[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14611-S14629]
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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           amendment no. 2819

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Mexico to restore funds for the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  The words inscribed on the wall of the Supreme Court building capture 
the idea at the very heart of our constitutional democracy: ``Equal 
Justice Under Law.''
  The Constitution guarantees to every man and woman in this country 
the same rights and privileges before the law. Indeed, we require 
Federal judges to take an oath to render justice equally to the poor 
and to the rich.
  But our courts are largely powerless to render justice to persons who 
are too poor to afford a lawyer to assist them in protecting their 
legal rights. And a constitutional right without a remedy is no 
constitutional right at all.
  The bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would 
unleash an unprecedented assault on the rights of our most impoverished 
citizens. It would eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, which 
Congress established more than 20 years ago with the active support of 
President Richard Nixon.
  And though it would authorize the Attorney General to make civil 
legal assistance block grants to the States through the Office of 
Justice Programs, it would not earmark one penny of funds for this 
program and it would impose unprecedented and excessive restrictions on 
the ability of legal services programs to represent poor people.
  There are compelling reasons why the legal services program should be 
administered by an independent Federal corporation. First, and 
foremost, litigation to protect the legal rights of poor people often 
antagonizes powerful interests in the community. President Nixon 
recognized this when he introduced what later became the Legal Services 
Corporation Act. He said,

       The program is concerned with social issues and is thus 
     subject to unusually strong political pressures * * * if we 
     are to preserve the strength of the program we must make it 
     immune to political pressures and make it a permanent part of 
     our system of justice.

  Many of my colleagues will recall that Federal support for civil 
legal services for the poor was first provided by the Office of 
Economic Opportunity [OEO] and later by the Community Services 
Administration, each of which was part of the executive branch. But in 
the early 1970's, the Federal program became the subject of heated 
political debate.
  During this period, President Nixon's Commission on Executive 
Reorganization concluded that the legal services program should not be 
maintained in the executive branch and that a new structure should be 
created to administer the program.
  Congress responded to that recommendation with passage of the Legal 
Services Corporation Act of 1974. In its Statement of Findings and 
Declaration of Purpose, Congress found that ``to preserve its strength, 
the legal services program must be kept free from the influence of or 
use by it of political pressures''; and ``attorneys providing legal 
assistance must have full freedom to protect the best interests of 
their clients in keeping with * * * [professional responsibility] and 
the high standards of the legal profession.''
  An independent Federal corporation remains the best way today to 
assure that powerful constituencies do not pressure legal services 
lawyers not to protect their clients' legal rights. A block grant 
program simply cannot insulate these lawyers from political pressure.
  Nothing in the bill requires States to apply for block grant funds. 
Nothing in the bill prohibits States from denying block grant funds to 
programs that challenge unlawful State actions.

[[Page S 14612]]

