to trace, very difficult to make
arrests. In fact, one of the most startling statistics that I have come
across is the fact that out of the 200,000 murders that occurred in
this country in the last decade, fully 100,000 of them were murders
that occurred by total strangers. Americans are being killed, not, as
the FBI once told us, in these family disputes or lovers' quarrels, but
they are being murdered randomly by people they have never seen and
never met. And what is more frightening is fully two-fifths of those
murders are committed by people who will never walk through the
threshold of a police station or a courthouse.
Fully two-fifths of the murderers in America will never even come to
justice. And 100,000 of our citizens in the last decade were gunned
down by utter strangers. So when people say, well, violent crime is
going down in America because there were 200 murders in your city last
year and this year there were only 190, how are you supposed to feel
safer? What greater safety is there in knowing that instead of 200
murders, 190 of your citizens were blown away?
Mr. President, 100,000 police officers is an inadequate response. I
say to my colleagues today that 100,000 police officers is an
inadequate response. And what is really bizarre in this new equation we
are debating in Washington, the two greatest public crises in America
today--education and public safety--are already today 100 percent and
95 percent controlled at the local level.
So here we are with an implosion of capacity to resolve these
problems at the local level, and we are busy saying we are going to
send back to the local level more responsibility with less resources.
If that does not underscore the need for more than the 100,000 police
officers, I do not know what does. Here we are, for the first time in
American history the Federal Government is paying for local police
officers.
Now, I hear some people around the country say, ``What a fakery. You
are only going to provide 20,000 police officers because you are not
paying for the whole thing.'' Since when was it the responsibility of
the Federal Government to pay for the whole thing? Every time we have
had a Federal grant program, it would be with a matching grant where we
have required 75 percent, 90 percent, or some percentage. Sometime we
continued the 90 percent-10 percent relationship for 10 years, 15
years.
In this particular case, we have decided that this is a sufficient
national crisis that we want to ask the local communities and the
States to accept what is already their responsibility--to put police
officers on the street. We did not say we want to put floodlights on
the jail, we want to put computers in the station, we want new cruisers
on the road. We want to put police officers on the streets of this
country because that is what we need to begin to regain and take back
control over our communities and our streets.
Mr. President, in recent weeks and months, I have toured a lot of
Massachusetts and gone into the communities that, because of our
effort, have community policing. I can tell you about Northhampton, MA.
I can tell you about Gardner, Saugus, Lynn, about a host of areas, such
as Boston and Lowell, where they now have community policing, and where
they have been able to put it into effect and literally reclaim the
community.
I was in a housing project where you now have community police
officers on bicycles who ride around through the entire community, who
walk around and play with the kids, who started basketball with the
kids. The kids run up to them when they come into the area, instead of
running away from them, which is what they used to do. These officers
have helped literally to give that community hope.
In Lowell, on Bridge Street in Somerville, as recently as a couple of
years ago, druggies and prostitutes had taken over the street. Citizens
were afraid to come out of their homes in the street because of the
vermin that were in the street. I talked to storeowners who said that
as a result of those druggies and prostitutes, their earnings have gone
down and people would not come into the store anymore. Lo and behold,
with a grant from the Federal Government, we opened a small storefront
and police officers went in; they are there all the time. The druggies
are gone, the prostitutes are gone, the community has been reclaimed,
and it is coming back to life.
Mr. President, in addition to that, the police officers have been
able to intervene before crimes are committed. They have been able to
get to know people, to know who the troublemaker is, who identify who
belongs in the community, to be able to make determinations about who
they need to watch more closely, who needs help. By virtue of their
intercessions, they have literally directed people into various human
service treatment facilities or

[[Page S 14513]]
functions where those people left to their own devices might well have
pulled out a knife, a gun, or been one of the people in the statistics
that the Senator from Delaware talked about earlier.
So, Mr. President, it works. It is working in America. Countless
people have said, ``You are not going to put more than 5,000 police on
the street within a year. You are not going to put 15,000; you are
never going to get to 20,000.'' Well, more than 25,000 new police
officers, additional police officers, are already on the streets. It is
because of the effort of this legislation.
So, Mr. President, it is my profound hope that in the next hour, or
moments ahead, we will succeed in working out an agreement with the
Senator from Texas to be able to put back into this bill the original
concept of the community policing.
Block grants work in some cases. I am not against block grants. I
have voted for them. But in this particular case, we have tried to
target a particular national emergency and need, and we have tried to
do it in a way that is administratively inexpensive. In fact, it is
less expensive to implement the direct justice grant program of the
crime bill with a cost of about 0.8 of a percent administratively than
to administer the 2.5- to 3-percent administrative costs that will go
with a block grant.
Moreover, under the block grant, there is absolutely no guarantee
whatsoever that police officers will get to the street rather than the
floodlights to the jails or the new cruisers to the station, or the new
computer. And that is not to say those things are not important. It is
not to say that people do not have a right to ask for those things and
that they do not need them. But when 95 percent of the crime is a local
jurisdiction, and the Federal Government is singling out a particular
need and the particular emergency, we have a right to expect that that
emergency is going to be met. And if one community does not need those
police, Mr. President, I guarantee you there are 10 other communities
in America that will gladly use the money to put police on the streets
and make their citizens safer.
So, again, it is my hope that we will succeed in doing what we have
already done, what we voted for in an overwhelmingly bipartisan
fashion. I hope that will not be undone in this legislation.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, unless someone suggests otherwise or to the
contrary, I believe that the debate on the pending amendment No. 2815
is completed. A rollcall vote has been asked for by Senator Biden.
So I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on amendment No. 2815
at 9 p.m. this evening, and that that amendment be temporarily laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Mexico is recognized to offer his amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Arizona who has an inquiry
to make.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for 10 minutes to propose an amendment, at which time the
amendment be set aside for the purposes of the Senator from New Mexico
to propose an amendment, and I ask that at least 20 minutes be reserved
after the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico
that 20 minutes be allocated to the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown],
and 10 minutes for the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2816

(Purpose: To Ensure competitive Bidding for DBS Spectrum)

Mr. McCAIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for allowing me to propose
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for himself and Mr.
Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2816.

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

At the end of the Pending Committee Amendment, insert the
following new section:

SEC. . COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR ASSIGNMENT OF DBS LICENSES.

No funds provided in this or any other Act shall be
expended to take any action regarding the applications that
bear Federal Communications Commission File Numbers DBS-94-
11EXT, DBS-94-15ACP, and DBS-94-16MP; Provided further, that
funds shall be made available for any action taken by the
Federal Communications Commission to use the competitive
bidding process prescribed in Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(j)) regarding
the disposition of the 27 channels at 110 deg. W.L. orbital
location.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment, sponsored by Senator
Dorgan and myself, would mandate that the FCC auction the one remaining
block of DBS spectrum which it holds.
Currently, the FCC is considering how to dispose of the 27 channels
at 110 deg. west longitude orbital location. If this spectrum is
auctioned, industry experts state that it will sell for between $300 to
$700 million. The alternative that is being considered by the FCC would
call for the American people to receive much less valuable spectrum and
$5 million dollars. Clearly, it is in the best interest of the American
people that this spectrum be sold at public auction.
Mr. President, I want to state at the outset I have no interest in
any of the companies involved in this issue. None of them to my
knowledge is represented in my State. I do know that the company that
seeks to acquire this for $5 million is the largest cable company in
America.
Mr. President, the spectrum is a finite public resource. It is owned
by the American people. And it may prove to be the single most valuable
resource held by the public. In recognition of that fact, in 1993, the
Congress mandate the first auctions of the spectrum. The still-in-
process wireless telecommunications auction has generated a staggering
$8 billion dollars and the auctions are only half completed.
This amendment recognizes the value of the spectrum and our duty as
people's trustees to handle the spectrum in a manner that most benefits
all the American people.
Mr. President, this amendment ensures that the American people
benefit from the sale of this spectrum.
The amendment does not choose winners or losers. It does not allow
ACC, the corporation that sat on this spectrum for 10 years and did
nothing to make a profit.
The amendment does not change the rules in the middle of the game.
ACC never owned this spectrum, it received a license under certain
terms--terms it never lived up to. The FCC therefore correctly withdrew
ACC's license and permission for it to construct a DBS system.
Most importantly for consumers, this amendment will not prevent new
service from being offered to the general public, including service to
those who live in Alaska and Hawaii. Those living in rural areas are
also not adversely effected in any way by this amendment and the I want
to note that the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
strongly supports this amendment.
Mr. President, let me lay out the facts surrounding this specific
block of spectrum.

In 1984, the FCC divided a segment of the spectrum to be used for the
broadcast of direct broadcast satellite [DBS] services. Under the terms
of the agreement, spectrum would be allocated to the companies at no
charge and in return, the companies would proceed diligently toward the
construction of a DBS system.
Of all the spectrum allocated, only 3 blocks of spectrum--located at
101 deg., 110 deg., and 119 deg.--cover the entire continental United
States. These blocks are known as full-conus blocks and our considered
by industry experts to have the highest dollar value.

[[Page S 14514]]

DirecTV and Echostar were given two of the coast-to-coast U.S. blocks
of spectrum.
Advanced Communications Corporation [ACC] was given the third full
conus block, which consisted of 16 channels, and was granted approval
to begin construction of a DBS satellite service at 110 deg. west
longitude. ACC paid nothing for the sole use of this spectrum.
In November 1991, the FCC altered its spectrum allocation scheme and
gave ACC at total of 27 channels at 110 deg. W.L., making the block
even more valuable.
DirecTV is currently up and running and available to the consumer.
Echostar is expected to be operational earlier next year.
During this time, ACC was repeatedly warned by the FCC that it was
not acting in compliance with the due diligence standard.
In the summer of 1994, due to congressional mandate, the FCC began
the process of auctioning spectrum. The PCS spectrum auction, which is
now about half complete, has generated approximately $8 billion for the
Treasury and the American people.
On September 16, 1995, ACC entered into an agreement with TCI to sell
its spectrum to TCI for $45 million. Such a sale would have meant that
ACC would actually have profited from warehousing spectrum for 10
years.
Only 3 months later, in December 1994, ACC applies for a second
extension of its construction permit.
The International Bureau of the FCC determined that ACC had not
proceeded with due diligence and issued an order on April 26, 1995 that
concludes ``Advanced [Communications Corporation] must now return the
public resources it holds to the public so that these resources can be
put to use by others.'' This decision was based on the fact that up
until 3 months before ACC applied for the extension it had done nothing
by warehouse the spectrum.
The bureau felt compelled to use a new, tougher definition of due
diligence due to the congressional mandate regarding spectrum auctions.
After the International Bureau decision, the full Commission began
consideration of a plan to allow TCI to give up some of its allocated
DBS spectrum and in return receive the ACC spectrum at a cost of $5
million. This $5 million is to pay for costs incurred by ACC. The
spectrum being given up by TCI is valued at a substantially lesser
value than the ACC spectrum. TCI would give up 11 channels at 119 deg.
and spectrum that allows DBS service to be provided to Latin America,
the Pacific rim and China. No industry experts believe at this time
that those markets will be nearly as lucrative as the U.S. market. It
could be decades if not longer before the spectrum TCI offered up would
be worth the value of the full conus U.S. spectrum.
Mr. President, the FCC is at a standstill regarding this issue. It is
looking to the Congress for guidance. And I believe it is appropriate
for us to let the FCC know that the Senate believes that the spectrum
should be disposed in a manner that brings about the greatest amount of
benefit to the American people. Adoption of this amendment would ensure
such an outcome.
Mr. President, let me clarify, this is not about helping one company
or hurting another. It is not about determining winners or losers. It
is about protecting the American people's interests. And faced with the
staggering debt we have left for our children, we must act in a manner
that ensures this spectrum is sold for the highest amount possible.
Further, if this spectrum is auctioned, any company, TCI, Hughes, a
telephone company, anyone, can bid for the spectrum. The auction alone
will determine who is the winner and loser. Not only is it the right
thing to do, but it is the fairest thing.
There will be some issues raised I would like to address quickly.
First and foremost, I have nothing against TCI and have every reason
to believe that it operates in an exemplary fashion. I said, this
amendment is not about TCI or any other company, it is about protecting
the people's interests.

TCI and its subsidiary Primestar have stated that they have spent
considerable money on procuring two satellites and for a signal
compression facility.
First, TCI chose to purchase these two Space system/Loral DBS
satellites in 1990 for use by TEMPO, a cable consortium, for use at
TCI's high-power DBS system located at 119 deg. west longitude.
In 1993, TEMPO asked the FCC to modify its DBS system and disclosed
that it had granted Primestar an option to acquire the same satellites
to enable Primestar to operate with its own DTH system in the fixed
service satellite high-power density arc. This is different from where
most DBS satellites are located.
At this point the same two satellites had been proposed to be used in
two different locations.
Now Primestar distributors are circulating a memo that states that if
the ACC deal does not go through, that TCI has other options for
satellite deployment.
Mr. President, we must put aside corporate interests and think about
what action will best serve the American people. In this case, I think
there can be no doubt that the public will benefit most from auctioning
this spectrum.
Mr. President, the Citizens Against Government Waste, Consumer
Federation of America, the National Taxpayers Union, and the National
Rural Telecommunications Cooperative have all sent letters in support
of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Council for Citizens Against

Government Waste,

Washington, DC, September 20, 1995.
Dear Senator, The Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste (CCAGW) and our 600,000 members support H.R. 2076, the
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations
for FY 1996. CCAGW commends Subcommittee Chairman Phil Gramm
and Appropriations Chairman Mark Hatfield for sending to the
floor a bill which spends $4.6 billion less than the budget
request and $1 billion less than the House version of H.R.
2076.
The $26.5 billion spending bill prioritizes the budgets for
each agency under its jurisdiction. For example, the Justice
Department receives $15 billion for FY 1996, almost $3
billion more than in FY 1995, to fight our nation's crime
problem. But with a nearly $5 trillion national debt, there
is always more to cut from spending bills.
CCAGW supports the following amendments:
The McCain amendment to mandate the Federal Communications
Commission to auction the one remaining block of Direct
Broadcast System spectrum. If this spectrum is auctioned,
communication industry experts believe it will sell for
between $300 to $700 million. It is in the best interest of
the American people that the spectrum be sold at public
auction.
The Grams amendment to eliminate the East-West Center and
the North/South Center, saving taxpayers $11 million next
year.
CCAGW opposes the following amendments:
Any attempt to restore or increase funds to the Legal
Services Corporation.
The Inouye amendment to restore funds to the Federal
Maritime Administration.
The Bumpers amendment to restore funds for the Small
Business Administration.
The Bumpers amendment to restore funds to the Death Penalty
Resource Centers.
CCAGW urges you to support these amendments and H.R. 2076.
It prioritizes cuts while ensuring that state and local law
enforcement agencies are properly funded. CCAGW will consider
these votes for inclusion in our 1995 Congressional Ratings.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Schatz,
President.
Joe Winkelmann,
Chief Lobbyist.
____

Consumer Federation of America, Media Access Project,
Center for Media Education,
September 21, 1995.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain, we are writing to urge you to oppose
an amendment that may be offered to permit the FCC to
transfer the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) license
currently held by Advanced Communications to the largest
cable television company in the world, TCI instead of
auctioning it off to the highest bidder. At the present time,
we are unsure who will offer this amendment. This amendment
would strike a serious blow to the development of competition
to the cable monopoly and shortchange the American public by
giving away a prime piece of scarce radio spectrum for a
fraction of its value.
The cable industry has been claiming for years that DBS
presents a serious competitive threat. While cable
competition has not yet arrived, DBS is a strong potential
competitor to cable. If given the license to use

[[Page S 14515]]
this spectrum. TCI would turn around and lease it to Primestar
Partners, a consortium of the nation's largest cable
monopolists including TCI. Giving away what is perhaps the
single best part of the high powered DBS spectrum to the
largest cable monopoly is an entirely wrong-headed policy. It
is both anticompetitive and anti-consumer.
This proposed amendment would allow TCI and its cable
brethren to essentially jump ahead in line. There are a
number of non-cable parties who are interested in providing
DBS service to compete with cable that would be foreclosed
from using this prime slot because of this ``sweetheart''
proposal.
In direct contrast, Sens. McCain and Dorgan have circulated
an amendment which would auction this valuable spectrum to
the highest bidder. This could raised hundreds of millions of
dollars for the national treasury and help insure greater
competition for cable in the process. It is this competition
which will protect consumers.
Don't slam the door to cable competition and don't reach
into consumers' pocket to enrich a group of the biggest
monopolists in America. We urge you to defeat the amendment
to transfer Advanced Communications's DBS license to TCI.
Sincerely,
Bradley Stillman,
Consumer Federation of America.
Gigi Sohn,
Media Access Project.
Jeffrey Chester,
Center for media Education.
____

National Taxpayers Union,

Washington, DC, September 21, 1995.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: The 300,000-member National Taxpayers
Union (NTU) supports your amendment to require competitive
bidding for awarding the last block of Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) spectrum held by the Federal Communications
Commission.
National Taxpayers Union has long supported privatization
of many public assets. The onset of the Information Age has
created an extremely lucrative market for advanced
communications, in turn dramatically increasing the potential
value of the spectrum remaining under government control.
Given the economic potential of the communications sector,
Congress should rely on competitive bidding and other market
mechanisms to allocate federally owned spectrum. By providing
a competitive auction for DBS spectrum, your amendment will
ensure a fair market price for this property, not an
arbitrary settlement negotiated by bureaucrats and special
interests.
Previous spectrum auctions have benefited taxpayers and
have allowed dynamic new businesses to develop their cutting-
edge technologies. Charges and counter charges from
interested corporations aside, a competitive bidding process
is the best solution to establishing ownership at a fair
price for this DBS spectrum.
Enactment of your amendment would allow the market to
decide the price for this resource. Many members of the 104th
Congress have resolved to end business as usual in
Washington, and allow market forces to have a greater impact
on government policy. They have the perfect opportunity to
demonstrate their resolve by supporting your amendment to
auction DBS spectrum.
Sincerely,
David Keating,
Executive Vice President.
____

The National Rural

Telecommunications Cooperative,

Herndon, VA, September 14, 1995.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to let you know that the
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) and its
rural electric and rural telephone system members nationally
are alarmed about a pending action by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) which would allow the
nation's largest cable operators to undermine satellite
communications as a true competitor to cable.
Today, NRTC and its rural utility system members are
actively providing digital satellite service to more than
200,000 rural consumers living outside of and within cable
service areas. Our ability to do so comes through a major
investment in Hughes Electronic's DIRECTV which gave us the
right to bring digital satellite services to rural Americans.
Today, our rural utility systems provide more than 150
channels of digitally transmitted satellite programming
service to consumers who look to them for new services and
products. Today, we lease, rent and sell Digital Satellite
Systems and we are providing local service and support to a
rural subscriber base that grows by more than 1000 new
customers a day. And we are doing so in competition currently
with PrimeStar and are aware that next year we will have an
additional competitor--DBS licensee, EchoStar.
We are very concerned that the FCC will give the PrimeStar
partnership, led by majority owner TCI/Tempo, a DBS license
that had been ``warehoused'' by Advanced Communications
Corporation (ACC) for 10 years. As we understand, not only
will the FCC give the license away, it appears it will do so
without opening this unused spectrum to a competitive bidding
process. An FCC give-away of DBS frequencies which are
conservatively valued at more than $300 million, will
seriously hamper competition inside and outside cabled areas.
Further, it will do nothing to decrease the nation's budget
deficit while rewarding a company that sat on its DBS license
and did nothing to provide service to consumers.
NRTC is in full support of your proposed amendment to H.R.
2076, the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary
Appropriations bill. It is the proper response to heavy-
handed efforts by an entrenched industry interested in
controlling competition and free-market access to
telecommunications services. NRTC has previously endorsed
auctioning all the DBS spectrum involved in this FCC
proceeding in a letter to the FCC.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Bob Phillips,
Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. McCAIN. Also, interestingly, I have received numerous letters
from small cable companies and electric cooperatives all over America.
The Williams Cable Services in Phoenix, AZ; Eastern Illinois Electric
Cooperative; the Little OCMUCLG Service in Georgia; Agate Mutual
Telephone Co. in Colorado; the Volcano Vision Co. in Pine Grove, CA;
Oklahoma Telephone Co., Davenport, OK; Turner Vision in Bluefield, WV;
Kansas DBS, Flint Hills Rural Development Corp.; South Alabama Electric
Cooperative, Adams Telephone Co., and others who are all in favor of
giving the American taxpayers $300 to $700 million and make this a
competitive process.
Mr. GRAMM. If the distinguished Senator has time, let me ask a
question to be sure I have this. Back when we used to give spectrum
away, we gave spectrum to a company that took it on the agreement that
they would use it, that they would initiate construction, that they
would begin to broadcast on that signal.
The date that they agreed to is now past; is that right?
Mr. McCAIN. Long past, yes.
Mr. GRAMM. Now, having gotten the spectrum free and having gotten it
for a specific purpose free, the date by which it had to be utilized is
past, and now they are asking permission to sell it for $5 million, if
I heard the Senator correctly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes, if the Senator will so yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. So their time for using the spectrum having expired, they
are now proposing to sell it for $5 million. But, if I heard the
Senator right, if we asserted the right of the taxpayer to have the
spectrum back, since the user has not fulfilled its end of the
contract, we could sell that spectrum for how much money?
Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my friend, first of all, they were going
to sell it to TCI for $45 million instead of $5 million, and they were
awarded this license in 1984. Mr. President, 10 years later, in 1994,
they had still not done a single thing in order to comply with the
purposes of the license, in other words set up a DBS system.
The estimates are between $300 and $700 million would be the price of
this spectrum at an auction. There are several major competitors.
The reason why there is such a huge spread, between $300 million and
$700 million, is because the amounts we have already received from
spectrum auctions have doubled the original estimates that we received
from other spectrum auctions.
Mr. GRAMM. So the request is, having not fulfilled their commitment
to the taxpayer, they want the right to sell it to somebody for $45
million, when, if we exercised the contract on behalf of the taxpayers
and took it back, we would get between $300 and $700 million--million?
Mr. McCAIN. Million.
Mr. GRAMM. Between $300 and $700 million for it. In essence, the
Senator's amendment is trying to protect the taxpayer from losing a
minimum of a quarter of a billion dollars by simply enforcing our end
of the contract?
Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my colleague in response, he is correct.
That is why the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Consumer
Federation, National Taxpayers Union, and others

