[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

       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''), 
     [$3,283,343,000] 

[[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

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), [$8,750,000] $8,500,000.


                     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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                              

                          ____________________