[[Page S 14516]]
are all in favor of this amendment, because of the enormous benefit, of
$700 million.
Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. My friend from New Mexico was kind enough to yield time
to me. I will be reluctant to use over that time because he has an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The time of the Senator from
Arizona has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection if they want to use
some additional time.
How much time would the Senator like, Senator McCain, another 5
minutes?
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Montana wanted to speak.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent I have 1 minute just to ask a
question in response, because I think it is important this body
understand this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I listen to you frequently and you need 2
minutes.
Mr. BURNS. I need 2 minutes?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. BURNS. I may need more than that. I think it is important for
this body to understand that the spectrum has already been reclaimed
and is owned now by the FCC. It is available for sale. Is that not
correct, I will ask my friend from Arizona?
Mr. McCAIN. That is correct. But the contract that was entered into 3
months before the license was revoked is still a pending item before
the FCC.
Advanced had over 10 years, including one 4-year extension, in which
to construct and launch its DBS system. It failed to do so. It failed
to meet the Commission's due diligence rules, imposed a decade go to
ensure the public received prompt service therefor, if the channels
have gone unused. Only by enforcing the progress requirements of the
Commission's rules can we ensure that allocated resources will be
efficiently and expeditiously put into productive use.
Mr. BURNS. I appreciate that. The only reason I ask the question is I
think we should be very sure of our grounds here. Who actually owns
that spectrum? Is it still in the hands of the original winner in the
lottery? Or is it owned by the FCC? I think that is a question we
should ask before we consider this amendment. I am just trying to
clarify that.
Mr. McCAIN. Let me try to clarify it one more time. Because the
company did not exercise due diligence over 10 years, the FCC reclaimed
it. Now it is up to the FCC as to how they want to dispose of it.
Mr. BURNS. If the Senator is correct, then that clarifies my
question. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator from Arizona yield? I ask unanimous
consent to have 2 minutes to ask the Senator from Arizona a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. I will ask the Senator from Arizona, he has indicated his
amendment will have a positive revenue impact, save millions of
dollars. Has the amendment been reviewed by the Congressional Budget
Office? And what is their estimate of how much money it raises?
Mr. McCAIN. It has been scored as zero because it does not change the
baseline. But I can tell my friend, it is patently obvious that if a
spectrum is going to be auctioned off for somewhere between $300
million and $700 million, there is going to be an impact.
Mr. BROWN. The Senator has indicated--or the literature here
indicated these channels may be available for auction. Let me ask, has
the Commission made a final ruling as to whether or not these are to be
forfeited?
Mr. McCAIN. The Commission has not and is looking for guidance from
the Congress.
Mr. BROWN. I might indicate what my sense of the amendment is. First
of all, it does not raise anything because CBO has not looked at it.
And, No. 2, it is disposing of property someone else ostensibly has a
title to and the FCC has not cleared it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Brown is here. I do not know
that Senator McCain, accurately, Senator Brown, described the time you
would need. He suggested 10 minutes? Is that 10 for you and 10 for
somebody else?
Mr. McCAIN. I suggested, and I would like to modify it concerning the
desires of the Senator from Colorado, 20 minutes for the Senator from
Colorado and 10 minutes for the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. GRAMM. My colleague needs to get some time for himself. And 10
minutes for you.
Mr. BROWN. My understanding was the discussion involved some
intermittent time so I might become familiar with the needs of the
Senator from Arizona. My hope is the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico might go ahead. Obviously, I am agreeable to an appropriate
amount of time for the Senator from Arizona to respond to whatever is
raised on the floor.
The time someone may wish, I would have no problem to work out
something.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator McCain, I assume now from your vantage point
from getting this up things are under control and I can proceed? You
are all right?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy and
patience.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I discussed with the distinguished Senator
from Texas, the manager of the bill, and the Senator from New Mexico a
unanimous-consent request I would like to offer; that I be allowed to
set aside the pending business for 2 minutes, request the yeas and
nays, and go back immediately to the business of the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 2817

(Purpose: To decrease the amount of funding for Federal Bureau of
Investigation construction and increase the amount of funding for the
National Information Infrastructure)

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, has a unanimous-consent request been
propounded?
Mr. KERREY. Yes. The Senator from Nebraska asked to have 1 minute to
propose an amendment.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, 2 minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Has that unanimous-consent request been agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. Parliamentary inquiry. This amendment will be, after he
presents it, it will be set aside and be fully debatable at that point,
is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment
numbered 2817.

Mr. KERREY. 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:
``The amounts made available to the Department of Justice in
Title I for administration and travel are reduced by
$19,200,000.''
On page 73, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

information infrastructure grants

For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, $18,000,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as
amended: Provided, That not to exceed $900,000 shall be
available for program administration and other support
activities as authorized by section 391 of the Act including
support of the Advisory Council on National Information
Infrastructure: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 percent may be available
for telecommunications research activities for projects
related directly to the development of a national information
infrastructure: Provided further, That notwithstanding

[[Page S 14517]]
the requirements of section 392(a) and 392(c) of the Act, these funds
may be used for the planning and construction of
telecommunications networks for the provision of educational,
cultural, health care, public information, public safety, or
other social services: Provided further, That in reviewing
proposals for funding, the Telecommunications and Information
and Infrastructure Assistance Program (also known as the
National Information Infrastructure Program) shall add to the
factors taken into consideration the following: (1) the
extent to which the proposed project is consistent with State
plans and priorities for the deployment of the
telecommunications and information infrastructure and
services; and (2) the extent to which the applicant has
planned and coordinated the proposed project with other
telecommunications and information entities in the State.

Mr. KERREY. The amendment I offer on behalf of myself, Senators
Leahy, and Lieberman, is a very straightforward amendment. It restores
$18.9 million to telecommunications and information and infrastructure
assistance programs.
This program has been highly successful with thousands of
applications for this. It is a matching program to get at least 2 for 1
for every dollar that goes out. It is community-based. Community-based
organizations across the country have used this program to increase the
educational effort in the telecommunications effort. It has created
jobs. It has created real advancement of understanding of how this
telecommunications revolution can produce benefits at the local level.
Mr. President, I understand that some of the objections have been
raised to this program; talked about it being something that has not
proven up. I urge my colleagues to look at not only the success we have
but the backlog coming up. We have enjoyed a tremendous success with
this program. It is not a program that is just throwing money out
there. It is a program that requires a match from the community level.
It is a program that empowers citizens at the local level to make
decisions about how they want to increase jobs and education in their
own communities. It has a fully funded offset.
I hope that my colleagues will consider and support a program that
will create jobs, and will create more empowerment for the American
people at the local level.
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. Under the previous order the Senator from New
Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, we continue to have some problems in that
people are trying to find offsets for their amendments. It takes time
to do that, and they discover that others have used the funds
available. It should be hard to spend money. So I am not complaining
about it. But to try to sort of bring some order to the process, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from
Colorado, Senator Brown, be recognized for up to 10 minutes to offer an
amendment; after the 10 minutes, that the amendment would be set aside
and would be fully subject to debate or any other relevant motions.
Then the Senate would go back to a debate on the McCain amendment
until that debate is completed. If a rollcall vote is asked for on the
McCain amendment, then it would be stacked after the rollcall vote,
currently scheduled for 9 o'clock, is completed. At that point, Senator
Biden would be recognized to offer his omnibus crime amendment. There
would be 2 hours of debate equally divided, which would get us to the 9
o'clock hour, at which point we would have a vote on the pending
amendment. If there is a rollcall vote asked----
Mr. McCAIN. It has already been requested.
Mr. GRAMM. It has already been requested. We would have a vote on the
McCain amendment, and at that point the Biden amendment would still be
pending, and if the debate is completed, we would have that vote at
that point.
I propound that unanimous-consent request.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I hope not to object, but to be able to answer the
McCain amendment we need a little time, 10 minutes to explain that
amendment--if the Senator will put that in the unanimous consent, that
we have 10 minutes to explain it.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. If I could inquire of the manager, where does that leave
the Domenici amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. The Domenici amendment would then be brought up after the
votes had occurred beginning at 9 o'clock.
Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, we were supposed to go after the
McCain amendment. Ours would not take a very long time, but I would
like to go before we had the 2 hours, if we can. Is it possible to do
that, I ask the managers of the bill?
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
Mr. HATCH. Could I just ask that of the manager of the bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I say to the Senator, I
have a few inquiries. It is my amendment being set aside here.
Mr. President, let me ask Senator Gramm, there is an accommodation we
are trying to make. I am now prepared to proceed with my amendment. I
told the Senator I had been working on it because it is complicated,
and we did get switched signals in terms of the money we had available.
But I am prepared now. So I do not want to delay it the longest
possible time. I wish to get it up soon. So when would the Senator from
Texas be ready to discuss the Domenici amendment? Would the Senator be
ready at 8 o'clock?
Mr. GRAMM. I would be perfectly happy to have the Senator bring the
amendment up, offer it, lock in his offsets, if he has them, and I
think that is a legitimate concern. What I would like to do, given that
we had talked about having the debate on the Biden amendment begin at
7, is, if the Senator offers the amendment now, to come back to it.
This is a very important amendment to me. I am strongly opposed to
it. And I think it will be something that will be debated at some
length. Clearly, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has the
right to the floor under the unanimous-consent request. So if he wants
to exercise that now, he can. And perhaps we might look at the
following potential unanimous-consent request--that he would bring up
the amendment and debate it for up to 20 minutes. Then it would be set
aside. Senator Biden would be recognized to bring up his omnibus
amendment, 2 hours equally divided, and at that point we would have
reached the hour of 9 o'clock and we will have the first vote. We at
that point could either go back to the McCain amendment and dispose of
it or we could go back to the Domenici amendment and debate it. Either
of those things I would be agreeable to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Texas and
Senator Hollings, what I would prefer to do--and I ask a parliamentary
inquiry. What is the agreed upon time for a vote tonight?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote has been ordered to occur at 9 p.m.
tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. On which amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Biden amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be glad to accommodate anybody the chairman
wants to accommodate, except I would like him to include in the
unanimous-consent agreement that immediately after the first vote on
the Biden amendment, that Senator Domenici is

[[Page S 14518]]
permitted to offer his amendment; that it be debated in full, whatever
time that takes, and that it be voted on immediately following--it be
the next vote following the Biden vote. That gives the Senator plenty
of time, Mr. President, for what he desires.
Mr. GRAMM. If the distinguished Senator will yield, I have no
objection to what the Senator is doing, but it may well be that we
might have an extended debate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. GRAMM. And we might decide for some reason that we might want to
go ahead and consider other amendments intervening.
Mr. DOMENICI. We might do that in due course.
Mr. GRAMM. So I am reluctant to lock us into voting on the Domenici
amendment next.
Mr. DOMENICI. I did not ask for that. I said the next amendment we
vote on would be the Domenici amendment. The Senator can have some
other amendments he wants to bring up. Get unanimous consent for that.
I think that is fair. I have been accommodating everyone.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from New Mexico agree to have a vote on
my amendment following the Biden amendment? The yeas and nays have
already been ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. The problem I have is I very much want to debate
tonight the Domenici amendment. There are a lot of Senators who want to
debate it. Senator Gramm has a lot of people. I have been
accommodating. The Senator's amendment will get voted on very soon but
mine would precede that. I just ask that as a request.
Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
Mr. GRAMM. I would like to get an agreement that allows the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico bring up his amendment now, speak
on that amendment as long as he chooses to, then Senator Biden would be
recognized to offer his omnibus amendment, which is a crucial element
to the completion of this bill, that there be 2 hours of debate equally
divided, that would get us somewhere close to 9. We would have the
pending vote. We would have the vote on the Biden amendment. Then the
Senator's amendment would be the pending business and we would vote on
it. And we would not vote on anything else until we voted on it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, all I
want to do--I do not want to put my amendment down and debate it for 10
or 15 minutes. Just change the request so that I bring mine up
immediately following the Biden amendment, and it is debated as long as
necessary and then you have a deal.
Mr. GRAMM. All right.
I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment to be considered be
the Biden amendment; that there be 2 hours equally divided on that
amendment; that if a vote is ordered on that amendment, it occur
immediately after the pending amendment, which will be voted on at 9
o'clock; that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico be recognized
at that point to offer his amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, what does that do to the
McCain amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. It will simply be pending and will be the order of
business when the Domenici amendment is disposed of.
Mr. DOMENICI. Which is what I thought we had in mind when I permitted
the Senator to bring up his amendment. I think that is fair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I permitted the Senator's amendment to
come up.
Mr. GRAMM. That is right.
Mr. McCAIN. And we debated it and all we need to do is have a vote on
it, it seems to me.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is all right with me. Get him in,
too. No more debate.
Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask Senator Gramm, there will be no
amendments to the Biden amendment?
Mr. GRAMM. I am not in a position that I can commit to that, I say to
the Senator, because we have not checked on our side. We have not seen
the final form of the Biden amendment. What I am trying to do is just
have it considered. I assume there will not be--I assume we have the
votes, but we want to look at it.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We cannot agree to the time limit.
Mr. GRAMM. There is not a time. We are just saying it will be debated
between 7 and 9, and that if it is completed, that it would be the vote
after 9. If it is not, it would be pending.
Mr. HOLLINGS. All right. Get it up.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might
inquire of the floor managers, I just came to the floor a few moments
ago, so I have not heard the colloquy. I want the managers of the bill
to know that Senator Burns and I have an amendment concerning USPTA,
and I just want to make sure that the terms of the unanimous consent
would not preclude us from having an opportunity to offer that
amendment and perhaps have a vote. We do not need to do it this
evening. We can go tomorrow. I want to assure my colleague that I am
willing to cooperate and work with him. I do not know the terms of the
agreement.
Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, nothing in this unanimous-
consent request would in any way limit the Senator's ability to offer
his amendment or any other amendment.
Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, I do not
remember the word he used--how did he oppose my amendment? Perfectly?
What was the word?
Mr. GRAMM. With righteous passion.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say I oppose what he is for in terms of doing
away with legal services with whatever passion he just described. So we
know it is all even.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. I have a question, Mr. President. And I am sorry, I was
not in the Chamber. My question is, Mr. President, has the Senator from
Texas propounded a unanimous-consent request and has that request been
accepted at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I may pose a question, I have an
amendment that I would like to offer at some point. It can be done
tonight, it can be done early in the morning, or any time. I am joined
in that amendment by the distinguished Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
It would be a sense-of-Congress resolution relative to the Economic
Development Administration. I am just wondering at what point or what
order we could try to factor this particular amendment into the list?
Mr. GRAMM. If the distinguished Senator from Arkansas will yield----
Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. GRAMM. It sounds to me as if we have a pretty full schedule for
the rest of the evening. My guess is that tomorrow morning would be a
good time. But it may well be at some time tonight people will decide
to get finished, at which point obviously the Senator could offer the
amendment.
We are basically set now in terms of unanimous consent on two
amendments. One is a fairly comprehensive amendment by Senator Biden
where we will have 2 hours equally divided. Then we are going to
Senator Domenici on trying to bring back the Federal Legal Services
Corporation, which will be debated, I would think, pretty extensively.
We have an amendment pending by the Senator from Arizona. So I cannot
tell the Senator that he would not get to offer it tonight, but if I
were the Senator, if we are here tomorrow, I would try to do it in the
morning.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I could respond to my colleague, my
friend from Texas, I have no problem offering the amendment tomorrow if
I have just as much certainty as possible in the time sequence, because
I have three amendments that I must offer in the Finance Committee
markup on Medicare-Medicaid, and I am just trying to sort of find out
where I should be and which time I should be there.

[[Page S 14519]]

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am sure that the same is true for Senator
Hollings. We would try to accommodate the Senator in every way we can.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand now, in the unanimous-
consent agreement, Senator Biden will commence at 7 o'clock. To try to
save a little time, I was off the floor momentarily at the time of the
presentation of the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. The
amendment of the Senator from Arizona as he relates it could be very
accurate. On the other hand, I have heard different facts.
What occurs here is, as the Senator from Arizona has outlined the
amendment, the FCC is asking for guidance. Whenever that occurs,
beware, for the simple reason that we have an FCC to have full hearings
to hear both sides of a particular case and issue and thereupon make a
decision.
I have heard from both sides spasmodically. I have not called the FCC
myself. I wanted to stay out of the case. But right to the point, it is
my understanding there is sort of a split down there. And there is a
definite difference of opinion with respect to due diligence being used
on the granting of a particular license to an entity out there, I
think, in Arizona.
The Arizona folks, it is related, did use due diligence, and came
back twice to the Federal Communications Commission and were granted on
both occasions extensions, because what is involved here is a satellite
spectrum usage encompassing quite a commitment of financial support.
That commitment of financial support was finally obtained and
committed, and there is related $1 billion that has been committed, and
there is a launch date for that particular satellite in April of next
year.
Now, this is in issue. And as the Commission was temporarily making a
ruling, the parties involved appealed that particular ruling. And it is
now under appeal. So what happens is that the case comes to the
Congress, and some of us Senators on the Commerce Committee who are
interested, of course, and disposed to Federal Communications matters,
but without any hearing, and without knowing what is best to be done, I
have always come down, because this occurs every time we get up to a
particular bill or something, somebody brings up a fix, if you please,
Mr. President, of a case down at the FCC.
I have been very cautious and astute not to join in those particular
fixes. Specifically, I was asked if I could go along with an amendment
that would do as is indicated by Senator McCain. And I said no. I think
we ought to leave it with the Commission.
Thereupon, I was asked if I would go along with an amendment on the
other side. Go along with it and allow them to set fees and whatever it
was. I said no. We are not giving authority for the FCC to become more
or less a Congress setting fees. And I withheld my approval of that.
I said I simply think, under the circumstances, that it is best that
the Congress not be involved in a half-of-a-hair-cut situation here
whereby we have not had a single hearing.
The Chairman of the Commission has not asked my guidance. If somebody
says they are asking guidance, I do not have any written letters or
anything else like that on this particular matter. Therefore, I am
opposed to the amendment. I want to talk it out with the distinguished
Senator from Arizona. I know his intent is sincere. But I think this is
the kind of amendment that ought to be tabled.
I only state this to use up some of the time. I see others want to
use some time prior to 7, but I wanted to say that I am sorry I could
not respond at the particular time that the Senator from Arizona
presented his amendment. I left the floor with the understanding that
the Senator from New Mexico was going to present his.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

U.N. Peacekeeping

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased with the negotiations that
have taken place with Senator Hollings, Senator Hatfield, Senator
Biden, Senator Gramm, and others. They have improved this bill.
Let me add one concern I do have. This bill authorizes $250 million
for U.N. peacekeeping. The request from the President was $445 million.
The House figure--in most areas the House is, frankly, worse than the
Senate--the House figure is $425 million. Again, our figure is $250
million. The authorization figure from the Foreign Relations Committee,
chaired by Senator Helms, is $445 million--and we have $250 million
here. This is on top of what we have been doing to not pay our dues in
the United Nations. We are the No. 1 deadbeat in the world.
Yesterday morning's New York Times has a story ``To Pay Some Debts,
U.N. Will Try Borrowing From World Bank.'' We owe $1.2 billion to the
United Nations. They would not have to be going to the World Bank if we
paid our bills.
I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record at
this point, Mr. President.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Sept. 27, 1995]

To Pay Some Debts, U.N. Will Try Borrowing From World Bank

(By Barbara Crossette)

United Nations, Sept. 26.--The United Nations, facing its
most severe financial crisis in half a century, will try for
the first time to borrow money from the World Bank to pay
some of its debts, the organization's highest-ranking
financial officer said today.
Joseph Connor, a former chief executive of Price Waterhouse
who is now United Nations Under Secretary General for
Administration and Management, said today that a World Bank
loan was only one of many ideas being explored ``to lift from
our shoulders the burden of debt.''
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said in an
interview on Saturday that he planned to meet the World Bank
president, James D. Wolfensohn, this weekend to discuss the
proposal.
In the past, the United Nations has borrowed small amounts
for specific development projects, Mr. Connor said, but there
is no precedent for a loan of this kind, which would go to
paying off some of the organization's growing general
indebtedness.
``This crisis cannot be solved unless we can borrow
money,'' the Secretary General said.
The United States, which is at least $1.2 billion in
arrears in its dues to the United Nations, is expected to
challenge the plan, an American diplomat said.
The American opposition to any new idea for raising money
surprised diplomats from Europe and elsewhere, whose
governments pay their bills regularly. A Western diplomat
said today that with the United States the largest defaulter
in assessments, it seemed inexplicable that the Clinton
Administration would make things worse behind the scenes.
An American diplomat said today that the Administration had
``two basic problems'' with the loan plan.
``The United Nations and the Secretary General have no
authority to borrow externally,'' the diplomat said. ``And
borrowing from the World Bank is restricted to sovereign
governments.''
The World Bank is technically part of the United Nations
system, although the bank and the International Monetary
Fund, both based in Washington, operate with considerable
independence.
The United Nations, which has not capital base and cannot
borrow commercially, is owed $3.4 billion in unpaid
assessments, of which the United States owes roughly half.
The organization is $900 million in arrears in payments to
countries that have provided peacekeeping troops and $400
million for purchases of various kinds. Half of the tens of
millions of dollars awarded in contracts each year go to
American companies.
``Our inability to pay is impacting the willingness of
countries to participate in peacekeeping,'' Mr. Connor said.
The operation in Bosnia alone is costing nearly $5 million
daily, according to the Secretary General.
In a speech today to the General Assembly, the British
Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, proposed charging
interest on late payments as one way of tightening penalties
against member nations in arrears. He said 39 nations failed
to pay anything at all last year.
In June at the meeting of the Group of Seven major
industrial nations, Mr. Boutros-Ghali proposed that the
United Nations would take bonds from nations owing money and
use them to settle debts with other member countries. That
idea was also opposed by the United States.
Mr. Connor said today that the bulk of the money owed by
the United Nations for peacekeeping is in debts to Western
European nations, Australia, Canada and other countries close
to the United States.

Mr. SIMON. Then I would like to insert two other things into the
Record. One is a statement by the Council for a Livable World, whose
good work I think many of us acknowledge. This is a statement in
support of U.N. peace operations, signed by a great many people. I ask
unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.

[[Page S 14520]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement in Support of U.N. Peace Operations

The United Nations is playing an increasingly critical role
in preventing and resolving conflicts that have broken out
across the globe. We welcome this expanded mission envisioned
in the original U.N. charter but impeded by the Cold War.
While the U.N. has not proved a panacea, it has achieved
remarkable successes in countries such as Namibia, in El
Salvador and in Cambodia.
International peacekeeping is not an altruistic endeavor;
it directly serves U.S. security, political and commercial
interests. As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright
has stated: ``Whether measured in arms proliferation,
refugees on our shores, the destabilization of allies, or
loss of exports, jobs or investments, the cost of runaway
regional conflicts sooner or later comes home to America. In
1993, the U.N. will spend over $3 billion to stem or stop
those conflicts, and we will pay one third of that. But
without the U.N., both the costs and the conflict would be
far greater.''
However, the fate of peace operations hangs in the balance,
in part due to crippling funding shortfalls and decreasing
national political support for the United Nations as it seeks
to reform and to meet new challenges. Although the U.N. is
often a first line of crisis response overseas, the United
States and other nations consistently fall behind in paying
dues and peacekeeping assessments. These overdue bills serve
to cripple the U.N.'s ability to respond rapidly to crises
and implement needed reforms. In addition, Congressional
critics have singled out U.N. peace operations as a vehicle
for expressing their dissatisfaction with broader issues,
from the defense budget and military readiness to U.S.
interests abroad, and have sought to curtail already limited
participation of U.S. armed forces in U.N. peace operations.
We endorse multilateral, burden-sharing approaches to
preventing and resolving conflicts. In particular, we support
strengthening the United Nations' ability to conduct peace
operations. To encourage these approaches, we strongly urge
the U.S. and all nations to pay on time their dues and
peacekeeping assessments, and to pay all their arrearages to
the United Nations. The United States must avoid the costs
and dangers of a unilateral role as world policeman.
A policy that provides only weak financial and political
support for peacekeeping jeopardizes the United Nations'
long-term future. If the U.N. is not given the resources and
encouragement to improve its capabilities, confidence in it
will be undermined. The world community will have sacrificed
the chance to establish a truly effective multilateral
peacekeeping process, with emphasis on conflict prevention.
The world will become more dangerous, to the detriment of our
own security.
We should take advantage of the post-Cold War situation and
apply the lessons of peacekeeping from the past several years
to reform and expand U.N. peace operations and make them more
effective. Peace operations, which give the U.S. an
opportunity to help in reducing the worldwide level of armed
violence with minimum risk and cost, are squarely in our
national interest.

signatories to statement in support of u.n. peacekeeping--september 5,
1995

Ruth Adams, Director, Program on Peace and International
Cooperation, MacArthur Foundation (retired).
Chadwick F. Alger, Professor, The Ohio State University.
John B. Anderson, President, World Federalists Association.
Mary Appelman, Chairperson, America-Israel Council for
Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
Ambassador (ret.) Alfred Leroy Atherton, Jr., Former
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian
Affairs (1974-1978); Ambassador to Egypt (1979-1983).
Morton Bahr, President, Communications Workers of America.
Carol Edler Baumann, Director, Institute of World Affairs.
David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World.
The Honorable Berkley Bedell, Former U.S. Representative
from Iowa (1975-1986).
Marguerite Belisle, General Director, Church Women United.
Gregory A. Bischak, Executive Director, National Commission
for Economic Conversion and Disarmament.
Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth.
Barry Blechman, Chairman, The Henry L. Stimson Center.
Robert L. Borosage, Director, Campaign for New Priorities.
Robert Bowie, Former Counselor, U.S. Department of State
(1966-1968); Assistant Secretary of State for Policy Planning
(1953-1957).
John A. Buehrens, President, Unitarian Universalist
Association.
George Bunn, Former General Counsel, Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency (1961-1969); U.S. Ambassador to the Geneva
Disarmament Conference (1968).
Becky Cain, President, League of Women Voters.
Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, Secretary General, National
Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
Hodding Carter III, Former Assistant Secretary of State for
Public Affairs (1977-1980).
Abram Chayes, Professor of Law Emeritus, Harvard Law
School.
Antonia A. Chayes, Chair, Consensus Building Institute.
Rev. Drew Christiansen, S.J. Director, Office of
International Justice & Peace, U.S. Catholic Conference.
Harlan Cleveland, President, World Academy of Art and
Science; Former Assistant Secretary of State for
International Organization Affairs (1961-1965); Ambassador to
NATO (1965-1969).
Juan R.I. Cole, Professor of History, University of
Michigan.
Imani Countess, Executive Director, Washington Office on
Africa.
Chic Dambach, President, National Peace Corps Association.
Dave Davis, Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Policy,
George Mason University.
Ambassador (ret.) Jonathan Dean, Advisor on International
Security Issues, Union of Concerned Scientists; Former arms
control negotiator, U.S. Department of State.
I.M. Destler, Director, Center for International and
Security Studies, University of Maryland.
Kay S. Dowhower, Director, Lutheran Office for Governmental
Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Nancy Bearg Dyke, Director, Managing Conflict in the Post-
Cold War World, Aspen Institute; Former Director of
International Programs and Public Diplomacy, National
Security Council (1989-1993).
Helen Fein, Executive Director, Institute for the Study of
Genocide.
Evelyn P. Foote, Brigadier General, U.S. Army (Retired).
Randall Forsberg, Executive Director, Institute for Defense
& Disarmament Studies.
Jerry Genesio, Executive Director, Veterans for Peace.
William. Goodfellow, Executive Director, Center for
International Policy.
Charles D. Gray, Director of International Affairs, AFL-
CIO.
Barbara Green, Presbyterian Church/USA.
Rita Greenwald, President, National Council of Catholic
Women.
Richard Hahnen, President, Global Security Research
Institute.
Sam Harris, Executive Director, RESULTS.
The Honorable John W. Hechinger, President, Hechinger
Company; Former U.S. Delegate to the 33rd United Nations
General Assembly (1978).
J. Bryan Hehir, Professor of Religion and Society, Center
for International Affairs, Harvard University.
P. Terrence Hopmann, Director, Center for Foreign Policy
Development, Watson Institute for International Studies,
Brown University.
Dixie Horning, Executive Director, Gray Panthers.
John Isaacs, President, Council for a Livable World
Education Fund.
Jason Isaacson, Director of Government and International
Affairs, American Jewish Committee.
Douglas M. Johnston, Vice President, Center for Strategic &
International Studies.
Carl Kaysen, D.W. Skinner Professor of Political Economy,
Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
John B. Kidd, Major General, U.S. Air Force (ret.).
Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security
Studies, Hampshire College.
Rev. Peter J. Klink, S.J., Director, National Office,
Jesuit Social Ministries.
Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense (1981-
1985); Chair, Executive Council, Committee for National
Security.
Dr. Jean E. Krasno, Associate Director, United Nations
Studies, Yale University.
Louis Kriesberg, Professor of Sociology, Syracuse
University.
Betty Lall, Former Staff Director, Committee on
Disarmament, U.S. Senate.
John A. Lapp, Executive Director, Mennonite Central
Committee.
Ambassador (ret.) James F. Leonard, Former U.S. Deputy
Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1977-1979).
Victoria Markell, Vice President, Population Action
International.
J. Paul Martin, Executive Director, Center for the Study of
Human Rights, Columbia University.
Charles W. Maynes, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
for International Organizations (1977-1980).
The Reverend Charles S. Miller, Executive Director,
Division for Church in Society, Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America.
Terence Miller, Director, Maryknoll Society Justice and
Peace Office.
Gerald Mische, President, Global Education Associates.
Thomas B. Morgan, President & CEO, United Nations
Association of the United States of America.
Dr. Robert K. Musil, Executive Director, Physicians for
Social Responsibility.
Dr. David Mussington, Co-Director, International
Organizations and Nonproliferation Project, Monterey
Institute of International Studies.
Ester Neltrup, Executive Director, Institute for
International Cooperation & Development.
Janne E. Nolan, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution.
Charles H. Norchi, Executive Director, International League
for Human Rights.
Ambassador Robert S. Oakley, Ambassador to Zaire (1979-82);
Ambassador to Somalia (1982-84); Ambassador to Pakistan
(1988-91); Special Envoy to Somalia (1992-94); Visiting
Fellow, National Defense University.

[[Page S 14521]]

Dr. Robert von Pagenhardt, Professor, Defense Resources
Management Institute, Naval Postgraduate School.
Maurice S. Paprin, President, Fund for New Priorities in
America.
Dan Plesch, Director, British American Security Information
Council.
George W. Rathjens, Professor of Political Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Michael Renner, Senior Researcher, Worldwatch Institute.
Stanley R. Resor, Former Secretary of the Army (1965-1971);
Chair, Board of Directors, Arms Control Association.
Anna Rhee, Executive Secretary for Public Policy, Womens
Division, United Methodist Church.
Charolett Rhoads, President, Pax World Service.
Howard Ris, Executive Director, Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Eugene T. Rossides, Chairman, American Hellenic Institute.
Caleb Rossiter, Director, Project on Demilitarization and
Democracy.
Dr. Robert A. Rubinstein, Director, Program on the Analysis
and Resolution of Conflicts, Syracuse University.
Dr. Ben Sanders, Executive Chairman, Programme for
Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation.
James A. Schear, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Special Assistant to the President
(1961-1964); Winner, Pulitzer Prize for History.
G. Edward Schuh, Dean, Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs, University of Minnesota.
Richard Seitz, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.).
Susan Shaer, Executive Director, Women's Action for New
Directions.
Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan (ret.), Director, Center for
Defense Information.
Jane M.O. Sharp, Director, Defence and Security Programme,
Institute for Public Policy Research, King's College.
Jack Sheinkman, President, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union.
Paul H. Sherry, President, United Church of Christ.
Michael Shuman, Director, Institute for Policy Studies.
Alice Slater, Executive Director, Economists Allied for
Arms Reduction.
Judith Sloan, Director, Asia Society.
Gaddis Smith, Director, Yale Center for International &
Area Studies.
Theodore C. Sorenson, Former Special Counsel to the
President (1961-64).
Ronald Spiers, Former Assistant Secretary of State for
Politico-Military Affairs (1969-1973); U.N. Under Secretary-
General for Political Affairs (1989-1992).
John D. Stempel, Patterson School of Diplomacy &
International Commerce, University of Kentucky.
Jeremy J. Stone, President, Federation of American
Scientists.
Russy D. Sumariwalla, President & CEO, United Way
International.
Julia Taft, President, InterAction.
Kathy Thornton, RSM, National Coordinator, NETWORK: A
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Ambassador (ret.) William J. vanden Heuvel, Former
Ambassador to the Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N.
(1979-1981); President, The Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt
Institute.
Raimo Vayrynen, Professor, Regan Director, University of
Notre Dame.
George R. Vickers, Executive Director, Washington Office on
Latin America.
Edith Villastrigo, National Legislative Director, Women
Strike for Peace.
Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on
National Legislation.
Paul C. Warnke, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs (1967-69) Director, Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency & Chief U.S. Arms Negotiator
(1977-1978).
The Rev. Dr. Daniel E. Weiss, General Secretary, American
Baptist Churches, USA.
Dr. Michael Wessells, President, Psychologists for Social
Responsibility.
John C. Whitehead, Former Deputy Secretary of State (1985-
1989); Chair, International Rescue Committee.
Roger P. Winter, Director, U.S. Committee for Refugees.
Adam Yarmolinsky, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense (1961-1964); Chairman, Lawyers Alliance for World
Security.
Andrew Young, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
(1977-1979); Vice Chairman, Law Companies Group, Inc.
____

financing the united nations

The greatest threat today to the U.N.'s effectiveness and
even survival is the cancer of financial insolvency.
Countries slow to pay their share include many that are
small. But it is the massive delinquencies of the United
States that have plunged the Organization into chronic crisis
and sapped its capacity to respond to emergencies and new
needs.
The services provided by international organizations are,
objectively, quite cheap--especially in comparison with the
sums we spend on other dimensions of national security, such
as the military, as backup in the event that diplomacy and
the U.N. machinery fail. The annual U.S. assessments for
peacekeeping worldwide are less than the police budget for
the nation's largest city. Total American contributions,
voluntary as well as obligatory, for all agencies of the U.N.
system amount to $7 per capita (compared to some $1,000 per
capita for the Defense Department).
Some object that U.N. peacekeeping costs have exploded over
the past decade, from a U.S. share of $53 million in 1985 to
$1.08 billion projected for 1995. But the end of the Cold War
that sparked that increase, by freeing the U.N. to be an
effective agent of conflict management, also allowed for far
larger reductions in other U.S. security spending: Over the
same decade, Pentagon budgets have fallen $34 billion.
Increased reliance on U.N. collective security operations
necessarily complements our defense savings. Moreover, U.N.
costs are spread among all member states, and constitute a
truly cost-effective bargain for all.
However, at a time of hard budget choices, many national
politicians see U.N. contributions as an easy target. They
are misguided. In asserting that national parliaments can
unilaterally set their nations' assessment levels, claim
offsets from assessed obligations for voluntary peacekeeping
contributions, and impose policy conditions for payment of
their agreed share of expenses, some Washington politicians
jeopardize the institutional underpinnings of the world
community. No multilateral organization--whether the U.N.,
the World Bank, or NATO--can long survive if member states
play by such rules.
In ratifying the U.N. Charter, every member state assented
in law to the financial obligations of U.N. membership.
Virtually all of America's allies in the industrialized world
fulfill those obligations to the United Nations--in full, on
time, and without conditions. Until relatively recently, so
did the United States. It must do so again.
America's leaders must recommit this nation to full and
timely payment of assessed contributions to the U.N. and
related organizations, including prompt retirement of arrears
accumulated over the past decade. Financial unreliability
leaves our institutions of common purpose vulnerable and
inefficient. We must sustain--and, where needed, increase--
our voluntary financial support of the U.N. system's many
vital activities in the economic and social fields as well as
peace and security. We should press for assessment scales
that fairly reflect nations' relative capacity to pay, and
explore other means, including minimal fees on international
transactions of appropriate types, to ensure that funds to
pay for the U.N. system budgets that member states approve
do, in fact, materialize.
____

america's stake in the united nations

Fifty years ago we, the people of the United States, joined
in common purpose and shared commitment with the people of 50
other nations. The most catastrophic war in history had
convinced nations that no country could any longer be safe
and secure in isolation. From this realization was born the
United Nations--the idea of a genuine world community and a
framework for solving human problems that transcend national
boundaries. Since then, technology and economics have
transformed ``world community'' from a phrase to a fact, and
if the World War II generation had not already established
the U.N. system, today's would have to create it.
The founders of the United Nations were clairvoyant in many
ways. The Charter anticipated decolonization; called for
``respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion'';
and set up the institutional framework ``for the promotion of
the economic and social advancement of all peoples.'' In
meeting the Charter's challenges, we make for a more secure
and prosperous world.
Through the U.N. system, many serious conflicts have been
contained or concluded. Diseases have been controlled or
eradicated, children immunized, refugees protected and fed.
Nations have set standards on issues of common concern--
ranging from human rights to environmental survival to radio
frequencies. Collective action has also furthered particular
U.S. government interests, such as averting a widening war in
the Middle East into which Washington might otherwise be
drawn. After half a century, the U.N. remains a unique
investment yielding multiple dividends for Americans and
others alike.
The U.N.'s mandate to preserve peace and security was long
hobbled by the Cold War, whose end has allowed the
institutions of global security to spring to life. The five
permanent members of the Security Council now meet and
function as a cohesive group, and what the Council has lost
in rhetorical drama it has more than gained in forging common
policies. Starting with the Reagan Administration's effort to
marshal the Security Council to help bring an end to the
Iran-Iraq war in 1988, every U.S. administration has turned
to the U.N. for collective action to help maintain or restore
peace. Common policy may not always result in success, but
neither does unilateral policy--and, unlike unilateral
intervention, it spreads costs and risks widely and may help
avoid policy disasters.
Paradoxically, the end of the Cold War has also given rise
in the U.S. to a resurgent isolationism, along with calls for
unilateral, go-it-alone policies. Developments in many places
that once would have stirred alarm are now viewed with
indifference. When they do excite American political
interest, the impulse is often to respond unilaterally in the
conviction that only Washington can do

[[Page S 14522]]
the job and do it right. Without a Soviet threat, some Americans
imagine we can renounce ``foreign entanglements.'' Growing
hostility to U.N. peacekeeping in some political circles
reflects, in large measure, the shortsighted idea that
America has little at stake in the maintenance of a peaceful
world. In some quarters, resentment smolders at any hint of
reciprocal obligations, but in a country founded on the rule
of law, the notion that law should rule among nations ought
not to be controversial.
The political impulse to go it alone surges at precisely
the moment when nations have become deeply interconnected.
The need for international teamwork has never been clearer.
Goods, capital, news, entertainment, and ideas flow across
national borders with astonishing speed. So do refugees,
diseases, drugs, environmental degradation, terrorists, and
currency crashes.
The institutions of the U.N. system are not perfect, but
they remain our best tools for concerted international
action. Just as Americans often seek to reform our own
government, we must press for improvement of the U.N. system.
Fragmented and of limited power, prone to political
paralysis, bureaucratic torpor, and opaque accountability,
the U.N. system requires reform--but not wrecking.
Governments and citizens must press for changes that improve
agencies' efficiency, enhance their responsiveness, and make
them accountable to the world's publics they were created to
serve. Our world institutions can only be strengthened with
the informed engagement of national leaders, press, and the
public at large.
The American people have not lost their commitment to the
United Nations and to the rule of law. They reaffirm it
consistently, whether in opinion surveys or UNICEF campaigns.
Recognizing the public's sentiment, the foes of America's
U.N. commitment--unilateralists, isolationists, or whatever--
do not call openly for rejecting the U.N. as they had earlier
rejected outright the League of Nations. But the systematic
paring back of our commitment to international law and
participation in institutions would have the same effect.
In this 50th anniversary year, America's leaders should
rededicate the nation to the promise of a more peaceful and
prosperous world contained in the U.N. Charter. In that
spirit, the United Nations Association of the United States
calls on the people and government of the United States, and
those of all other U.N. member states, to join in
strengthening the United Nations system for the 21st century.
In particular, we call for action in five areas, which will
be the top policy priorities of UNA-USA as we enter the
U.N.'s second half-century: Reliable financing of the United
Nations system; strong and effective U.N. machinery to help
keep the peace; promotion of broad-based and sustainable
world economic growth; vigorous defense of human rights and
protection of displaced populations; control, reduction, or
elimination of highly destructive weaponry.

Mr. SIMON. And then the next is a letter, a policy statement by the
United Nations Association of the United States of America, sent to
me--I am sure to all Members of the Senate--by the former Deputy
Secretary of State John Whitehead, who many of us had a chance to know
and respect a great deal. He was the Deputy Secretary of State under
Jim Baker. I ask unanimous consent that his fine statement be printed
in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

United Nations Association of

the United States of America,

July 26, 1995.
Hon. Paul Simon,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Simon: I am writing to share with you a policy
statement of the United Nations Association of the United
States (UNA-USA) on the U.S. stake in the United Nations and
U.N. financing, adopted in late June by UNA-USA's national
convention on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the
signing of the United Nations Charter.
It is a serious yet succinct statement on an issue of
considerable importance, with major implications for the
Congress. We hope you will find it of interest. UNA-USA is
eager to make a constructive contribution to the policy
debate.
We should be pleased to share any reactions with UNA-USA's
25,000 members.
Sincerely,
John C. Whitehead,
Chairman of the Association.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am not offering an amendment on this
because, real candidly, I know what the results would be. But I hope
that in conference my colleagues will keep in mind that even the House,
conservative as they are, put in $425 million for U.N. peacekeeping
compared to our $250 million. I hope we will go to the House figure on
this.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HATFIELD. 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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendments, without any invasion or impingement upon the time
agreements attendant to those amendments. I will offer an amendment and
ask for 20 minutes, to be equally divided between Senators Pell,
Bumpers, and Dorgan, with the understanding that there will still be a
vote at 9 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator withhold?
Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to withhold.
Mr. FORD. 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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to call the roll.
Mr. HATFIELD. 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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I have sent an amendment to the desk. I
withdraw any further request for unanimous-consent request on time. I
am just going to utilize the void that exists here on the floor and
take up what time I wish.
This amendment, Mr. President, if approved, I think would greatly
improve our national security. My amendment, which is identical to a
freestanding bill, the code of conduct on arms transfers, would place
restrictions on arms transfers to nations which pose potential threats
to the United States or to our allies.
I do not want to go into my long drawn-out speech reciting the very
sorry record of this country in being the biggest arms peddler in the
world today. Merchants of death is about what you should more
accurately title our role in these matters of providing arms to Third
World countries that cannot even develop a subsistence agriculture to
feed their own people, and using up to 85 percent of their own national
budgets to fill their lust for arms that we have infected them with.
At least I think we ought to begin to try to draw some kind of
parameters around this come-one-come-all big arms sale today in the
United States. Sending out our Secretary of Commerce to hawk arms at
the Paris arms show, informing our diplomatic posts around the world
that certainly they would help facilitate any arms transfers they can
create in their country.
What we are offering here is this amendment to the Justice-State-
Commerce appropriations bill on behalf of Senator Pell, Senator Dorgan,
Senator Bumpers, and myself.
I acknowledge that this is not the perfect vehicle for a discussion
on the issue of arms transfers. After all, the yearly appropriations
process is virtually the only time Congress provides its input on
military aid to other countries, and at least some oversight exists in
the programs funded by yearly appropriations.
My amendment is very easy to explain. It is very straightforward. The
focus of the code of conduct on arms transfers is not what may be sold
or transferred to another nation; but rather who should receive U.S.
arms. The code of conduct says it is generally not in the interest of
the United States to send arms to nations which are undemocratic, or
abuse human rights, engage in illegal acts of war, or refuse to
participate in the U.N. Registry of Arms. In other words, U.S.-built
weapons should not be provided to nations which are a threat to our
security.
We have had plenty of history where we have faced our own arms in a
battle where they are aimed against our own people. I need not go into
a long recitation of that.
Our world is awash in conventional weapons. This is conventional
weapon focus. Even as we celebrate another

[[Page S 14523]]
major victory in nuclear arms control, the permanent ratification of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and come closer to reaching
agreement on a permanent ban on underground nuclear testing, we cannot
ignore the death and destruction caused by conventional arms. Over 40
million people killed by conventional weapons since World War II. That
is a pretty sizable part of the world's population.
More than anything else, we cannot ignore the last four times the
United States sent significant numbers of troops to combat. Our
soldiers faced adversaries which had received U.S. arms, training, or
military assistance. I am talking about Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia.
In other words, our arms transfer policy has backfired, particularly
in those instances. It has created the boomerang effect where U.S.-
provided weapons are used against our own military. Clearly, a new
policy is needed.
The American public has been polled on the question of arms transfers
and resoundingly--over 95 percent--said that no U.S. arms should go to
dictators. Yet the United States continues to provide arms to nations
which are not democratic.
The Clinton administration undertook to review the arms trade policy
last year. That process took many months and the announcement was made
in February of this year, 1995, that a new policy had been adopted. The
truth is there was nothing new about the administration's policy. It
represents no real departure from the arms transfer program our Nation
has followed for the past 15 years.
We can go back and say this whole idea emanated out of post-World War
II France when General de Gaulle needed to try to replenish the
military arms arsenal of plans and found the best way to do it was to
sell arms to other parts of the world to make money off of them to fill
his own arms needs.
If we want to go with the President, President Kennedy in 1961 saw
that as a policy and began to launch that policy in this country. So,
consequently, we have had Democrat and Republican alike, no change or
difference in party labels, that have followed this kind of arms
peddling policy.
I think one important and dangerous difference today than previous
has been thanks to the new policy that domestic economic considerations
now have an important role to play in arms transfer decisions.
Apparently we are willing to trade national security away for a few
jobs. In other words, domestic production. That is foreign trade.
I think it is very interesting, we used to have a Department in the
Defense Department, Department of Munitions. Now we call it the
Department of International Defense Trade. Is that not a nice, sweet
name for nothing but peddling arms?
This position is terribly out of step with the international movement
to curb arm transfers. Last week I received a letter from Nobel
laureate Dr. Oscar Arias, the former President of Costa Rica, who
informed me that he is organizing a commission of Nobel laureates to
develop an international code of conduct on arms transfers to be
presented to the U.N. General Assembly.
Dr. Arias has already signed on four additional Nobel laureates in
this effort--mind you within this very brief period of time, four more,
which is based in part upon the code of conduct I am presenting here on
behalf of my colleagues and myself.
In addition, I have heard from members of the European parliament,
led by Glenys Kinnock. The efforts are underway to develop a
comprehensive arms export control policy to be endorsed by the European
Union.
Mr. Kinnock points out in his letter, this is Mr. Glenys Kinnock,
that the United States and the nations of the European Union together
will sell 80 percent of the world's weapons this year--80 percent.
Clearly, the code of conduct on arms transfers is not a unilateral
move which will have only limited effect upon the global flow of arms.
This is an international initiative which demands U.S. leadership.
Yet the administration refuses to make this pledge. Under Secretary
of State Lynn Davis also testified before the Appropriations Committee
on the matter of arms transfers. Secretary Davis told me that she
thought that all components of the code of conduct on arms transfers--
this bill or this amendment--democracy, human rights, transparency in
arms transfers and reunification of illegal wars--were all acceptable
to the administration, and indeed, are all shared goals.
Setting goals is not enough. Non-democratic governments received 85
percent of the $55.2 billion of American weapons that were transferred
to developing countries through sales or foreign aid during the past 4
years.
With a record like that, I could not disagree more with the
administration's assertion that flexibility is the most important
factor in arms transfer policy.
But I nonetheless have, in my amendment, provided a waiver authority,
so that the President may come to Congress with a request to provide
arms transfers to a nation who does not meet the criteria when it is in
the interest of our own national security.
Should dictators be rewarded with weapons? Of course not. Early this
past summer the Catholic Bishops of the United States approved
unanimously a major statement calling upon the United States to
undertake ``more serious efforts to control and radically reduce'' its
role in the arms trade.
Many of you know that I have been a longtime critic of arms sales to
the developing world. As I have indicated earlier, too many poorer
nations--nations which have inadequate water and food supplies,
inadequate education, and inadequate housing--have been caught up on
regional arms races or been subjected to the gross military
expenditures of despots. For years the United States has led the way in
sales to these countries, although I would note that France slipped
ahead of us this past year.
Earlier this year I held a hearing on the bill which is the basis for
the amendment I offer today. A representative from Human Rights Watch
provided testimony to the Appropriations Committee regarding the link
between human rights and conventional weapons transfers. The
representative reminded the committee that ``the fact of arms does not
necessarily create abuse'' but went on to discuss how the tragic
genocide in Rwanda a year ago was worsened by the enormous flow of
weapons the year before the massacres. The influx of grenades and
automatic weapons--all available cheaply--not only brought on the
creation of militia who left tens of thousands of Rwandans dead. The
Existence of these weapons also made U.N. efforts to protect refugees
extremely difficult.
If we are to prevent future Rwandas and improve international respect
for human rights and promote democracy, we need a code of conduct on
arms transfers. The United States can and should exert its leadership
by stating explicitly that it does not sell arms to dictators.
Mr. President, one closing remark. We have problems today in Bosnia
and the Balkans. I stood on this floor 2\1/2\ years ago and warned
about the flow of arms coming in both directions on the Danube. The
Danube River was literally a river full of arms going into that very
part of the world, from allies, from friends as well as from people of
different kinds of relationships to the United States. These are now
coming home to roost.
People say what else can we do but to send troops? What else can we
do but to bomb? If we would choke off the supply of arms into that area
of the world, we would be saving lives and we would be going to the
source of the conflict and the source of the destruction and the source
of the violence. But, unfortunately, arms have become too big an
economic enterprise in our Western World, particularly in the United
States. So it is much easier to call out the troops and send them into
trouble spots of the world than to choke off arms to the world. We are
now, as I say, one of the largest peddlers of such arms in all parts of
the world.
Mr. President, I made my pitch. I want to say I appreciate being able
to inject this at this moment. If the time is such that Senator Bumpers
and other cosponsors of this may have a moment to speak, I will hold it
in suspension. I am ready to close off and call for a vote. I recognize
the ultimate defeat, but nevertheless I feel constrained to make this
pitch at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S 14524]]

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is the Senator from Oregon waiting now to
call for a vote on his amendment or has he yielded the floor?
Mr. HATFIELD. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, tonight we are going to be voting on some
amendments that are very significant, and I want to take an opportunity
to express some views concerning those amendments. One is going to be
offered to refund to its 1995 fiscal year level--I believe it is $415
million--the Legal Services Corporation.
This is a place we should draw the line, go back. In fact, this is
one area where the Senate came out with a better proposal than the
House came out with. It is my understanding the House suggested
reducing the funding to $278 million. The Senate would reduce it down
to $210 million and have that block granted out to the States.
I really believe the Legal Services Corporation was conceived as a
part of the Great Society program, understandably, perhaps, at the
time, to offer legal services to the poor. However, over a period of
years it has turned into an agency that is trying to reshape the
political and legal and social fabric of America. In fiscal year 1995,
the taxpayers spent $415 million to operate the Legal Services
Corporation. However, the cost, the $415 million, is only a very small
part of it when you consider the extensive class action suits and
frivolous litigation that has followed.
There are so many examples that have been given here on the floor,
and that I have given myself, concerning the activities of the LSC. The
negative effects of the LSC's attempts to reorder society permeate our
culture, from the business community to government to homes to
churches. Perhaps the most troubling is the role of legal aid in
challenging parental involvement statutes, so-called children's rights
advocates such as Mrs. Clinton, who served as the chairperson for the
LSC's board that challenged parental consent laws in several States.
The income level of the litigants was often ignored. It really cannot
be used as an argument that it was to provide legal services for the
poor.
Parents are attacked in their efforts in keeping drugs out of their
homes. In Idaho, the LSC protested when parents voluntarily invited
police into their homes to check for drugs. Legal aid asserted privacy
rights of the violators, who were teenagers who were on drugs at the
time.
We have had Legal Services also involved in illegal immigration. The
LSC supported organizations that sued California for its efforts to
ascertain residents' immigration status for emergency Medicaid
services. Legal Services promised to take this one to the Supreme
Court.
Legal Services also contributes to our public housing woes. The LSC
tried to prevent the local housing authority from evicting a woman who
was dealing in drugs out of her apartment. Despite overwhelming
evidence of constant drug-related activity, the LSC lawyers vigorously
opposed her eviction on the grounds that she was not aware of what was
going on.
The examples go on and on and on. I encourage my colleagues to
seriously consider defeating the amendment that will be offered
tonight.
There is another one coming up I heard articulated on this floor a
moment ago by the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. Although he was
talking about his amendment, the Shelby-Inhofe amendment that will be
offered later on is an amendment to put work back into our prison
system. We have proposed in this amendment that we require work, 48
hours per week, along with education pursuits so individuals can go out
when they are once released and work themselves back into society.
I know a lot of people are saying these are not country clubs; our
prison system already is punishing criminals. I suggest that, since the
1960's, we have grown in this body to be more concerned about the
violators than we have the victims.
The other day, I ran into a notice that was posted in one of the
Massachusetts correctional facilities where it stated:

A third softball field will be made in the west field in
order to allow more inmates to play softball. The horseshoe
pits will be temporarily relocated near the golf course. The
boccie [or whatever that is called] area will be relocated at
the site of the new gym. The soccer field will be relocated
to the east field behind the softball field.

It goes on to say, ``We hope that our clients''--they do not call
them inmates, do not call them prisoners--``will not be inconvenienced
too much.''
I think it is time. If there is one mandate that came with the
elections of 1994, it was to start to change our prison system, to quit
spending the exorbitant amounts, and to get involved in punishment as a
deterrent to crime.
I was very proud when we passed our bill through the Senate, after
the disaster occurred in the State of Oklahoma, that calls for real
habeas reform and, for the first time, in my opinion, reverses the
direction of our attitude in terms of crime and punishment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I believe that I have 2 hours allotted to
my amendment that will be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BIDEN. In fairness to the Senate, I was supposed to be here at 7
o'clock to start that amendment. So I would suggest that--I have
checked this with at least the staff of the minority--the time for my
amendment be cut to an hour and a half equally divided so that we are
finished by 9 o'clock with this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I withhold the request. I will just begin
my statement, and then we can work out the time as we go along.
Before Senator Inhofe leaves the floor, I am just curious. That
prison notice that he read, I would like to ask my colleague, was that
a Federal prison or State prison?
Mr. INHOFE. It is a State prison. However, our amendment addresses
not just Federal prisons but prisons that receive Federal funds.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator. I was just curious. I would point out
to him that in the Federal prison system, we stopped fooling around--
unlike the State of Oklahoma or the State of Delaware and other
States--we stopped fooling around like many who served in the State
legislature fool around. We passed an amendment that the Senator from
Delaware offered in the late 1970's and early 1980's. It is called
``the same time for the same crime.'' You get convicted in the Federal
court, you go to jail for all the time, and I am just sorry the State
legislatures are not as we have been and as the Federal Government has
been for a long time.
Mr. INHOFE. If I could respond, we have been fooling around in some
States. That is what this is all about, to try to get some uniformity.
And any time you have a murderer like Roger Dale Stafford, who sat on
death row for 15 years after murdering nine Oklahomans in cold blood,
it is time that we changed our attitude toward crime and punishment in
this country.
I would suggest--and I think perhaps the Senator from Delaware would
agree--that when someone is contemplating a crime, and if he thinks the
downside is going to be sitting on death row watching TV in an air-
conditioned cell for 17 years, that is not much of a deterrent. And
that is what I would like to change.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. Maybe he could
make that very compelling speech to Mr. Gingrich so we can actually
pass the terrorism bill instead of him holding the terrorism bill up
that we--the Senator from Oklahoma and I--worked so hard on. The House
has not passed it yet. It is a great emergency.
I have not heard any speeches on the floor from my friends who were
decrying failure to move quickly on the terrorism bill when we had it.
I have not heard any speeches about why the Republican House of
Representatives is holding it hostage. God only knows. Maybe it has to
do with a line-item veto that they used to be for as well in the House.
I am not sure. But I think we would all serve the Nation well if we
constantly spoke out and asked Mr. Gingrich to let the terrorism bill
go instead of turning that into a habeas corpus reform. I would hate to
have that sit over there for the remainder of the year.
Mr. INHOFE. I will respond that I have talked to Mr. Gingrich, and he
is

[[Page S 14525]]
very anxious to get to that. However, I think we are all aware that we
have some appropriations bills to get out of the way. And, in the order
of things, I am sure it will be expedited.
Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to hear that. But he had the bill for months
and months before we started the appropriations process.
I do not stand for that reason. I rise to speak to an amendment that
I have. Let me very briefly describe it before I send it to up to the
desk.
Mr. President, the crime bill--which we passed, and is now the crime
law--was in many ways authorized in this appropriations bill. My good
friend from Texas, Senator Gramm, for whom I have great respect and I
have never underestimated his abilities, was very effectively able to,
in the appropriations process, essentially change the authorization
process by dealing with a number of the provisions in the crime laws
that are in place and functioning.
What this amendment essentially attempts to do is go back and undo--
whether the Senate will agree is a different story--essentially what
was done in the subcommittee on appropriations. I am not speaking to
each part of the amendment, but I will give you the major points.
One, it reinstates money for the drug courts. The Appropriations
Committee eliminated the funding for drug courts, something that we
passed a year ago into law and is now law.
Second, it eliminates money for drug treatment in prisons. I might
note for those who might think that is sort of a silly, soft-headed
notion that the States in the United States of America in the year
1993, after releasing prisoners from the jail--prisoners who had served
their time in the State penitentiary--as they walked out the gate from
a State penitentiary with the clothes they wore in and a bus ticket and
five bucks in their pocket, 200,000 of them in one year walked out of
that penitentiary drug addicted, drug addicted, addicted to drugs after
having served their time as they walked through the portal.
So what all the evidence shows is that drug treatment in prisons is
as effective as drug treatment out of prison, and it makes a big
difference because you have 154 crimes a year committed by a drug-
addicted person. If you have 200,000 people, after having walked out of
jail, still drug addicted as they walk out the gate, we have a problem.
But unfortunately, the meager amount of money that was in the crime
bill, in the crime trust fund, which should have been spent and would
have been spent in this upcoming year, that also was zeroed out.
In addition, there was in the crime law a provision that a vast
majority of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, supported when we
debated the crime bill 2 years ago, and that was rural drug enforcement
grants. I have spent a lot of time with the Presiding Officer, my
colleague from Utah. And, as a consequence, I do not pretend to know
the State of Utah, but I have become much more familiar with it. I need
not tell the Presiding Officer that drug trafficking in methamphetamine
with the gangs from Los Angeles moving into rural Utah, drive-by
shootings occurring in Salt Lake City that never occurred before, the
influx into the large intermountain States of drug deals, drug cartels,
and drug organizations primarily dealing in synthetic drugs and
methamphetamine--all of them have put an incredible burden on all of
those things and have put an incredible burden on the rural law
enforcement agencies in the small towns in the State of Utah, in New
Hampshire and in Delaware.
I mentioned those States because the three Senators representing
those States are on the floor. We represent States where the vast
majority of their cities are very small. The largest city in the State
of Delaware is 85,000 people.
Now, I realize Utah is larger than that, and I think Manchester, NH,
is larger than that. But the point is, we do not have that many big
metropolises. We have tens, scores of small, little towns of one
sheriff or one police officer or two or three. And what every rural law
enforcement agency said to us when we were writing this bill was that
we need help, particularly we need help in the area of dealing with
drug enforcement problems, because the problems that are visited upon
those small towns are not just the kids selling marijuana in the
schoolyard; the real problems that have occurred in the last 10 years
is these drug organizations move into those small towns, or they move
into the outskirts of those small towns that in effect are incapable of
being dealt with across State borders by small, rural law enforcement
agencies.
Unfortunately, the subcommittee on appropriations saw fit to zero out
that function as well. I attempt in this amendment to restore that
money.
In addition, I also restore another thing that was cut totally, and
that is the Law Enforcement Family Support Act.
Now, most people do not know what that is, but a number of us have
participated, and I expect my colleagues on the floor tonight will
participate in the ceremonies that take place at the law enforcement
memorial once a year, where almost every year the President speaks,
whether it be President Bush or President Clinton, and where we deal
with and hail the slain officers and the families of officers slain in
that calendar year who come to Washington. And they come to Washington
to be recognized and to recognize the contributions of their spouses,
mothers or fathers, brothers or sisters.
A very important part of that, as those of you who have attended may
know, is that when that ceremony is over out in The Mall, there are 2
days set up of counseling for the families, the families that come from
all across America, that come from Idaho, Utah, Montana, Maine,
Florida.
You speak to the families of those slain officers, and they will tell
you this counseling that they get as to how to deal with this and being
able to deal with other families who have been through it is one of the
most helpful things that happens to them. It matters to them.
What this $1.2 million we cut does is to provide that very
counseling. So I hope when my colleagues vote on this amendment, they
will remember that next year when they are invited down to the law
enforcement memorial ceremony and they see and, God forbid, it will
occur we know, another 25, 50, 100 families down there where officers
have been slain in the calendar year doing their duty, we will realize
that in failing to put this money back in the thing that those families
valued the most will in fact not be available to them because they
literally leave there, go to a luncheon and get on buses to take
advantage of these counseling services. So I attempt to restore the
$1.2 million in the Law Enforcement Family Support Act that was taken
out by the committee.
It also restores--no new money, no change in money--the State option
that is presently available under the crime law, under the prison grant
portion, to allow States to use their prison dollars to build boot
camps if they choose to do it. The argument that we heard on the floor,
Democrats and Republicans, for the past year is that we want to allow
more local control. We do not want the Federal Government telling
people what they should do.
We passed, with my support and the overwhelming support of the people
in this body on both sides of the aisle, the mandate legislation saying
we should not be mandating to the States what they must do without
sending the money. But implicit in that is we have also said as a
matter of policy that we do not know federally, we have acknowledged we
do not know federally as much about the specific needs of the States
and the localities as the States and localities know.
So I find it curious that my colleagues, at least the majority on the
appropriations subcommittee, decided to tell the States they do not
have the option to build boot camps. I do not quite understand that.
Everybody stood on this floor and talked about how valuable and
important boot camps are. But the language that I have in this
amendment--and I will go back to this in a moment--restores the State
option. No requirement, no State has to build a single, solitary boot
camp. They can all go build maximum security prisons. They can do
whatever they want to do with the money as it relates to prisons. But
they should have the option of being able to build a boot camp, as my
State has decided. And there are several other changes that this
amendment contains for the

[[Page S 14526]]
purpose of making sure that we in effect put the crime law back
together.
This amendment is supported, I might add, by I believe every single
major police organization in the country. The legislation relating to
law enforcement and family support is specifically supported by the
National Association of Police Organizations.
As I said, everyone may remember a year and a half ago there were a
rash of police suicides across the country including what personal toll
was taken on America's law enforcement officers and their families as a
consequence of them being shot or wounded or killed. This amendment on
the Family Support Act helps deal with that.
So let me speak a little more specifically to each of the general
areas that I try to restore. Again, $100 million for drug courts, $20
million--and by the way, we authorized $150 million.
I should point out one other thing. We are dealing with moneys from a
trust fund. These are not any new taxes. What we all decided to do
under the leadership of Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Byrd of West
Virginia, when the crime law was being debated a year and a half ago,
was to say, look, why not make sure this is not funny money. Why not
make sure we can pay for what we say we want to do. I wholeheartedly
agreed.
And under the leadership of Senator Byrd, with the strong concurrence
of Senator Gramm of Texas--and quite frankly, with the ingenuity of
John Hilley, who was then the administrative assistant for Senator
Mitchell--they came up with a unique idea. Never before, to the best of
my knowledge, did the Senate ever set up a trust fund for law
enforcement. And the way that was funded, the Senator from Texas [Mr.
Gramm], insisted that the commitment that we made to reduce the Federal
work force by 272,000 people over a 5-year period be written into the
law. It had not been legislated before.
And so, as a part of the crime bill we legislated, the President
would have to reduce the present work force by 272,000 people. OMB
calculated how much the revenue that was now being paid out of the
Treasury to pay those folks' salaries would be. And we agreed that as
that attrition took place--and we have cut now by 170,000 some Federal
employees. We have done that. That is real. That has been done. Their
paychecks would go into this trust fund and that from the trust fund
the funding for the crime bill would come.
Now, someone could have argued legitimately that when I say, ``No new
taxes,'' they say, ``Biden, you could have taken those savings from the
reduction of the Federal work force and you could have lowered the
deficit or lowered taxes.'' That is true. We could have done that. But
the majority of us--and I for one strongly felt it was a higher
priority to fight crime in America and give localities the resources to
do that.
So I want to make it clear what we are talking about here is trust
fund moneys. So what I do in this amendment is I reinstate $100 million
of the $150 million for drug courts, $27 million for drug treatment in
prison, $10 million for rural drug enforcement, and $1.2 million for
the Law Enforcement Family Support Act, and then change other
language--no reallocation of funds for making sure that States have the
option dealing with being able to use prison money to build boot camps.
Now, let my speak to what I think the single most important piece of
this amendment is, first, in more detail, and that is the drug courts.
The Federal Government has long focused on the fight against illegal
drugs, but few of its efforts have shown the promise already
demonstrated by drug courts. The key to the drug court program is to
punish and control offenders in the most efficient way possible.
In fact, it is precisely because of the success of the drug courts
seen in model States, that I worked with the Attorney General to
include the Federal support for drug courts in the 1994 crime bill
signed into law a year ago.
Drug courts represent an innovation in how our criminal justice
system deals with low-level, first-time drug offenders. Throughout the
Nation nonviolent drug offenders are simply released back into society
with no punishment, no treatment, no supervision. Nationwide, the most
recent estimates are that 600,000 such offenders are on the streets;
600,000 people convicted of abusing drugs and committing crimes sent
back out into the streets with no reason not to return to more drugs
and more crime and with no punishment, no treatment, and no
supervision--1.4 million of these nonviolent drug offenders are
convicted every year, and 600,000 of them get absolutely no treatment,
no supervision, no punishment.
Now, let me tell you how the drug courts work. The drug courts work
so that what happens is the States, with the money provided by the
Federal Government as seed money, this $100 million, set up drug courts
where they take these first-time, nonviolent offenders into the court.
They adjudicate their cases very rapidly, usually within 30 days. They
then sentence that offender to something, including all of the
following:
First, if they are in school they must stay in school.
Second, if they have a job they must keep a job.
Third, they must be subject to random drug testing.
Fourth, they actually must report two times a week to a probation
officer and a counselor.
Fifth, they are required to enlist in drug treatment and stay in drug
treatment.
If they violate any of those things, they go straight to jail. They
do not pass go--straight to jail. In Dade County, FL, which,
unfortunately, probably has more experience with drug trafficking and
illegal drug use than any other county in America, it was put into
effect several years ago.
The rearrest rate prior to the institution of drug courts was about
34 percent. Thirty-four percent of all the people who were convicted
the first time of a nonviolent drug offense ended up rearrested and
reconvicted and back before the courts. When the drug court program was
put in place--and it has been there now about 5 years, I believe, maybe
a little longer--the rearrest rate dropped to around 3 percent--3
percent.
I can say to the Presiding Officer and others who are listening that
in my State, the State of Delaware, a Republican attorney general named
Richard Gebelein became a superior court judge and set up a drug court
system like this--strict, strict, strict rules for nonviolent offenders
once they are convicted, requirements of treatment, requirements of
public service, requirements of random drug testing, requirements
relating to keeping a job, very strict requirements. They were
literally required to sign a contract. And when they violate any of
those provisions, they go to jail. It is amazing what an incentive it
is. It is amazing what an incentive it is.
In my State they are going to be going to boot camps because boot
camps cost 40 percent less to run than the prison system does, than
building bricks and mortar. So they work. I say to my friend from Utah
and others who are here, they work. And, unfortunately, I know in the
interest of trying to find money for other purposes in the bill, they
were zeroed out. So what I do in this legislation is I restore $100
million of the $140 million that has been authorized.
Again, drug courts combine a carrot of drug treatment and the helping
hand with a stick of mandatory drug testing and the gavel of a judge
that says you go back to prison if, in fact, you violate any of the
provisions.
For example, as of about 1 month ago, the Delaware drug court had
worked on 481 offenders in my small State in what it calls its track
one program. That is, 143 of these 481 people had completed the program
and were on their way to being productive citizens; 80 were, to use the
Delaware judge's phrase, ``terminated.'' In other words, they were sent
back to jail. And the remaining 258 are presently working their way
through the program.
But an interesting thing, I say to the Presiding Officer. Guess what?
Of those 481 people who were in the system, committing an average of
154 crimes a year, the crime rate has gone down precipitously among
those people. And those who could not stay in the system were, to use
the phrase of the former attorney general--now judge--Gebelein, they
were terminated. They were sent to jail.
Absent the drug court system around the country, what happens now is
they never get any treatment, they never get any punishment, they never
get sent to jail; 600,000 of them a year are out there walking around
after having been convicted.
So I say to my friends, as they look at this, ask their judges in
their home

[[Page S 14527]]
State, ask their probation officers, ask their police officers, ask
their prison officials, and I can tell you, they will find almost
without exception that the drug court innovation is viewed as one of
the best hopes law enforcement has to deal with what is ultimately the
problem. And to paraphrase a phrase used in a Presidential campaign
last time around, ``It's drugs, stupid. It's drugs.'' Crime is drugs.
``It's drugs, stupid. It's drugs.''
Now, on the point of drug treatment in prisons, I will again merely
make the point that it works. Last week the Department of Health and
Human Services released preliminary estimates from the 1994 national
household survey on drug abuse. And its report is alarming.
The survey found that among youth age 12 to 17, the rate of illicit
drug use increased between 1993 and 1994 from 6.6 percent to 9.5
percent. In the past year, nearly 10 percent of our youth were using
illicit drugs. Marijuana use among 12- to 17-year-olds has nearly
doubled from 1992 to 1994.
Perhaps even more frightening than the upsurge in use trends is the
increase in the perceived availability of illicit drugs, substances in
all age groups. The percentage of youth reporting that marijuana was
easy to obtain increased by over 10 percent. Fifty-nine percent of the
young people in America said marijuana is easy to obtain and they know
how to get it. There was an increase in the perceived availability of
LSD, PCP's, and heroin for all age groups.
The percentage of people age 35 and older who claim that cocaine was
easily obtainable increased from 36 to 41 percent. Clearly, despite the
progress we made in drug abuse prevention and treatment and law
enforcement, there is still a great deal more to be done. And things
are moving the wrong way.
Given the need for more and greater efforts in the war on drugs and
given their call for a strong stand on the drug issue, I cannot
understand why my colleagues in this body employ the decision to
abandon the key antidrug initiative in the 1994 crime law.
Specifically, I would like to mention the three programs they have
eliminated. One I have spoke to--the drug courts; second is drug
treatment in State prisons; and the third is rural drug enforcement
grants. I do not quite understand why, as we talk about drugs, we in
fact find ourselves with legislation that cuts our effort in fighting
drugs.
Last year, the 1994 crime law took a strong stand against drug abuse
in rural areas, against drug abuse throughout the court system and in
the prison system. But this bill zeros out those functions.
So it always surprises me, when we talk about being tough on drugs,
why more of our colleagues do not go home and talk to their police, why
they do not talk to their prison officials, why they do not talk to the
tough guys, the law-and-order types, who will tell them. I am telling
you they will tell you that in fact they want these programs.
What my amendment does, it takes funds from an open-ended, unfunded
block grant to make sure that these dollars are targeted to the
antidrug measures I mentioned. In other words, the amendment allocates
funds directly--what we do is we take $117 million in the bill--we do
not look for any money anywhere else --and apply it to the three
programs I mentioned, and here is how we do it. We increase the fee
charges to obtain green cards. A few years back, when the non-U.S.
citizen was in the United States and applied for and was authorized to
obtain a green card, that person would have had to return to their
native country and then reenter the United States legally.
In 1994, we passed a law that allowed the person in those
circumstances to remain in the United States and obtain the green card
if certain requirements were satisfied. That person paid an additional
fee of a few hundred dollars. The rationale behind the additional fee
is that, in paying the fee, the person did not have to leave the United
States, return to their home country, reenter the United States, and
they saved a round-trip fare ticket. In addition, there is $21.2
million in offsets from the reduction in the State prison grants.
I note that the House funded the administration's request of $500
million. The bill before us provides $750 million for prisons. We all
know that whatever comes out of conference is not going to be $750
million. So we take $21 million--a mere $21 million--out of the
additional $250 million for State prisons that the Senate subcommittee
put in. And should it be adopted, the bill would still provide more
than $725 million for prison grants. And so when my colleagues
legitimately ask, OK, Biden, let us assume the three programs that you
and the cops talk about all the time are as good as you say, and that
is drug courts, the drug prison money, and drug treatment money in
prisons and rural drug enforcement--what I did was I found the $117
million to offset that from the places I just stated.
I see my friend from Missouri. I have more to say. How much time
remains for the Senator from Delaware?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). There is no time, since the
amendment has not been offered.
Mr. BIDEN. I did not mean to do that to the body. I was trying to
save time.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BIDEN. Sure.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Delaware be inclined to have the
time that has been consumed applied to the hour and then have the time
begin to run?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes, I would. It is not my intention, by not sending up
the amendment, to be able to elongate the time that would have
otherwise been allotted to the Senator from Delaware. I will do that.
The reason why I have not sent the amendment to the desk is there are a
few changes several of my Republican colleagues want, in the form they
want it in to be able to send it up. That is the reason.
I see my colleague from Missouri on the floor. I am told he would
like to speak to the drug court issue. If that is the case, I ask the
permission of my friend from New Hampshire whether I could ask
unanimous consent to yield to him 5 minutes of whatever time I have, if
we reach an agreement on that time?
Mr. GREGG. Would it be possible now to propound a unanimous-consent
agreement that the time for debate on the Senator's amendment would be
limited to not beyond 9 o'clock, that the time consumed up until now
would be charged to your time, that the 5 minutes to be used by the
Senator from Missouri be charged to our time, and that the remainder of
the time be divided equally?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes, I believe so. I would like to ask, how much time
would I have left under such an agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The original informal agreement was an hour
and a half, from 7:30 until 9, equally divided. The Senator has since
used 35 minutes out of his 45-minute allocation.
Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to accede to the suggestion of the Senator from
New Hampshire, if he wishes, that the time on this amendment extend
until 9 o'clock and that the Senator from Delaware would have
approximately 12 minutes remaining?
Mr. GREGG. I have just been advised that if that is the case, we end
up locking in the offsets here, which is something we would rather not
do. Why do we not continue to proceed.
Mr. BIDEN. That is what I thought. On that score, I will be delighted
to yield to the Senator from Missouri at this time. Then I will seek
recognition when he finishes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not going to take up a great deal of
time. There are a number of things to work out on this amendment. I
could not pass up this opportunity to come and tell this body that the
concept of a drug court has been in place in Kansas City, MO, for about
2 years, and it is too early to say that this is the real solution. But
the results, to date, are very spectacular.
In Kansas City, drug offenses were clogging up the court system. We
did not have the court resources available to provide full trials. We
were getting citations. We did not have the prison space for the minor
offenders. The drug court has been used with, apparently, a great deal
of success for the nonviolent minor drug offenders in Kansas City.
As the Senator from Delaware has already described, this is a program
in which they go before a judge--and I

[[Page S 14528]]
talked at length with a judge--Judge Mason--whom I had the pleasure of
appointing when I was Governor of Missouri, and the county prosecuting
attorney, Clara McCaskle, who said this was one of the best ideas they
had seen for trying to get people early on in their careers, after they
started taking drugs, off of drugs and off of a life of crime.
There have been about 200 people in the program in 2 years, only 10
have been rearrested. Some of them failed. The nice thing about a drug
court is that if you fail the program, that is it, you go into jail.
There is no question about it. But 60 people have completed the
program. Only one has been rearrested. That is a significantly higher
success rate than most of the other programs I have seen for dealing
with the minor drug-related offenders.
This, obviously, applies only to nonviolent offenders, who have not
used a weapon in their crime. We think this kind of tough supervision
by a concerned judge--and it requires a judge who is willing to devote
his or her time to these cases, to give the drug offender the attention
and discipline needed to get them off of the drug habit and get them
out of a life of crime, offers a great degree of promise.
I had asked that the drug court at least be made a permissible use
under the block grant program. Frankly, I think making it a permissible
use is not enough. Based on what we have seen, I would like to see the
drug court procedure in the law in some form.
I look forward to working with my colleague from Delaware and my
colleague from New Hampshire to see if we cannot include provisions for
drug courts. I can tell you, from the heartland where we have a drug
problem, the drug courts seem to be one of the most promising ways of
dealing with the problem. Anything in this area that holds out a chance
of working I think should be given a chance.

At the very least, the drug court program should be made an option
used under the block grant program. I would like to see us go further.
I would like to see us say that drug grant programs should be entitled
to a certain percentage of the block grants.
I look forward to working with the managers on both sides.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in keeping with our informality here, let
me finish up. I thank my friend from Missouri for speaking to the
efficacy of drug courts.
Let me speak to two other pieces of this amendment. One is the rural
drug enforcement grants. The latest reports from rural America tell a
bitter story of violent crime, murder, rape, aggravated assault. It is
rising faster in rural America. Most of our colleagues from urban
States do not realize this. It is rising faster in rural America than
in urban America.
From 1992 to 1993 alone, the violent crime rate in rural areas
increased 7.4 percent; violent crime among juveniles in rural areas--
violent crime now--rose 15.2 percent in rural areas.
Drug trafficking and addiction are also skyrocketing in America's
rural States, especially among our young people. Drug abuse violations
have increased by nearly 30 percent among young people under the age of
18 in recent years.
At the same time, the number of law enforcement employees per 1,000
inhabitants in rural areas has not changed, leaving already
understaffed law enforcement teams in rural America to fight
devastatingly high increases in serious offenses.
In 1993, the most recent year that data is available, 12 percent of
our population or almost 32 million people were served by rural law
enforcement agencies.
That is 32 million people who have watched their communities become
frighteningly dangerous. That is 12 percent of the population that has
witnessed their children becoming increasingly vulnerable to becoming
victims of violent crime or becoming involved in drugs, crime and
violence.
Rural drug enforcement grants have, we found, been the best way to
target assistance to rural area law enforcement agencies. I might point
out that Senator Hatch was one of the leaders in making sure this
provision was in the crime bill.
These grants, which place a special emphasis on drug enforcement over
the 32 million people living in rural areas, give the protection they
need and deserve. These dollars can be used for the same purposes State
and local officials use their Byrne grant money; specifically, funding
will support the highly successful multijurisdictional State, local,
and Federal drug enforcement task forces.
These joint efforts have proven that they work. They have a proven
track record of reducing drug trafficking in rural America.
Put this in commonsense terms. How can a rural sheriff, a rural chief
of police in a town of 800 or 1,000 or 1,500 or 5,000 people, with one
officer or maybe as many as three or four, how can they possibly deal
with the sophisticated drug operations that come into their areas? They
cannot do it.
In the good old days when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
many of my colleagues, Republican as well as Democrats, would come to
me and say, ``Joe, can you help me get an extra DEA agent in Montana?
Can you help me get an extra DEA agent or two of them in Idaho or North
Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Maine?'' Small States, but rural States.
They are big geographically.
The reason they needed them is their local sheriffs, their local
police officer coming to them and saying, ``We need some expert help
and advice.'' We even went so far as to allow for the providing of
training for local law enforcement officers from rural and small police
departments down at the FBI training facility. They need the expertise.
These are brave women and men who are outmanned, outgunned and
outsmarted because they are dealing with something that goes well
beyond the town limits or the county limits that they have the
jurisdiction over.
Ten rural States are eligible for these grants statewide. These
States include Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
I will note that Delaware is not on that list. These States that I
mention, these 19 rural States are eligible for statewide grants,
although all the remaining States, the remaining 31 States could
benefit in their rural areas. Rural areas of all other States will
receive funds, as well. These grants must be removed from the unfocused
block grant and funded separately. If they are to remain in the block
grant scheme, they will have to compete with a great many programs for
limited funds.
Let me ask all who are not in the 19 States, what do you think of the
possibility your rural law enforcement officer is going to get this
money? What do you think the possibility is that your Governor will
send it your way? Do you think maybe it will go where the population
centers are?
I bet it surprises even some of my colleagues here on the floor to
hear me say that violent crime is rising faster in the rural parts of
your State than it is in the urban parts of your State.
In the block grant, I very much doubt and I believe you would be hard
pressed to convince me or yourself that this money which was
specifically earmarked for rural areas and States that are rural in
nature, they need the help. So I would like to point out that rural
areas often come up last when it comes to the so-called funding fight
in each State. This fact has not escaped my colleagues in previous
years.
The need for special targets of anticrime funds to rural areas was
also expressed by my colleague, Senator Hatch, on February 10, 1994,
while he was speaking in support of the Biden-Hatch rural crime
amendment, when he said:

We need to get more officers to rural areas where the
violent crime problem is increasing at a greater rate . . .
drugs, crime, and violence are national problems facing both
urban and rural America. Unfortunately, the crime problems
faced in rural America have been overlooked by Federal
agencies in Washington. They have focused on the crime in
urban areas. Yet the problems of rural states need greater
Federal attention as well . . . if there is a place where
additional Federal expenditures is warranted, it is to fight
crime and violence in rural states.

That was what my colleague said February 10, 1994. In the 102d
Congress, Senators Adams, Baucus, Bryan, Bumpers, Conrad, Daschle,
Fowler, Harkin, Heflin, Leahy, Pryor all cosponsored the Rural Crime
and Drug

[[Page S 14529]]
Control Act which I authored and passed in 1991.
I believe areas experiencing growth in violent crime and drugs are
areas to which enforcement funds should be targeted, especially when
those areas are already underfunded and their enforcement efforts such
as in rural areas are undermanned. That is why I am asking the rural
drug enforcement grants receive direct funding, so they can guarantee
rural areas their fair share of help from the Federal Government in
ridding their communities of drugs and crime related to drugs.

Again, I daresay if you go ask your rural law enforcement people what
they would rather have, what chance they think they have of getting any
adequate funding out of this when it goes into one big pot and it goes
into the State legislature and is distributed by the Governor, I wonder
if they think they are going to get a fair share. I predict to you they
will not.
If the Dole block grant is adopted, the block grant amendment
introduced by Senator Dole gives targeted aid to urban areas. The
formula for the block grants is targeted to high-crime areas, weighs
population in its equation for determining crime rates, and the formula
guarantees that urban areas will receive targeted funds while assuming
that most rural areas will not receive such aid.
In 1993, the most recent year for which data is available, the murder
rate grew 3.4 percent in rural America and it decreased 2.8 percent in
the Nation's largest cities. Similarly, the violent crime rate rose 1.4
percent in rural areas, while it decreased 3.4 percent in the largest
cities.
But the Dole block grant proposal that is in this bill targets aid to
the most populous areas. It clearly does not target funds to those
areas most in need, rural America. While violent crime rates, including
homicide, forcible rape and assault, are declining in urban areas, they
are clearly on the rise in rural America. And rural America does not
receive the funds under this block grant proposal. Rural areas have
historically had the hardest time producing funds for law enforcement,
and it seems to me we should not allow these areas to continue to
receive less attention and less antidrug-related money than urban areas
just because they are less populous.
This is just an example of the creative budget games that are going
on. By providing open-ended block grant funds which may be used for
this or any other program, while at the same time significantly cutting
the amount of total funding available, my friends are limiting programs
such as rural drug enforcement block grants without doing so directly
because of where they will have to compete.
The last point I wish to speak to at this moment is the boot camps.
Our ability to reduce crime in a manner depends directly upon our
ability to target offenders with the appropriate time of sentence.
This means, of course, we have to identify violent offenders and make
sure they go to prison. But it also means we must separate out the
nonviolent offenders who can be diverted, potentially, from a career of
crime through an intensive cost-effective programs such as military-
style boot camps.
That is exactly what we did in 1994 with the Biden crime law. We
encouraged the States to identify nonviolent offenders and offer them
alternative, more cost-effective programs while we, in fact, kept them
incarcerated. We provide $9.7 billion to States to build and operate
prisons and we gave them the option to use a portion of that money for
boot camps.
This appropriations bill would completely eliminate State flexibility
to use boot camps for nonviolent offenders in order to free up
conventional prison cells for violent offenders. My amendment would
restore the State option, the State flexibility to use boot camps for
nonviolent offenders, to use their Federal prison money for boot camps.
Let me first tell my colleagues a little bit about boot camps so they
can be clear what we are talking about. Boot camps provide a regimented
program of work and exercise for young, nonviolent offenders. And they
have shown marked success with young offenders who learn discipline and
respect for law and authority.
They are put behind barbed wire. They are locked in. They are
essentially put in Quonset huts. Some argue it is inhumane. I argue if
it is good enough for a marine to sleep in a Quonset hut, it did not
hurt him very much, it sure in heck should not be too tough to put a
convicted person, a nonviolent person in such a circumstance.
At the time we did this in the Biden crime bill just about everybody
stood up and supported boot camps. It was one of the few things
everybody agreed on. Now I am a little concerned. I do not know what
has happened that we would go contrary to the trend of the last year,
which is to give States more flexibility. I have heard no one argue
these boot camps are not worthwhile. I have heard no one argue that
States should not be allowed to have them. And I have heard no one
argue that States should not have flexibility. So, maybe it was an
oversight that States were explicitly prevented from using their prison
money to build boot camps. I do not know. But the bottom line is quite
simple. Boot camps work to do one very important thing--I suspect many
others, but one. That is, I will end where I started.
Two years ago the States convicted--not in Federal court, in State
court--several hundred thousand violent offenders were convicted in the
State court system. Mr. President, 30,000 convicted, violent offenders
never spent a day in jail--30,000, in the States; 30,000 convicted
State felons, violent felons, never served a day in jail. The reason
they did not is because the State legislatures did not want to go back
to their folks in the State and say to get tough on crime we have to
build more prisons. To get tough on crime we have to raise your taxes.
To get tough on crime we are going to increase our spending. Most
States did not do that.
What this does, it gives the States the option to be cost effective.
For 40 percent of cost, they can take the nonviolent offenders, who are
serving time in a penitentiary, behind bars, in a secure, maximum
security facility, put them behind barbed wire with folks with guns
watching them, in Quonset huts, and free up hard-core prison space for
the violent offenders.
At a minimum that is what boot camps do. At a minimum. They also do
much more. But in the interests of time I will not belabor the Senate
with that argument.
So, to sum up, what I do here is I come up with a total of $117
million in shifting around of how the Appropriations Committee
allocates the money. I take $117 million and I get it two ways. One, I
take a total of $21.2 million from State prisons, which were increased
by a quarter-billion dollars by this committee over the requested
amount, and over what the House has, still leaving a total of $225
million for prison grants. And I take money by increased fees on people
obtaining green cards, because they now would have to go home and spend
the cost of going home and back to be able to get the green card and
now they do not have to do that. It is not onerous. It is a reasonable
charge for that privilege. And that is how I get the $117 million in
offsets.
I take that money and I put it in the drug courts, drug treatment and
prisons and rural drugs as well as law enforcement, family support.
I thank my friend from New Hampshire for his indulgence in listening
to my amendment and I will be happy to yield the floor for him or
anyone else to speak against the amendment. But I ask unanimous consent
to send the amendment to the desk, that no amendments to my amendment
be in order, and that my amendment be in order.
Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2818

(Purpose: To restore funding for residential substance abuse treatment
for State prisoners, rural drug enforcement assistance, the Public
Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, drug courts,
grants or contracts to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to establish
Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing, and law enforcement family
support programs, to restore the authority of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, to strike the State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Block Grant Program, and to restore the option of States to
use prison block grant funds for boot camps)

Mr. BIDEN. I send the amendment to the desk.

[[Page S 14530]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr.
Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2818.

Mr. BIDEN. 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 26, line 10, after ``Act;'' insert the following:
``$27,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse
treatment for State prisoners pursuant to section 1001(a)(17)
of the 1968 Act; $10,252,000 for grants for rural drug
enforcement assistance pursuant to section 1001(a)(9) of the
1968 Act;''.
On page 28, line 11, before ``$25,000,000'' insert
``$150,000,000 shall be for drug courts pursuant to title V
of the 1994 Act''.
On page 29 line 6, strike ``$750,000,000'' and insert
``$728,800,000''.
On page 29, line 15, after ``Act;'' insert the following:
``$1,200,000 for Law Enforcement Family Support Programs, as
authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968 Act''.
On page 44, lines 8 and 9, strike ``conventional
correctional facilities, including prisons and jails,'' and
insert ``correctional facilities, including prisons and
jails, or boot camp facilities and other low cost
correctional facilities for nonviolent offenders that can
free conventional prison space''.
On page 20, line 16 strike all that follows to page 20 line
19 and insert:''
Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255(i)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``five'' and inserting ``ten''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``or, notwithstanding any other provsion
of law, may be deposited as offsetting collections in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service ``Salaries and
Expenses'' appropriations account to be available to support
border enforcement and control programs''.
The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to funds
remitted with applications for adjustment of status which
were filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
For activities authorized by section 130086 of Public Law
103-322, $10,300,000, to remain available until expended,
which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund.

Mr. BIDEN. I realize this is a mildly backward way of doing it,
speaking to it before I send it to the desk, but I did it, and I yield
to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the presentation of the
Senator from Delaware. There is some which I agree with and some which
I do not agree with. I would like to point out that I agree with his
comments relative to boot camp. We have used the boot camp process in
New Hampshire, and it has been quite successful. I have to believe that
the decision to drop the boot camp was inadvertent. I hope we will
correct it.
If the Senator at some point wishes to divide his amendment and bring
that up separately, I would certainly be supportive of it. In any
event, hopefully we can at least work out that part of his amendment.
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. GREGG. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Biden
amendment. I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original
cosponsor. Included in this amendment is a provision to restore the
Community Oriented Police Service Program and the local community crime
prevention block grant and that is the part to which I would like to
address my remarks.
The bill the Senate is currently considering: (1) would dismantle the
COPS program, (2) would combine the COPS program and the crime
prevention block grant into one big block grant, and (3) would cut the
funding for both.
I believe this would, first of all, open the door to funding anything
under the sun that a Governor determines is law enforcement or crime
prevention. And, it effectively would eliminate all crime prevention
from this crime bill that is now law. For when law enforcement is
pitted against crime prevention efforts, law enforcement always wins.
This, I say to my colleagues, turns the clock back on the commitment
we made last year to help communities fighting as well as prevent
crime.
Last year Congress passed and the President signed the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A central part of the crime
bill included money for the hiring, over 5 years, of 100,000 more
police officers under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Program. To date, under this program, more than 25,000 police officers
have been hired--in Minnesota alone, 354 new cops have been funded.
Importantly, each of these officers was hired to be on the beat, not in
the office.
At a time of very tight budgets, the money for both the COPS Program
and the crime prevention block grant come from savings achieved by
reducing the Federal bureaucracy. None of these new police officers or
crime prevention programs are adding an additional burden on the
taxpayer. We, as a Congress, and indeed a country, made fighting crime
a top priority last year when we decided to use the savings from
streamlining the Federal Government and from cutting some domestic
programs for fighting crime.
The COPS Program is a good program. It is reaching and helping
communities. It is very flexible. Local jurisdictions can work with the
Justice Department to meet their particular needs. The Justice
Department has acted swiftly, has minimized the paperwork, and has
staffed 800 numbers for immediate assistance. It is not surprising,
therefore, that approximately 200 Minnesota jurisdictions have
participated in this program. What's more, just a few weeks ago
Attorney General Janet Reno announced a new effort at the Department of
Justice to target some of these new cops on the beat to helping address
domestic violence.
Having more cops involved in community policing fighting crime, means
less crime. It is as simple as that. In only a short time the COPS
Program is already delivering on its promise of providing more police
officers in a very cost-effective, flexible manner. Not surprisingly
those on the front line in the fight against crime have only praise for
this program. Police chiefs, sheriffs, deputies, and rank-and-file
police officers all support this effort to put more police in
communities.
But now this very successful, popular crime-fighting program is under
attack by Republicans who want to convert its funding into a block
grant. Unfortunately, the Republican block grant plan does not
stipulate that the money must be spent on hiring cops. Instead, the
money can be redirected to fund restaurant inspectors, parking meters,
radar guns--and any other of a host of things.
The money ought to be spent the way it was intended and the way law
enforcement officials want it spent: to hire police officers. The
Nation's major police enforcement organizations all agree on this
point.
We all know that crime is one of the great plagues of our
communities. People in the suburbs and people living downtown are
afraid--they are afraid to go out at night, they are afraid to venture
into the skyways, they are afraid to leave their cars parked on the
street. We also all know that having a larger police presence helps
deter the very crimes that people fear the most. Buying more parking
meters, radar guns, or hiring more restaurant inspectors does not
address this plague nor address peoples' legitimate fears.
It is peculiar that the party that claims to be tough on law and
order is proposing as one of its first steps to change a successful,
cost-effective ``law and order'' program--one that ought to have broad,
bipartisan support.
Crime prevention was also an essential element of the crime bill.
Despite the fact that at each step of the way in passing the Crime
bill, prevention programs got watered down, in the end we decided that
crime prevention had to be part of this bill.
Two years ago, when Congress began consideration of the crime bill we
started with a substantial portion of the crime bill addressing
prevention; after all, prevention is crime control, stopping crime
before it ever happens. It, by the way, included something that I think
is extremely important--supervised visitation centers. A model that I
brought from Minnesota to help families with a history of violence.

Ultimately, we ended up with a crime bill that included a block grant
to the States for prevention programs--the local community crime
prevention

[[Page S 14531]]
block grant. And, funding was not even authorized until FY 96. We
haven't even given it a chance to work and get into communities--one of
the few provisions in the crime bill that was intended to prevent
crime, one of the few provisions that was not funded until next year
and some in Congress are trying to cut it off at the knees.
The Biden amendment would restore the crime bill structure and ensure
that some of the funds that were set aside as part of the Crime Control
Trust Fund are spent on real prevention programs.
The local crime prevention block grant, like the COPS Program,
provides a lot of flexibility to the States and communities. Under this
block grant, communities can determine what types, within a general
list of about 14 different ideas, of prevention programs to fund, what
prevention plans fit their community the best. But this block grant is
for prevention, nothing else. Again, it is one of the few aspects of
the crime bill that focuses on prevention, an essential element of any
crime fighting effort. And, as I stated earlier, it has not even had a
chance to be implemented. This coming year would be the first year
funding will actually go to help communities.
I cannot emphasize enough how important crime prevention is--
especially now. And, under this appropriation bill very little, if any,
funding would go to prevent crime.
If we were to listen to people in the communities that are most
affected by the violence, they would say to us you have to have the
money in prevention. But how interesting it is that those who would
essentially eliminate these prevention programs do not come from those
communities, do not know the people in those communities, and I do not
think they asked the people in those communities at all what they think
should be done.
Mr. President, I can just tell you that in meeting with students,
students that come from some pretty tough background--students at the
Work Opportunity Center in Minneapolis, which is an alternative school,
young students who are mothers and others who come from real difficult
circumstances, all of them said to me: You can build more prisons and
you can build more jails, but the issue for us is jobs, opportunity.
You will never stop this cycle of violence unless you do something that
prevents it in the first place.
Then I turn to the judges, the sheriffs, and the police chiefs, and I
call them on the phone in Minnesota, and I ask them what they think.
And they say yes we need community police and yes we need the other
parts of the crime law, but they all say, if you do not do something
about preventing crime, if these young people do not have these
opportunities, if we do not get serious about reducing violence in the
home, do not believe for a moment that we are going to stop the cycle
of violence.
Mr. President, I believe that a highly trained police, highly
motivated, community-based, sensitive to the people in the communities,
can make a difference. They are wanted and they are needed. But the
bill we are considering today will do nothing to prevent the criminal
of tomorrow. And indeed without more cops on the beat it may not do
much to fight the criminals of today.
Every 5 seconds a child drops out of school in America. This is from
the Children's Defense Fund study. Every 5 seconds a child drops out of
a public school in the United States of America. Every 30 seconds a
baby is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a baby is born with a low
birthweight. Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no
prenatal care.
Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-related crime.
Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for selling drugs. Every 2 hours a
child is murdered. Every 4 hours a child commits suicide, takes his or
her life in the United States of America. And every 5 minutes a child
is arrested for a violent crime.
Mr. President, if we do not continue to be serious about the
prevention part, we are not going to stop the cycle of violence.
All too many young people are growing up in neighborhoods and
communities in our country where if they bump into someone or look at
someone the wrong way they are in trouble, where there is too much
violence in their homes, where violence pervades every aspect of their
life. And people who grow up in such brutal circumstances can become
brutal. And that should not surprise any of us.
Prevention and law enforcement--both essential elements of any crime
fighting effort. These two should not have to compete with each other
for funding, nor should funding be cut for either.
I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment.

in defense of the cops program

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a program that
is vital to each and every one of us. It is vital to the safety of our
States, of our towns, of our communities. In 1994, Congress passed the
omnibus crime bill. Among other things, this important legislation will
put 100,000 more police officers on the street through the Community
Oriented Policing Services Program--or COPS Program.
Today, as I stand in this Chamber, there are over 25,000 officers
that would not be out there--protecting citizens in communities across
this country--if it were not for the COPS Program.
If we eliminate this program and turn the fund over to the States in
a block grant, as the Appropriations Committee has proposed, there is
no guarantee that a single additional police officer will be hired. Not
one. We made a commitment to the American people when we passed the
crime bill. all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, made a
commitment to the citizens of this country that we would work with them
to reduce crime. The COPS Program insures that more police officers
will be on the beat in towns and communities across the country.
Mr. President, of the 100,000 new police officers promised, almost
26,000 have already been hired--253 in Arkansas alone. Our police
departments are made up of men and women who put their lives on the
line every day to make our streets safer--not just in big urban areas,
but in small towns and rural areas. With a block grant, funds may not
filter down to small towns that desperately need the extra help. They
are being asked to do more with less as crime rates continue to rise
rapidly. Gangs and drug dealers are migrating out of the larger, more
sizable cities and into the smaller towns at an alarming rate.
It is our duty, Mr. President, to assist the prevention of crime in
our country. The major law enforcement organizations in my State of
Arkansas, as well as across the country, have united in support the
COPS Program. They tell us that this program is working, that it is
getting more officers on the streets. So why are we eliminating a
program that is working?
I have received phone calls and letters from police chiefs and
sheriffs in towns, both large and small, throughout my State praising
this program.
For example, the Danville Police Department in Danville, Arkansas,
has, through the COPS Program, been able to hire an additional officer
to patrol the streets at night. In the month since Mike Pyburn has been
hired, he has already made a drug arrest. As he was patrolling the
streets one night, Officer Pyburn spotted and stopped a person with a
warrant out on a misdemeanor. In this person's possession at the time
of the arrest was 14 individually wrapped bags of marijuana. The COPS
Program enabled this officer to be on the job and get these illegal
drugs off the streets of Danville. This is one of many arrests this
officer has made. Having additional night patrols has not only improved
public safety, it has relieved the people's fears. The citizens of
Danville can now sleep at night feeling a little safer because Officer
Pyburn is on duty.
Colonel John Bailey, the Director of the Arkansas State Police, put
the importance of the COPS Program into simple terms. He said that
``This program puts the money where the problem is. In five years,
anyone in Washington can come down and I'll say, `This is what your
money provided for us. Here he is.' and introduce them to my new
officer.'' You can't necessarily say that with block grant funds, Mr.
President.
This program is effective, and it is easy for law enforcement
agencies to

[[Page S 14532]]
apply for the additional officers they so desperately need. Unlike most
Federal grant programs, there are not pages and pages of complicated
forms to be filled out, and extensive regulations to follow. For small
towns, there is one page to fill out. That's it. One page. And it takes
less than an hour to fill out.
I have a letter from Larry Emison, the Sheriff of Craighead County in
Northeast Arkansas. They also have used their COPS grant to add an
additional deputy to their night patrol. He has been in place since
April, but the community has noticed a difference and feels safer on
the streets, particularly at night. Mr. President, this feeling of
safety is due in large part to this officer made possible through the
COPS Program.
Chief Wiley White in DeValls Bluff has called this program ``a
lifesaver for the community.'' He hired David Huggs, a former prison
guard who he had been working with for years. Chief White told me that
Officer Huggs has ``been a miracle for this town.''
I have a lot of these stories, Mr. President. Officer Rebecca Hanson
was hired in Crittenden County, Arkansas, to investigate criminal
sexual abuse to children. Officer Hanson has special training in
interviewing children about the abuse they have suffered. In her first
5 months since being hired, Officer Hanson has handled a total of 42
cases, resulting in 7 arrests. We can only speculate as to what might
have happened to these innocent children if it hadn't been for Officer
Hanson's presence on the police force.
The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas reported in July how valuable
the COPS Program has been to the Rogers Police Department and the
citizens of Northwest Arkansas. Two new officers have been added to
their force. According to the article, Capt. Steve Russell of the
Rogers Police Department said that the grant program has given them the
opportunity to have additional personnel that they would not have had
otherwise. Captain Russell said the COPS FAST grant program is an
example of how the Federal Government can make it easier for local
agencies to reap the benefits of Federal programs. I ask unanimous
consent that the article be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous
consent that a few of the letters I have received on the COPS Program
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas, July 19, 1995]

Police Department Receives Grant

(By Thomas Sissom)

The Rogers Police Department will reap the benefits of
President Clinton's campaign promise to put 100,000 more law-
enforcement officers on the streets with the receipt of a
$132,337 COPS FAST grant.
``It certainly is a valuable program to local and rural
law-enforcement agencies,'' Capt. Steve Russell,
administrative commander of the Rogers Police Department,
said Tuesday. ``It's given us . . .the opportunity to have
additional personnel we wouldn't otherwise have had.''
The COPS FAST program operates under the office of
Community Oriented Policing Services of the U.S. Department
of Justice. The grant program is designed to help law-
enforcement agencies immediately increase their available
manpower. The three-year program will allow the Rogers Police
Department to add two new officers with the federal grant of
$132,337 added to $44,113 in local funds to cover the cost in
salaries and benefits of $176,450 over the three years of the
grant. After the grant ends, all of the costs will be borne
by the local agency.
Russell said the COPS FAST grant program is an example of
how the federal government can make it easier for local
agencies to reap the benefits of federal programs.
``This was one of the fastest programs we've seen, in terms
of the time from the application to us getting the money,''
Russell said. ``That just allows us to put more police on the
streets faster, which we certainly need. The application
process was very simple, unlike most federal grants.''
Russell said the Rogers department currently has 59
certified law-enforcement officers, with one approved slot
remaining open. The department has four officers who are just
completing their 10-week training course at the Arkansas Law
Enforcement Training Academy in Camden. Another five are
scheduled to start the course Monday. Officers who
successfully complete the academy training course still have
to complete another 12 weeks of field training with the
department, he said, giving new officers about six months of
initial training.
According to Russell, the Rogers Police Department's
staffing levels are below national average for law-
enforcement agencies. Rogers has 1.82 officers for every
1,000 people. The national average is 2.65 officers per 1,000
people. To reach the national average, he said, Rogers would
need 87 officers.
____

Police Department,

City of Bull Shoals,

Bull Shoals, AR, August 1, 1995.
Senator David Pryor,
267 Russell,
Washington, DC.
Senator, I wish to express my sincere thanks for all your
work related to the ``Cops'' Programs. As I am sure you know,
my Department received a grant to add an Officer to the
staff. That hiring has turned out to be a very progressive
move. Our citizen contacts have risen markedly, and the
results have been very positive.
Charles Robert Chapman is the Officer who was hired. Since
his employment, which began 04-15-95, Officer Chapman has
been very productive. Within the first month Officer Chapman
was on the street he developed the information which lead to
a search warrant and arrest of a 32 year old male subject on
the charge of being a Felon in Possession of Firearm. The
subject who was disarmed, had been convicted and jailed on
Felonies for Burglary and Drugs. Officer Chapman also
developed information from a citizen that led to the location
and confiscation of Marijuana plants being grown on Federal
Property. I know that in many Cities these cases along with
several cases related to weapons, probation violations,
domestic batteries and DWI, would not make an Officer stand
out. But here in a relatively secure retirement and
recreation area these significant arrests go a long way to
ease and assure the minds of our citizens. I have been
involved in Law Enforcement for over 20 years and have never
seen an Officer so well accepted and welcomed into a
community. The ``Cops'' program is what facilitated this
boost to our Department.
Again thank You for all your work. I would also like to
compliment a member of your staff, Cynthia Wetmore, who has
always been very responsive and made many of the processes
much easier.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Wochner,
Chief of Police.
____

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Office of
the Chancellor,
July 20, 1995.
Sheriff Dick Busby,
Crittenden County Sheriff Dept.,
Marion, AR.
Dear Sheriff Busby: As Multi-disciplinary Team Project
Coordinator for the Arkansas Commission on Child Abuse, Rape
and Domestic Violence, I wanted to commend your department
for their involvement on the Crittenden County Multi-
disciplinary Team. The dedication of local community
professionals has had a positive impact upon the child abuse
victims in your county. The Commission is particularly
pleased with the number of joint investigations being
conducted. Crittenden County is one of the few counties
involved in joint investigations. Children are indeed much
less traumatized and the quality of investigations is
improved. Your time is extremely valuable and we appreciate
that you are willing to give so generously to child abuse
victims. We hope that you will continue to participate in the
Crittenden County Multi-disciplinary Team efforts.
Sincerely,
Shana H. Chaplin,
MDT Project Coordinator.
____

Larry Emison,

County Sheriff,

Jonesboro, AR. August 2, 1995.
Senator David Pryor,
Russell Building, Room 267,
Washington, DC.
Attn: Cynthia Wetmore
REF: COPS Grant

Dear Senator Pryor: We are very pleased to be the recipient
of a COPS grant for 1 deputy sheriff. Due to a lack of
manpower in the past, our night patrol was lacking. This
additional deputy has been placed on the night shift,
therefore, giving us at least 2 deputies per night patrolling
Craighead county. This has only been in place a short period
of time and I can already see a difference with this
additional coverage. I have had several comments from
citizens within the county, stating that they now see a
patrol car at night more than they have in the past.
I want to personally thank you, Congress, and President
Clinton for making this program available. This will make
great difference in the fight against crime in the United
States.
Sincerely,
Larry Emison,
Craighead County Sheriff.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, putting an additional 100,000 officers on
the streets is a promise that this body made last year when it passed
the crime bill. It is our duty to continue this vital program that
represents an approximate 20 percent increase in the American police
force. What the American people want is to feel safe in their homes and
on the streets of their neighborhoods. They deserve this safety and the
COPS Program is delivering it to them. I urge my colleagues to

[[Page S 14533]]
stand with me in protecting what is important to our country. I urge
you to vote to save the COPS Program.

legal services to Native Americans

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I seek a few moments in order to seek
clarification from my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from
Alaska, with regard to language that is contained in an amendment
proposed by my colleague. When the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State and the Judiciary met to consider H.R. 2076, the appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1996, Senator Stevens proposed an amendment to the
amendment proposed by the esteemed chairman of the full committee,
Senator Hatfield, relating to the provision of legal services as it
affects Native American households.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my amendment, which was adopted by the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary on September 7,
1995, provides that in States that have significant numbers of eligible
Native American households, grants to such States would equal an amount
that is 140 percent of the amount such states would otherwise receive.
My amendment was necessary in order to prevent a serious reduction in
legal services to Native Americans. Under current law, there is a
separate, additional appropriation for legal services to the Native
American community. The Legal Services Corporation is also given the
flexibility to allocate additional resources to States like Alaska,
which experience increased costs due to the difficulty of providing
legal services to remote populations, many of which are comprised of
Native Americans. Given the fact that the Legal Services Corporation,
including the separate Native American appropriation, was eliminated
the committee's bill, my amendment was necessary in order to ensure the
continued provision of legal services to the Native American community.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to express my deep appreciation to
my colleague from Alaska for his efforts in this area, and for
recognizing that the significant needs for legal assistance in Native
American communities span a broad range of issues, from housing and
sanitation to health care and education. In my own State of Hawaii,
Native Hawaiians comprise less than 13 percent of the population, but
represent more than 40 percent of the prison inmate population. Native
Hawaiians have twice the unemployment rate of the State's general
population and represent 30 percent of the State's recipients of aid to
families with dependent children. Over 1,000 Native Hawaiians are
homeless, representing 30 percent of the State's homeless population.
Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy, the highest death
rate, and the highest infant mortality rate of any other group in the
State. Moreover, they have the lowest education levels and the highest
suicide rate in Hawaii.
Mr. President, in my State, we have the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.
[NHLC], a nonprofit organization established to provide legal services
to Native Hawaiian community. NHLC has a 20 year history of providing
exemplary legal assistance to Native Hawaiians, and it has long been
affiliated with the Native American Rights Fund. Fifteen percent of
NHLC's annual funding comes from the Native American portion of the
Legal Services Corporation budget. It is my understanding that the
language proposed by my esteemed colleague from Alaska is to ensure the
continued provision of legal services to Native Americans that are
currently being provided through a separate Native American allocation
of the funding provided to the Legal Services Corporation. My question
of my colleague from Alaska is whether it is his intent that Native
Hawaiians would continue to be eligible to receive funds appropriated
for the provision of legal services under your amendment, consistent
with the current situation under the Legal Services Corporation?
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his earlier comments. My
colleague from Hawaii, in his capacity as the former chairman of the
Indian Affairs Committee, has traveled many, many times to my State of
Alaska, and I know that he has come to appreciate the very difficult
circumstances under which the vast majority of our native villages
live. I know the challenges the Senator from Hawaii faces in trying to
meet the needs of native communities in the State of Hawaii, and I
therefore understand full well his desire to clarify the meaning of
``Native American households''. When I proposed this language, it was
my intention to ensure that those Native American communities,
including native Hawaiian households, currently being served by the
Legal Services Corporation would continue to have access to legal
services under the block grant approach proposed by Senator Hatfield.
Have I sufficiently addressed my colleague's concerns?
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from Alaska,
for clarifying this matter for me. I am certain that the native
Hawaiian community will be most appreciative of the Senator's
clarification.

ABUSES INVOLVING MICROWAVE INCUMBENTS

Mr. BREAUX. I would like to raise an issue that has become of concern
to several members of this committee on both sides of the aisle.
Previously, as chairman of this committee and of the Appropriations
Subcommittee, the Senator from South Carolina was instrumental in
establishing spectrum auctions for new PCS services, and was a guiding
force on developing the rules that were adopted by the FCC governing
relocation of microwave licensees out of this spectrum.
He is aware, as we have discussed, that certain enterprising
individuals have recruited a number of microwave incumbents as clients
and now seem to be manipulating the FCC rules on microwave relocation
to leverage exorbitant payments from new PCS licensees.
I am advised that if this practice continues unchecked, more and more
microwave incumbents are likely to employ these unintended tactics.
More importantly, it will reportedly devalue spectrum in future
auctions to the tune of up to $2 billion as future bidders factor this
successful gamesmanship into their bidding strategy. Previously scored
revenue for deficit reduction will be unfairly diverted instead into
private pockets.
Would the Senator agree with me:
First, that this type of gaming of relocation negotiations was
unintended, is unreasonable, and should not be permitted to continue
unchecked;
Second, that the affected parties should attempt to agree on a
mutually acceptable solution to this problem;
Third, that if an acceptable compromise cannot be brought forth by
the affected parties within a reasonable time period, then either
Congress or the FCC should address this matter as quickly as possible
with appropriate remedies?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague for raising this issue. As he
noted, I offered an amendment on the State, Justice, Commerce
Appropriations bill in 1992 on this issue. The electric utilities, oil
pipelines, and railroads must have reliable communications systems. The
FCC initially proposed to move these utilities' communications systems
from the 2 gigahertz band to the 6 gigahertz band without ensuring that
the 6 gigahertz band would provide reliable communications.
My amendment, which the FCC subsequently adopted in its rules,
guaranteed that the utilities could only be moved out of the 2
gigahertz band if they are given 3 years to negotiate an agreement, if
their costs of moving to the new frequency are paid for, and if the
reliability of their communications at the new frequency is guaranteed.
Now I understand that some of the incumbent users may be taking
advantage of the negotiation period to delay the introduction of new
technologies. It was certainly not my intention to give the incumbent
users an incentive to delay moving to the 6 gigahertz band purely to
obtain more money. I agree with my friend that the parties involved in
this issue should try to work out an acceptable solution to this issue.
If the parties cannot agree to work out a compromise, I believe that
Congress or the FCC may need to revisit this issue.

women's business programs

Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. President, I would like to address an important
portion of the Hatfield amendment, preservation of Small Business
Administration funding for women's business programs.
I believe the issue of women in business needs to be placed in the
clearer context.

[[Page S 14534]]

The new dynamics of the American economy have brought about a sea-
change in society. Thirty years ago, when most women entered the work
force, they did so to supplement their families' incomes. Most often,
women working outside the home did so in clerical and support roles.
Thirty years ago, a young couple could live on the income of one
professional. On that income, a schoolteacher could buy a nice house in
a good neighborhood. Young families could hope to save, drive a nice
car, educate their children, and take vacations. Today many cannot.
Economic restructuring and societal changes have accelerated the
entry of women into the work force, into the professions and into
business. We see the challenges these changes have generated all around
us.
Nothing has been more exciting and challenging, though, than the
emergence of women as business builders and entrepreneurs. Without
exception, every aspect of business offers extraordinary opportunities
for women.
Women-owned firms are an increasingly dynamic sector of our economy.
According to the most recent census data available--1982-87--the
number of women-owned firms increased by 57 percent--more than twice
the rate of all U.S. businesses.
These businesses employed 35 percent more people in the United States
than the Fortune 500 companies employed worldwide, and had a payroll of
nearly $41 billion.
More women-owned businesses have staying power--over 40 percent have
been in business for 12 or more years.
Businesses owned by women tend to hire more women. It is not unusual
to find that two-thirds of their employees are women.
In 1993, the Small Business Administration's flagship lending
program, the 7(a) program, guaranteed 25,000 loans totaling $6.4
billion to women-owned businesses. While women-owned businesses
accounted for nearly one-third of all small businesses, they only made
up about 10 percent of loan recipients that year. In 1994, that total
rose to 24 percent.
In spite of their successes in getting started in providing
employment, one of the biggest impediments that women-owned businesses
face today is constraints on their growth--they remain small. Women-
owned businesses average annual sales of $67,000, compared to $140,000
in sales for all small businesses.

That is why, Mr. President, the National Women's Business Council and
the Women's Business Ownership Development Program are so important.
The National Women's Business Council monitors plans and programs
developed in the private and public sector which affect the ability of
women-owned businesses to obtain capital and credit. The council also
develops and promotes new initiatives, policies and plans designed to
foster women's business enterprises.
It has conducted: symposiums on getting access to capital, in
conjunction with the Federal Reserve; and informational meetings on
Federal Government procurement contract opportunities for women-owned
businesses.
In November, the council plans to initiate a project with
Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management to develop an
agenda for national research on women's entrepreneurship.
The continuation of current funding for this council's salaries and
expenses at a level of $200,000 represents a modest--but prudent--
investment in our Nation's business sector.
There is an urgent argument to be made for well-thought-out
initiatives aimed at encouraging more women to create their own
businesses:
Here are some disturbing facts: half of all working women are sole
support for themselves and their families; and women and the children
they support comprise more than 75 percent of people who live in
poverty in the United States.
Mr. President, if we as a Nation want to reduce the reliance of women
and children on welfare and social service programs, these women must
become economically self-sufficient--and the opportunity for self-
sufficiency will most likely come from women-owned enterprises.
The Women's Business Ownership Development Program addresses these
problems in constructive ways. It is a public-private partnership whose
goal is the creation of new jobs, increasing the earning potential of
women, and forging a larger pool of skilled women entrepreneurs.
There are 38 demonstration sites in 20 States, with plans for more.
More than 25,000 clients have been served in urban and rural locations.
Each center tailors its program to the particular needs of the
community. Training activities include: assistance in accessing
capital; management assistance; marketing and procurement assistance;
and specialized programs that address home-based businesses and
international trade.
The North Texas Women's Business Development Center, which is being
dedicated tomorrow, is a shining example of the promise this program
holds. It is a collective effort of the National Association of Women
Business Owners, the North Texas Women's Business Council, the Greater
Dallas Chamber of Commerce, the Dallas-Fort Worth Minority Business
Development Corp. and the Dallas County Community College.
Under the auspices of the Women's Business Consortium, this broad-
based, private-sector supported initiative will help start-up and
growing women-owned businesses. One of the areas on which they will
concentrate is Government contracting opportunities for women.
Four million dollars will help establish demonstration sites like the
one in Dallas in cities all across this country.
Programs like the National Women's Business Council and the Women's
Business Ownership Development Program--modest in scope but
breathtaking in the possibilities they hold out to those willing to
work hard--have the potential to turn America around. I am pleased my
colleagues saw their value and agreed to continued funding.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my concern
about the programs that are suffering as a result of the appropriations
in this bill. The programs that I am referring to are critical to the
future of the U.S. economy. Economic security, competitiveness, jobs.
That is what is at risk.
Technology development is slated to be the victim of our budget axe.
Investments in technology are investments in our future and should not
be terminated. In our enthusiasm to make cuts to balance the budget we
are losing sight of the reason we want to balance the budget in the
first place--to make our economy stronger. The irony is that by cutting
technology programs we are cutting programs that are already making our
economy stronger. We will be defeating our own purpose.
I am particularly concerned about the integration of the technology
and trade functions in the Department of Commerce. Within the
Department of Commerce there are programs that work with the private
sector to foster new ideas that may underpin the next generation of
products. This is one of the few places where information channels are
developed that make sure that the ideas generated in our world class
research institutions find their way into the marketplace. Previous
Administrations had the foresight to realize that we are entering a new
era, an era where economic battles are as fiercely fought as any
previous military actions. New kinds of technology programs were begun
with bipartisan support to make sure that the United States was well
armed for these economic battles. I do not want to see us lose our
technology edge in the marketplace, because this edge translates
directly into jobs for our work force, new markets for American
business, improvements in our balance of trade, and from this economic
success, desperately needed revenues for our treasury. The home of
technology programs is with our trade programs where they will have the
most impact and do the most good for our economy. The Technology
Administration is a critical component of the Department of Commerce
and we need to make sure that its key functions are maintained.
Making changes in technology and trade functions at this juncture in
time must be done extremely carefully. New markets are emerging in
developing countries. Conservative estimates suggest that 60 percent of
the growth in world trade will be with these developing countries over
the next two decades. The United States has a large share of imports in
big emerging markets currently, in significant part because of the
efforts of the Department

[[Page S 14535]]
of Commerce. While we are making changes in the Department of Commerce,
our foreign competitors are increasing their investments in their
economies. Competing advanced economies are just waiting for us to make
a move that will weaken our economic capacity. We cannot afford to
dismantle successful programs that are making and keeping the United
State competitive. We should be sure that changes we make will be
improving the Government's efficiency and improving the taxpayer's
return on investment.
The kind of technology programs that I am advocating are not
corporate welfare or techno pork. I find these terms not only
inaccurate and derived from ignorance, but offensive. American industry
is not looking for a handout. Quite the contrary. These programs are
providing incentives to elicit support from the private sector for
programs that are the responsibility of the Government. Times are tough
and the Government needs to cut back, so we are looking for the handout
from private industry, not the other way around. Let me explain.
Everyone agrees that when markets fail, it is legitimate to have the
Government step in. For example, so-called basic research, the
Government funds, because no one industry can capture the benefits of
the investment. Basic research is described as research that is so far
reaching that it will impact a wide array of applications in a variety
of different industries on a timeframe that could be quite long. No one
expects a single company to make an investment, when it can not capture
a sufficient return on its investment, or when the investment would be
too risky or too long term. That would be bad business. I agree with
this definition of basic research and I agree with these criteria for
the appropriate role for government investments. These criteria apply
equally to investment in technology research, as long as the technology
research is precompetitive, high risk, and long term.
So-called basic research has also been defined as research that does
not have any clear application. This definition is puzzling. One could
legitimately ask, why perform research that deliberately has no
application? In reality, research is rather fickle and difficult to
predict. Sometimes one can plot a nice logical progression from basic
research, to applied research, to product development, but this is
usually not the case. Often what appears to be basic research turns out
to be product development, or applied research results in a fundamental
breakthrough with farreaching results, or as most commonly happens, at
the end of an experiment, the research scientist must go back to the
drawing board and try one more experiment before she can claim success.
Thus, the research scenario is complicated and trying to make clear
distinctions is artificial at best.
Our goal should be, not to try and categorize research, but to make
investments that are appropriate, and that strengthen our economy. I
believe that there is an important and legitimate role for government
to play in technology research. The National Association of
Manufacturers has spoken out strongly in favor of the kind of
technology programs that are run by the Department of Commerce. I would
like to read some quotes from their statement about Federal technology
programs:

The NAM is concerned that the magnitude and distribution of
the R&D spending cuts proposed thus far would erode US
technological leadership.
A successful national R&D policy requires a diverse
portfolio of programs that includes long- and short-term
science and technology programs, as well as the necessary
infrastructure to support them. The character of research
activities has changed substantially in the past decade,
making hard and fast distinctions between basic and applied
research or between research and development increasingly
artificial. R&D agendas today are driven by time horizons not
definitions. In short, rigid delineations between basic and
applied research are not the basis on which private sector
R&D strategies are executed, nor should they be the basis for
federal R&D policy decisions.
The NAM believes the disproportionate large cuts proposed
in newer R&D programs are a mistake. R&D programs of more
recent vintage enjoy considerable industry support for one
simple fact: They are more relevant to today's technology
challenges. For example, ``bridge'' programs that focus on
the problem of technology assimilation often yield greater
payoff to a wider public than programs aimed at technology
creation. Newer programs address current R&D challenges far
more effectively than older programs and should not fall
victim to the ``last hired, first fired'' prioritization.
In particular, partnership and bridge programs should not
only not be singled out for elimination, but should receive a
relatively greater share of what federal R&D spending
remains. These programs currently account for approximately 5
percent of federal R&D spending. The NAM suggests that 15
percent may be a more appropriate level.
Given the critical importance of R&D, far too much is being
cut on the basis of far too little understanding of the
implications. The world has changed considerably in the past
several years, and R&D is no different. Crafting a federal
R&D policy must take stock of these changes; to date this has
not happened.
As the major funder and performer of the R&D in the US,
industry believes its voice should be heard in setting the
national R&D agenda. The Congress and the Administration
should draw on industry's experience and expertise in
determining policy choices. For example, as a guide to
prioritizing federal R&D programs, the NAM would favor those
programs that embody the following attributes: industry led;
cost-shared; relevant to today's R&D challenges; partnership/
consortia; deployment-oriented; and dual use.
We believe these criteria provide the basis for creation of
a template for prioritizing federal R&D spending.
In sum, the NAM remains firmly committed to a balanced
federal budget. But we also firmly believe that the action
taken thus far in downsizing and altering the direction of US
R&D spending is tantamount to fighting hunger by eating the
seed corn. We urge the Congress to consider carefully the
impact of R&D on US economic vitality and to move forward in
crafting an R&D agenda that will sustain US technological
leadership far into the future.
I would like to describe two programs in which I have taken a
particular interest, the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and the
Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP].

ATP

Dr. Alan Bromley, President Bush's Science Advisor in 1991,
determined a list of 20 technologies that are critical to develop for
the United States to remain a world economic power. There has been very
little disagreement among analysts and industry about the list. No one
company benefits from these technologies, rather a variety of
industries would benefit with advances in any one of these areas. These
are the kinds of areas that form the focus areas of the ATP. The focus
areas are determined by industry, not by bureaucrats, to be key areas
where research breakthroughs will advance the economy as a whole not
single companies.
There is no doubt that industry benefits from partnering with the
Government. The nature of the marketplace has changed, and
technological advances are a crucial component in maintaining our
stature in the new world marketplace. Product life cycles are getting
more and more compressed, so that the development of new products must
occur at a more and more rapid pace. The market demands products
faster, at higher quality and in wider varieties--and the product must
be delivered just in time. Innovative technological advances enhance
speed, quality, and distribution, to deliver to customers the product
they want, when they want it. Ironically, the competitive market
demands that companies stay lean and mean, diminishing the resources
that are available for R&D programs that foster the kind of innovation
necessary to stay competitive. Because of all of these pressures,
industrial R&D is now focused on short-term product development at the
expense of long-term research to generate future generations of
products.
The conclusion is clear. This short-term focus will lead to
technological inferiority in the future. Our economy will suffer. Some
of my colleagues in Congress believe that basic research will provide
the kind of innovation necessary to generate new generations of high-
technology products. On the contrary, we have seen historically that
basic research performed in a vacuum, that is without communication
with industry, is unlikely to lead to products.
In this country, we have the best basic research anywhere in the
world. There is no contest. Yet, we continue to watch our creative
basic research capitalized by other nations. We must improve our
ability to get our brilliant ideas to market. Basic research focuses on
a time horizon of 10 to 20 years. Product development focuses on a time

[[Page S 14536]]
horizon of less than 5 years, and sometimes much shorter than that. It
is the intermediate timescale, the 5 to 15-year time-frame that is
critical to develop a research idea into a product concept.
We have a responsibility to make sure that our private sector does
not fall behind in the global economy. Diminishing our technological
preparedness is tantamount to unilateral disarmament, in an
increasingly competitive global marketplace. Government/industry
partnerships stimulate just the kind of innovative research that can
keep our technological industry at the leading edge. These partnerships
help fill the gap between short-term product development, and basic
research.
American companies no longer survive by thinking only about the
national marketplace. They must think globally. Familiar competitors
like Japan and Germany, continue to compete aggressively in global
markets. New challenges are coming from India, China, Malaysia,
Thailand, some of the leading Latin American nations and more. We
cannot afford to let jobs and profits gradually move overseas to these
challengers, by resting on our laurels, complacent in our successes.
Other countries, seeing the success of the ATP, are starting to imitate
it, just as we are considering doing away with it. Our competitors must
be chuckling at their good fortune, and our shortsightedness. We simply
cannot afford to cut the ATP.

MEP

The state of manufacturing in this country is mixed. On the one hand
our manufacturing productivity is increasing, but on the other hand we
are losing manufacturing jobs by the millions. Manufacturing which once
was the lifeblood of our economy is bleeding jobs overseas. We need to
provide the infrastructure that insures that our manufacturing industry
flourishes.
As I look at our manufacturing competitors, I am struck by how little
we do to support this critical component of our economy. In the United
States we are used to being the leaders in technologies of all kinds.
Historically, English words have crept into foreign languages, because
we were the inventors of new scientific concepts, technology, and
products. Now when you describe the state-of-the-art manufacturing
practices you use words like ``kanban'' and ``pokaoke.'' These are
Japanese words that are known to production workers all over the United
States. Kanban is a word which describes an efficient method of
inventory management, and pokaoke is a method of making part of a
production process immune from error or mistake proof thereby
increasing the quality of the end product. We have learned these
techniques from the Japanese, in order to compete with them.
In a global economy, there is no choice, a company must become state-
of-the-art or it will go under. We must recognize that our policies
must change with the marketplace and adapt our manufacturing strategy
to compete in this new global marketplace. The Manufacturing Extension
Program [MEP] is a big step forward in reforming the role of government
in manufacturing. This forward looking program was begun under
President Reagan, and has received growing support from Congress since
1989.
The focus of the MEP Program is one that historically has been
accepted as a proper role of government: education. The MEP strives to
educate small- and mid-sized manufacturers in the best practices that
are available for their manufacturing processes. With the MEP we have
the opportunity to play a constructive role in keeping our companies
competitive in a fiercely competitive, rapidly changing field. When
manufacturing practices change so rapidly, it is the small- and mid-
sized companies that suffer. They cannot afford to invest the necessary
time and capital to explore all new trends to determine which practices
to adopt and then to train their workers, invest in new equipment, and
restructure their factories to accommodate the changes. The MEP's act
as a library of manufacturing practices, staying current on the latest
innovations, and educating companies on how to get the best results. At
the heart of the MEP is a team of teachers, engineers, and experts with
strong private sector experience ready to reach small firms and their
workers about the latest manufacturing advances.
Another benefit of the MEP is that it brings its clients into contact
with other manufacturers, universities, national labs and any other
institutions where they might find solutions to their problems.
Facilitating these contacts incorporates small manufacturers into a
manufacturing network, and this networking among manufacturers is a
powerful competitive advantage. With close connections, suppliers begin
working with customers at early stages of design and engineering. When
suppliers and customers work together on product design, suppliers can
provide the input that makes manufacturing more efficient, customers
can communicate their specifications and timetables more effectively,
and long-term productive relationships are forged. These supplier/
customer networks are common practice in other countries, and lead to
more efficient and therefore more competitive, design, and production
practices.
The MEP is our important tool in keeping our small manufacturers
competitive. We are staying competitive in markets that have become
hotbeds of global competition, and we are beginning to capture some new
markets. More importantly, companies that have made use of MEP are
generating new jobs rather than laying off workers or moving jobs
overseas. These companies are growing and contributing to real growth
in the U.S. economy. For each Federal dollar invested in a small- or
mid-sized manufacturer through the MEP, there has been $8 of economic
growth. This is a program that is paying for itself by growing our
economy.
Each MEP is funded after a competitive selection process, and
currently there are 44 manufacturing technology centers in 32 States.
One requirement for the centers is that the States supply matching
funds, ensuring that centers are going where there is a
locallysupported need. In summary, the MEP provides the arsenal of
equipment, training, and expertise that our small- and mid-sized
manufacturers need to keep them in the new global economic battlefield.
The ATP and the MEP are critical technology investments. They are
both run under the auspices of the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology, [NIST]. In addition to these NIST programs, NIST itself is
at risk. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention, a recent
letter sent by 25 American Nobel prize winners in physics and the
presidents of 18 scientific societies. As the New York Times put it
``Budget cutters see fat where scientists see a national treasure.''
These scientists are shocked and appalled that we could think of making
cuts in NIST and its programs. According to the scientists ``It is
unthinkable that a modern nation could expect to remain competitive
without these services'' and they continue ``We recognize that your
effort to balance the budget is forcing tough choices regarding the
Department of Commerce, however the laboratories operated by NIST and
funded by the Department of Commerce are a vital scientific resource
for the Nation and should be preserved in the process of downsizing the
Federal Government.'' These scientists are the leaders of the
scientific community and we should not disregard their advice.
This amendment restores funding for NIST and its programs at a time
when we cannot afford to be without their contributions to national
competitiveness. Investments in the trade and technology functions in
Department of Commerce are investments in our future economic health,
in high wage jobs for our workers, in the American dream.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the vote
scheduled for 9 p.m. this evening be postponed to occur at 10 a.m.
tomorrow, Friday, and that immediately following the granting of this
consent, Senator Domenici be recognized to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, is it
also understood that we can follow as we originally intended to stack
the Domenici vote; namely, after the 10 a.m. vote on the Biden
amendment, we would have the Domenici vote?

[[Page S 14537]]

Mr. GREGG. That, to my knowledge, has not yet been agreed to with
Senator Domenici. He will be here at 9 to begin debate on his
amendment. And at that time I would hope that such an agreement could
be reached with Senator Domenici.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I would hope so.
Pending that, Mr. President, I would have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GREGG. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
scheduled for 9 p.m. this evening be postponed to occur at 10 a.m.
Friday, and immediately following the granting of this consent that
Senator Domenici be recognized to offer his amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. the Senate resume
consideration of the McCain amendment No. 2816 with 60 minutes equally
divided, that a vote occur following the Biden vote with 4 minutes
equally divided between the two votes, and that following these votes,
the Senate resume consideration of the Domenici amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, did the Senator say I
would offer my amendment tonight or tomorrow?
I have no objection.
Mr. GRAMM. Immediately following this, the Senator would do it
tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator be kind enough to yield
for 30 seconds?
Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly.

Amendment No. 2818, As Modified

Mr. BIDEN. In the amendment which I sent to the desk numbered 2818,
my omnibus amendment, I made a mistake in two places in it in terms of
numbers. They were as described but different than written, and it has
been cleared with the majority and minority.
I ask unanimous consent that I may modify my amendment, and I send
the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 2818), as modified, is as follows:

On page 26, line 10, after ``Act;'' insert for following:
``$27,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse
treatment for State prisoners pursuant to section 1001(a)(17)
of the 1968 Act; $10,000,000 for grants for rural drug
enforcement assistance pursuant to section 1001(a)(9) of the
1968 Act;''.
On page 28, line 11, before ``$25,000,000'' insert
``$100,000,000 shall be for drug courts pursuant to title V
of the 1994 Act;''.
On page 29, line 6, strike ``$750,000,000'' and insert
``$728,800,000''.
On page 29, line 15, after ``Act;'' insert the following:
``$1,200,000 for Law Enforcement Family Support Programs, as
authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968 Act''.
On page 44, line 8 and 9, strike ``conventional
correctional facilities, including prisons and jails,'' and
insert ``correctional facilities, including prisons and
jails, or boot camp facilities and other low cost
correctional facilities for nonviolent offenders that can
free conventional prison space''.
On page 20, line 16, strike all that follows to page 20,
line 19, and insert:
Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255(i)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``five'' and inserting ``ten''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``or, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, may be deposited as offsetting collections in the
Immigration and Naturalization Service ``Salaries and
Expenses'' appropriations account to be available to support
border enforcement and control programs''.
The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to funds
remitted with applications for adjustment of status which
were filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
For activities authorized by section 130016 of Public Law
103-322, $10,300,000, to remain available until expended,
which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 2819 to the Committee Amendment on Page 26, Lines 18
Through 20

(Purpose: To improve provisions relating to appropriations for legal
assistance)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send an unprinted
amendment to the desk in a minute. This unprinted amendment is an
amendment to the committee amendment beginning on page 26, line 18
wherein we add the following. I want to state before I send it there
that my cosponsors as of now--and I welcome any others that would like
to join--are Senators Kassebaum, Hollings, D'Amato, Stevens, Inouye,
Hatfield, Kennedy, and Specter.
Mr. President, the only thing I want to put in the Record tonight
after I have introduced the amendment, I will put in--I did not. I do
not have to send it up until I am ready to send it up. Right? I think
that is the rule. I will send it up shortly.
I am putting a list in of the prohibitions that are found in this
amendment with reference to what the Legal Services Corporation will be
prohibited from doing. So overnight, if anybody has any concern about
my not getting rid of class action lawsuits and the like, I would like
them to peruse this list and give me their advice.
Therefore, Mr. President, with that explanation, I send the amendment
to the desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending question will
be the amendment on page 26.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for himself,
and Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. D'Amato,
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Specter,
proposes an amendment numbered 2819 to the committee
amendment on page 26, lines 18 through 20.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the Parliamentarian might have
had in mind that I sought unanimous consent that there be cosponsors
when there was no amendment there.
I now ask that those cosponsors that enumerated a while ago be added
as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send two documents to the desk. One is
a summary of the Domenici amendment, and a separate sheet indicating
the prohibitions that will be imposed on legal services, and I ask
unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Summary: Domenici Legal Services Amendment, H.R. 2076, Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies

in general

The amendment restores the Legal Services Corporation,
provides $340 million in funding for fiscal year 1996 and
adopts House Appropriations restrictions on use of funds.
Appropriate offsets will be found throughout the
appropriations bill.

funding

Provides $340 million in FY 1996, $225 million through
August 31, 1996 and $115, to be provided upon the September
1, 1996, implementation of a competitive bidding system for
grants, as outlined in the amendment.

restrictions on use of funds by corporation and recipients

Advocating policies relating to redistricting (same as
House).
No class action lawsuits (stronger than House).
Influencing action on any legislation, Constitutional
Amendment, referendum or similar procedure of Congress, State
or local legislative body (same as House).
Legal assistance to illegal aliens (same as House).
Supporting/conducting training programs relating to
political activity (same as House).
Abortion litigation (same as House).
Prisoner litigation (same as House).
Welfare reform litigation, except to represent individual
on particular matter that does not involve changing existing
law (same as House).
Representing individuals evicted from public housing due to
sale of drugs (same as House).

[[Page S 14538]]

Accepting employment as a result of giving unsolicited
advice to non-attorneys (same as House).
All non-LSC funds used to provide legal services by
recipients may not be used for the purposes prohibited by the
Act (same as House).

special provisions

Competitive bidding of grants must be implemented by
September 1, 1995, and regulations must be proposed 60 days
after enactment of the Act. Funds will be provided on an
``equal figure per individual in poverty.''
Native Americans will receive additional consideration
under the act but no special earmarks are provided as have
existed in the past.
Restrictions shall apply only to new cases undertaken or
additional matters being addressed in existing cases.
Lobbying restrictions shall not be construed to prohibit a
local recipient from using non-LSC funds to lobby for
additional funding from their State or local government. In
addition, they shall not prohibit the Corporation from
providing comments on federal funding proposals, at the
request of Congress.
Under the Domenici amendment, all funds, regardless of
source, received by the corporation, or its grantees may not
be used for the following prohibited purposes:
Advocating policies relating to redistricting. Prohibited.
Class action lawsuits. Prohibited.
Influencing action on any legislation, Constitutional
Amendment, referendum or procedure of Congress, State or
local legislative body. Prohibited.
Legal assistance to illegal aliens. Prohibited.
Supporting/conducting training programs relating to
political activity. Prohibited.
Abortion litigation. Prohibited.
Prisoner litigation. Prohibited.
Welfare reform litigation. Prohibited. Except to represent
individual on particular matter that does not involve
changing existing law.
Representing individuals evicted from public housing due to
sale of drugs. Prohibited.
Accepting employment as a result of giving unsolicited
advice to non-attorneys. Prohibited.
All non-LSC funds used to provide legal services by
recipients may not be used for the purposes prohibited by the
Act. Prohibited.
Additionally, there are a number of clarifying and special
provisions:
Competitive bidding of grants must be implemented by
September 1, 1995, and regulations must be proposed 60 days
after enactment of the Act. Funds will be provided on an
``equal figure per individual in poverty.''

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Legal
Services Program and in opposition to the pending appropriation bill.
Pursuant to this legislation, and the Legal Services Program--as it has
existed for more than two decades--would be abolished and replaced with
a legal assistance block grant program, funded at a level that is
drastically less than current funding for legal services.
The Legal Services Corporation has been at the forefront of our
efforts to give real meaning to the words emblazoned in stone above the
portals of the Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' The Legal
Services Program has provided critically needed services to millions of
poor, elderly, and disabled citizens who otherwise would not have
access to the American legal system and the protection its affords the
many basic rights we enjoy in this country and which so many of us take
for granted.
The Legal Services Corporation provides funds to State legal aid
programs throughout our Nation. It has been described as one of the
most effective and worthwhile Federal programs in existence, while also
being one of the least costly. Legal Services programs provided needed
legal assistance to approximately 1.7 million clients annually,
benefiting about 5 million individuals living in poverty in this
country, primarily women and children. LSC accomplishes this using only
about 3 percent of its total funding for administration and management.
That means that 97 percent of the appropriation goes directly to the
local programs that provide the services, clearly illustrating the
efficient operation of this valuable program.
Maryland's Legal Aid Bureau, which receives by far the largest
portion of its total funding from the Legal Services Corporation, has
done an outstanding job of representing Maryland citizens living in
poverty. With the funding received from LSC, the 13 legal aid offices
located throughout Maryland provide general legal services to
approximately 19,000 families and individuals annually, assisting
Marylanders in such routine legal matters as consumer problems, housing
issues, domestic and family cases, and applying for and appealing the
denial of public benefits.
Because the Republican measure proposes that grants be made to
individual attorneys, and appears to exclude current legal services
programs from eligibility for funding under the program, the Maryland
Legal Aid Bureau could lose some of even all of this critical Federal
funding. This would leave Maryland Legal Aid unable to provide these
vital services to the many thousands of clients currently represented--
who, in fact, represent only a small percentage of Maryland's poor
citizens--unless alternative funding can be provided at the State and
local level.
Mr. President, the Legal Services Corporation has operated an
effective and efficient program in representing citizens, who without
this assistance, would never have their day in court. Although most of
the cases involve routine legal disagreements related to housing,
consumer issues, family and domestic matters, and employment, these
routine matters often become insurmountable when coupled with the other
pressures of a complex society that weigh on a family unable to afford
legal representation.

The Republican proposal would replace the Legal Services Corporation
with a block grant program administered by the Department of Justice,
through which funds for civil legal assistance would be allocated to
the States. The bill severely reduces funding for legal services,
cutting the funding from the $400 million appropriated to the Legal
Services Corporation for fiscal year 1995 to $210 million--a reduction
of nearly 50 percent.
Not only does the bill slash funding for legal services for the poor,
it also establishes severe restrictions on the type of services that
may be provided under the new block grant program. This program would
drastically limit qualified services to 10 specific causes of action.
As a result, low-income individuals would be denied representation with
respect to numerous critical--and basic--legal matters.
Under the measure, qualified services appear to exclude
representation in essential legal matters such as applying for or
appealing a denial of statutory benefits, including Social Security
benefits, veterans benefits, unemployment compensation, food stamps or
medical assistance; obtaining or refinancing home ownership; housing
discrimination; claims based on consumer fraud or defective products;
discrimination in hiring; wage claims; problems with public utilities;
immigration; unfair sales practices; preparation of wills; paternity;
and patient rights.
Most of these excluded causes of action represent legal matters that
routinely arise out of everyday problems faced by many Americans. Under
the committee bill, legal assistance with respect to these routine
types of cases would be denied arbitrarily to low-income individuals
and families.
Additional restrictions would prohibit legal service providers from
using funds under the program for representation in cases related to
matters such as redistricting, legislative and administrative advocacy,
and prison litigation. Class action lawsuits against the Government or
private parties--which, contrary to the myth currently being
perpetuated, actually encompass less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all
legal services cases--would be barred, as would lawsuits challenging
the constitutionality of any statute.
Another particularly disturbing provision in the bill would require
that any qualified client, as a condition for receiving services under
the program, waive the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work
product privilege. This clearly interferes with the ethical obligations
that all lawyers have to their clients.
Mr. President, the drastic cutbacks and restrictions in this bill
would strike a devastating blow to many of our citizens who would find
access to the courts blocked and would be unable to assert the rights
to which they are entitled by our Constitution and our laws.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose these attempts to dismantle
this vital program and to support the continuation of the Legal
Services Corporation and the current legal services delivery system, as
well as increased funding for legal assistance for the poor over the
level proposed in this appropriation measure.

[[Page S 14539]]

An editorial appearing in the September 15 New York Times eloquently
addressed the current Republican attack on funding legal services for
the poor and the importance of maintaining the Legal Services
Corporation. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Sept. 15, 1995]

Showdown for Legal Services

Equal justice for all may be an American ideal but not to
the Republican-controlled Congress, where measures advanced
ominously this week to abolish the Legal Services
Corporation, the federally financed program to help poor
people with legal problems.
The corporation, which was created in 1974, managed to
survive previous attacks on its mandate and financing during
the Reagan and Bush Administrations, aided by powerful
Democratic friends in Congress and some Republicans, like
former Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. But its
continued existence is now in jeopardy. Not satisfied with
the disabling funding cut already approved by the full House,
or pending provisions in both chambers that would greatly
restrict the types of cases that may be handled, the
Republicans who control the House and Senate are moving to
dismantle the program entirely.
The House voted in July to slash the corporation's budget
from $400 million a year to $278 million. By an 18 to 13
straight party-line vote on Wednesday, the House Judiciary
Committee approved a measure pushed by Representative George
Gekas of Pennsylvania that would carry the demolition
further. It would break up the corporation and its expert
network of poverty-law specialists and replace them with a
more bureaucratic, fragmented and inefficient system of small
block grants to fiscally hard-pressed states. Some states
have shown little interest historically in providing civil
legal services that empower the poor, and may not bother to
apply for the dwindling amounts of money allotted. In the
Senate, meanwhile, a similarly unworthy dismantling scheme
proposed by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas has passed the
Appropriations Committee and is due to hit the Senate floor
perhaps as early as today. It would cut funding even more, to
$210 million, and funnel it through block grants.
The program's critics complain that the corporation uses
the courts to push ``a liberal agenda.'' But, clearly, what
is driving the attack is their own ideological opposition to
what poverty lawyers do, which is to protect the legal rights
of the poor. This mostly entails handling mundane eviction,
divorce and installment credit cases. Only on rare occasions
do legal services lawyers bring the class action lawsuits
that so offend the powerful enemies of the program, but which
serve a valuable function in holding government agencies
accountable.
At a moving news conference, leaders of the bar were joined
by religious leaders and Legal Services clients in calling
for the presentation of the Legal Services Corporation. The
group included two victims of domestic violence, whose lives
were dramatically transformed for the better by virtue of
having the sort of access to the justice system that
Republicans seem determined to foreclose.
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York, and other Republicans
whose poor constituents stand to be badly hurt by the latest
assault on legal services, should fight for amendments to the
pending Senate bill that would prevent the worst from
happening. If efforts at moderation do not succeed, President
Clinton must stand ready with his veto pen.

Amendment Nos. 2820 Through 2828 En Bloc

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
Domenici amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send to the desk a number of amendments
that have been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that
they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.

The Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) proposes amendments
numbered 2820 through 2828 en bloc.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 2820

Purpose: To terminate the Regulatory Coordination Advisory Committee,
the Biotechnology Technical Advisory Committee, and the Advisory
Corrections Council)

At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
new section:
Sec. . (a) The Regulatory Coordination Advisory Committee
for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is terminated.
(b) Section 5(h) of the Export Administration Act of 1979
is repealed.
(c)(1) Section 5002 of title 18, United States Code, is
repealed.
(2) The table of sections for chapter 401 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking out the item
relating to the Advisory Corrections Council.
(d) This section shall take effect 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 2821

(Purpose: To extend the authority to administer au pair programs
through fiscal year 1999)

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

SEC. . EXTENSION OF AU PAIR PROGRAMS.

Section 8 of the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990
is amended in the last sentence by striking ``fiscal year
1995'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1999''.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk extends the life
of a program that is essential to thousands of American working
parents. It extends the operations of the United States Information
Agency's Au Pair program for another 4 years, through the end of fiscal
year 1999.
Mr. President, the Au Pair program provides families with two working
parents a perfect alternative to day care. It allows these families to
invite young people from other countries into their homes, for a year
at a time, to live and work. The families and the au pairs, thus, live
together while each teaches the other about their respective cultures;
in return, the family's children receive exceptional care and the young
au pairs experience a year in the United States while living with an
American family.
Earlier this year the members of the Foreign Relations Committee
adopted a provision that would have extended the life of this program
for another 4 years, just as the pending amendment does. The committee-
adopted provision, however, is still pending in the committee's
authorization bill which the Senate has yet to consider fully. Since
the authority to continue this program expires on September 30 of this
year, the Senate must take immediate action.
One may ask why I offer a 4-year extension of this program. The
answer is twofold: First, the authorizing committee made the decision
to extend it for 4 years and, second, so that we can put this issue to
rest for at least one additional authorization cycle.
Our committee has spent countless hours overseeing this program
during the last few years. The U.S. Information Agency, which
administers this program, has spent many hours on it as well. USIA this
year applied new regulations to the administration of the au pair
program and I want to see these regulations implemented for awhile
before a determination is made as to whether the program should be
permanently authorized.
Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has
indicated his support for this measure. I thank him and ask that we
move on this simple issue expeditiously.

amendment no. 2822

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on United States-Canada
Cooperation concerning an outlet to relieve flooding at Devils Lake in
north Dakota)

On page 124, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 6. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON UNITED STATES-CANADIAN
COOPERATION CONCERNING AN OUTLET TO RELIEVE
FLOODING AT DEVILS LAKE IN NORTH DAKOTA.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) flooding in Devils Lake Basin, North Dakota, has
resulted in water levels in the lake reaching their highest
point in 120 years;
(2) basements are flooded and the town of Devils Lake is
threatened with lake water reaching the limits of the
protective dikes of the lake;
(3) the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation are now studying the feasibility of constructing
an outlet from Devils Lake Basin;
(4) an outlet from Devils Lake Basin will allow the
transfer of water from Devils Lake Basin to the Red River of
the North watershed that the United States shares with
Canada; and
(5) the Treaty Relating to the Boundary Waters and
Questions Arising Along the Boundary Between the United
States and Canada, signed at Washington on January 11, 1909
(36 Stat. 2448; TS 548) (commonly known as the ``Boundary
Water Treaty of 1909''), provides that ``waters flowing
across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to
the injury of health or property on the other.'' (36 Stat.
2450).
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the United States Government should seek to establish a
joint United States-Canadian technical committee to review
the Devils Lake Basin outlet project to consider options for
an outlet that would

[[Page S 14540]]
meet Canadian concerns with regard to the Boundary Water Treaty of
1909.
____

amendment no. 2823

On page 75 of the bill, line 7, after ``grants'' insert the
following: : ``Provided further, That of the amounts provided
in this paragraph $76,300,000 is for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program''.

manufacturing extension program

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee for including in his amendment an additional
$25 million for the Industrial Technology Services account at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. That funding is
for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] program, which
supports locally run manufacturing extension centers around the
country.
I would like to enter into a brief conversation with the chairman to
clarify that this funding is provided for three purposes. First, $22
million is provided to support new centers that are now close to be
chosen, under an ongoing centers competition. The amendment restores
funding that had been provided in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations
Act for new centers but which the present bill would shift to other
purposes. This amendment therefore overrides the committee report
language which says that no funds can be used to open a new center
during the coming year.
Second, $3 million is provided for fiscal year 1996 support services
for the existing 42 manufacturing extension centers. These are services
such as materials for training extension agents, provided to centers
through MEP's National Programs account. This $3 million is in addition
to funds which the bill already provides for fiscal year 1996 support
of the existing 42 centers, including the eligible centers originally
supported by the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Project.
Third, with this amendment the amount of new appropriations for the
MEP program now totals $76.3 million, and the amount of prior year
appropriations and new appropriations for meeting prior Advanced
Technology Program [ATP] commitments totals $109,138,000. The ATP is
intended to receive $83,838,000 in prior year appropriations and $25.3
million in new appropriations. I would like to ask the chairman if this
three-part interpretation of the MEP portion of his amendment is
correct.
Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chairman.

amendment no. 2824

Table the Committee amendment on page 79, lines 1 through
6.
On page 79, line 22, delete ``$42,000,000'' and insert
``$37,000,000''.
____

amendment no. 2825

On page 115, line 2 after ``equipment'' insert the
following ``: Provided further, That not later than April 1,
1996, the headquarters of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting
shall be relocated from Washington, D.C. to South Florida,
and that any funds available to the United States Information
Agency may be available to carry out this relocation.''
____

amendment no. 2826

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
``Sec. . Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of Public Law 101-454 are
repealed. In addition, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship, Incorporated, may use
any earned but unused trust income from the period 1992
through 1995 for Fellowship purposes.''
____

amendment no. 2827

On page 110, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 405. (a) Subject to subsection (b), section 15(a) of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C.
2680(a)) and section 701 of the United States Information and
Educational Exchange Act of 1948 and section 313 of the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994 and
1995 and section 53 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act,
shall not apply to appropriations made available for the
Department of State in this Act.
(b) The waiver of subsection (a) shall cease to apply
December 1, 1995.

waiver of authorization

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment authorizes the Senate
and House committees on appropriations to waive the requirement in
section 15 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act that
appropriations must first be authorized. This waiver applies through
December 1, 1995.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which has the
responsibility of authorizing the activities of the Department of State
and its related agencies, I am reluctant to agree to this waiver.
However, because the administration and certain Members of this Senate
have refused to allow a vote on the committee's authorization bill--S.
908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995--and since Senate
consideration of S. 908 bill is still pending, I have agreed to allow
the State Department's funding to go forward without authorization
through the first of December.
This window will allow adequate time for the President and his
representatives to advise their friends in the Senate that no further
efforts on their part should be made to forbid a vote on the
authorizing legislation S. 908.
Mr. President, I reiterate now what I have asserted on numerous
occasions since the Democrats' filibuster against S. 908 began; the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee will resume consideration of and
action upon all nominations, treaties, and legislation pending before
the committee once the administration urges Senate Democrats to vote on
our legislation.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his
cooperation on this issue. I thank him also for his continued support
of our efforts to consolidate three anachronistic Federal foreign
affairs agencies into the Department of State which, he and I agree,
will help balance the Federal budget.

amendment no. 2828

(Purpose: To make available for diplomatic and consular programs funds
collected from new fees charged for the expedited processing of certain
visas and border crossing cards)

On page 93, line 7, after ``Provided,'' insert the
following: ``That, notwithstanding the second sentence of
section 140(a)(3) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), not to
exceed $125,000,000 of fees may be collected during fiscal
year 1996 under the authority of section 140(a)(1) of that
Act: Provided further, That all fees collected under the
preceding proviso shall be deposited in fiscal year 1996 as
an offsetting collection to appropriations made under this
heading to recover the costs of providing consular
services and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further,''.

machine readable visa fees

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment will permit the Department
of State to continue to charge and collect a fee for the issuance of
machine readable visas in specific countries around the world through
fiscal year 1996. The Department may collect up to $125 million worth
of fees this year alone.
It also authorizes the Department of State to use the moneys
collected to offset the costs of diplomatic and consular activities
overseas.
In the fiscal year 1994-95 State Department authorization bill--
Public Law 103-236--the Committee on Foreign Relations authorized the
Department to charge and collect these fees up to a total of $107
million. The Department almost met that ceiling this past year and
expects to exceed that amount this fiscal year in as much as this
relatively new program is now being implemented in more countries and,
is thereby, made available to more people. Therefore, the Department is
authorized to collect approximately $18 million more in fees this year.
Mr. President, this amendment does not cost the American taxpayer a
penny. It is, in fact, a tool for sound fiscal management the
Department will be able to utilize this year, especially in light of
budget cuts affecting the Department of State.
I understand the able chairman of the subcommittee agrees with this
measure and I thank him for his support.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, these amendments have all been cleared on
both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to en bloc, and that
statements accompanying the amendments be printed in the Record as if
read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2820 through 2828) were agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on advice from Senator Hollings, who is
unable to be here at the moment, I understand that these are acceptable
to him on this side.

[[Page S 14541]]

Amendment No. 2819

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, while we await our instructions on closing
out business of the day, I would like to just very briefly, though we
are going to speak tomorrow at some length about the Domenici
amendment, say that I think it is important tonight to at least to
begin to call our colleagues' attention to the fact that the Domenici
amendment is not simply an amendment to reestablish the Federal Legal
Services Corporation. We can debate the merits of that and the
demerits. I believe the demerits outweigh the merits. But the Domenici
amendment has a profound impact on the rest of this bill because it
cuts other programs.
I simply want to leave with my colleagues tonight a very brief
outline of what the Domenici amendment does in order to fund this
expansion in legal services.
It cuts $25 million from our efforts in the Justice Department
related to the Criminal Division, to the Civil Rights Division, to the
Environmental Division. It cuts funding for the U.S. attorneys office
by $11 million. That is money that would have gone to fund U.S.
attorneys to prosecute drug felons and gun felons. It cuts $40 million
from the FBI budget, funds that would be used to build the new FBI
academy, to build infrastructure, which the FBI greatly needs.
It cuts the Bureau of the Census both economic and statistical
analysis and the census itself in a period when we are getting ready to
have the 2000 census, the millennium census. It cuts funding for the
court of appeals, for district courts, and for other courts by $25
million. Every day we have people waiting to be tried in civil cases
and criminal cases, and we are cutting funding for our courts to fund
legal services.
Funding is cut by $21 million for the reorganization/transition fund
in the State Department. That is a major Republican initiative in an
authorization bill for which the majority of Senators have voted in the
affirmative. The bill cuts funding for the commerce transition fund.
The budget adopted by the Senate called for the elimination of the
Commerce Department. This eliminates transition funds that would be
required.
Finally and stunningly, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has
a budget gimmick in the funding mechanism which has a delayed
obligation of $115 million which becomes effective only on September 1,
1996, so that we are in fact committing ourselves to a level of funding
which is substantially higher than the funding level which is claimed
in this amendment.
No one needs to give me a lecture on the power of the special
interest groups that support the Legal Services Corporation. I
understand that perfectly, and I understand that the majority of the
Members of the Senate support funding for the Legal Services
Corporation. But I want my colleagues to know that in supporting that
funding, they are supporting cuts in our criminal activities, our civil
rights activities in the Justice Department, our Environmental Division
within the Justice Department. They are denying funding for the FBI
Academy and in the process cutting funds for courts.
So what we are talking about is basically cutting funding for
prosecutors, for the Justice Department to work in areas that are
critically important. We are cutting funding in courts when we
desperately need more prosecutors and more courts. I hope my colleagues
will look at these offsets.
Governing is about choices, and the choices we look at on this bill
are, basically, do we want to fund courts and U.S. attorneys to
prosecute violent criminals and drug felons or do we want to fund the
Legal Services Corporation? To me that is a very easy choice. I wish to
be sure that my colleagues understand it, and I thank the Senate for in
the closing moments of this legislative day giving me the opportunity
to make it clear to people what we are talking about.
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. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a list of the Domenici offsets to
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2076, AS REPORTED, OFFERED BY MR. DOMENICI OF
NEW MEXICO
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Inspector General:
On page 4, line 15, strike ``$30,484,000''
and insert ``$27,436,000''................. (3,048) (2,896)
General Legal Activities:
On page 5, line 11, strike ``$431,660,000''
and insert ``$406,529,000''................ (25,131) (21,864)
U.S. Attorneys:
On page 7, line 15, strike ``$920,537,000''
and insert ``$909,463,000''................ (11,074) (9,745)
FBI construction:
On page 16, line 9, strike ``$147,800,000;
and insert ``$98,800,000''................. (49,000 (4,900)
Civil legal assistance:
On page 26, strike lines 18 and all that
follows through line 20.................... (210,000) (52,500)
Grants to States:
Beginning on page 52, strike line 9 and all
that follows through page 64, line 22...... (3,300) (3,300)
International Trade Commission:
On page 65, line 22, strike ``$34,000,000;
and insert ``$29,750,000''................. (4,250) (3,825)
Economic and Statistical Analysis:
On page 70, line 22, strike ``$57,220,000''
and insert ``$46,896,000''................. (10,324) (8,868)
Bureau of the Census, S&E:
On page 71, line 16, strike
``$144,812,000,'' and insert
``$133,812,000''........................... (11,000 (8,140)
Office of the Inspector General:
On page 79, line 17, strike ``$21,849,000''
and insert ``$19,849,000''................. (2,000) (1,902)
Court of Appeals, District Courts, & Other:
On page 87, line 6, strike
``$2,471,195,000'' and insert
``$2,446,194,665''......................... (25,000) (23,025)
Foreign Affairs Reorganization Transition Fund:
On page 95, line 15, strike ``$26,000,000''
and insert ``$5,000,000''.................. (21,000) (21,000)
Office of the Inspector General:
On page 96, line 8, strike ``27,350,000''
and insert ``$24,350,000''................. (3,000 (2,490)
Legal Services Corporation:
On page 124, after line 10, insert the
following:................................. 215,000 189,200
125,000 9,166
Working Capital Fund:
On page 161, line 7, strike ``$35,000,000''
and insert ``$55,000,000''................. (20,000) (20,000)
Commerce Transition Fund........................ (5,000) (5,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________