  Suppose a Governor issues an Executive order that violates the 
constitutional rights of a poor person. A legal services program that 
represents that poor person runs the risk of antagonizing the political 
establishment and losing its funding.
  Let me say to my colleagues: Put yourself in the position of that 
client. Suppose your Governor issued an order that violated your 
constitutional rights. Suppose you went to your lawyer and asked that a 
suit be filed. Suppose your lawyer said to you that the law firm 
depended on the Governor for its funding. You would want to get another 
lawyer, would you not?
  Poor people cannot get another lawyer. They depend on legal services 
programs. Those programs must be free to protect their clients' legal 
rights, without fear of losing their funds.
  The committee bill is also unacceptable because it would drastically 
cut the level of Federal support for legal services. Last year, the 
Legal Services Corporation received $400 million. The fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill passed by the House allocates $278 million for the 
Corporation. The Legal Services Corporation is eliminated by the Senate 
bill, and only $210 million are earmarked for the Office of Justice 
Programs to pay for the block grant program the bill would establish.
  This is far less than is necessary to support this important program. 
Legal needs studies from numerous States across the country have 
consistently shown that only 15 to 20 percent of civil legal needs of 
the poor are met by current funding levels.
  The proposed cut in the legal services program is far more draconian 
than those experienced in the early 1980's, when President Reagan 
proposed abolishing the Legal Services Corporation, and Senator Warren 
Rudman and others successfully fought to preserve the program. In 1981, 
Congress slashed LSC funds by 25 percent, to $241 million. The 
committee bill contemplates $210 million for 1996, nearly a 50-percent 
cut from last year's appropriation, and less than half in real terms of 
what was appropriated in the leanest years during the Reagan 
administration.
  The proposed restrictions on the activities of legal services lawyers 
in the committee bill make it clear that the bill is not merely an 
assault on the Legal Services Corporation. It is an attack on poor 
people across America, and on the very concept of equal justice under 
law.
  The bill would forbid legal services programs that receive Federal 
funds to file suit on behalf of poor people who have been denied public 
benefits. And it sharply restricts other actions that programs can 
bring against poor people:
  If a mother with small children lost her job and was illegally denied 
food stamps, this bill would forbid legal services programs to sue to 
get her family the food stamps they need.
  If a poor widow was denied her Social Security benefits, this bill 
would forbid legal services programs to represent her in court.
  If a poor family is ripped off by a merchant who sold them shabby 
goods, this bill would forbid legal services programs to bring that 
merchant to justice.
  If an indigent veteran has his electricity wrongfully shut off in the 
middle of winter, this bill would forbid legal service programs to 
represent him in an emergency proceeding to have his power restored.
  Perhaps the most offensive limitation on legal services lawyers 
contained in the committee bill is the prohibition against ``any 
challenge to the constitutionality of any statute.'' Poor people would 
be denied counsel to protect their constitutional rights.
  No longer would it be true that, as Justice Jackson wrote more than 
forty years ago, under our system of laws, ``[t]he mere fact of being 
without funds is a neutral fact--constitutionally an irrelevance, like 
race, creed or color.'' Instead, the committee bill would place a brand 
new amendment in our Constitution: ``The foregoing does not apply to 
persons too poor to afford counsel.''
  The Domenici amendment also contains restrictions on the activities 
of legal services offices, and I do not agree with all of these limits. 
But the Domenici restrictions are far less severe, and far less 
intrusive than the restrictions in the underlying bill. Many are in 
current law already.
  It is clear that some restrictions are necessary to ensure support 
for the program, and the Domenici restrictions on the use of funds in 
this bill are reasonable under these circumstances.
  Almost 45 years ago, Judge Learned Hand said that ``[if] we are to 
keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shall not 
ration justice.'' The committee bill would not simply ration justice, 
it would put it out of reach for many of our poorest citizens.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico would correct 
the harsh injustice of the committee bill and enable the Corporation to 
continue its important work of securing justice in the courts for poor 
people. I urge the Senate to support the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment of my friend and colleague, 
the Senator from New Mexico, which would continue the commitment of 
this Nation for the development of legal services for low-income 
Americans. I am very hopeful that his amendment will be adopted. I am 
troubled by some of the restrictions that have been placed upon the 
activities of legal service lawyers in his proposal. But I think that 
it is a commendable amendment. I hope that it will be accepted by the 
Members.
  Listening to those opposed to this amendment, I was thinking about 
the availability of lawyers to those who have financial resources. The 
fact of the matter is we have a legal service program for the 
wealthiest individuals and the wealthiest companies in this country, 
and it is subsidized by the taxpayers. When any corporation is in 
trouble, for example, at the time of the Ill-Wind procurement scandals, 
that company hires every single lawyer in sight and writes it off as a 
business expense. So who do you think helps pick up the tab? The 
taxpayers.
  When we have an investigation about the $200 toilet seats in the 
military, and those companies hire expensive lawyers and then deduct 
those as business expenses, who do you think subsidizes that? It is the 
taxpayers.
  And so the wealthiest, most powerful interests, the major financial 
interests in this country have at their fingertips the best available 
lawyers and those salaries are being paid, in part, by the taxpayers. 
The poorest of the poor do not have that particular luxury. They are 
paying out of their pockets and pocketbooks.
  Some of us who have been longtime supporters of the legal service 
program. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, this has been a 
longstanding bipartisan commitment. President Nixon understood the 
importance of the development of an independent corporation that would 
be guided by a board composed of outstanding lawyers, carefully 
selected over a long period of time under Republican and Democrat 
Presidents. The Legal Services Corporation has tried to give the words 
``equal justice under law,'' a principle enshrined on the walls of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, meaning for all Americans, not just 
wealthy Americans.
  I am not going to spend the time to go through and rebut every 
argument offered by the program's opponents. They talk about 
bureaucracy in the legal services program. But the most recent 
evaluation by the GAO indicates that only about 3 percent of the LSC 
budget goes toward administrative costs.
  I will just take a moment of the Senate's time to talk about 
something that is interesting and ironic. About 2 hours ago, we passed 
by a vote of 99 to 0 an amendment to fully fund a program to help 
battered women. But look at what is out there in terms of the legal 
service programs that really implement the spirit of the Violence 
Against Women Act. Look at what is happening to those who provide some 
protection for the battered and the violence against women and family 
violence against children in our society.
  Family law, which includes the representation of victims of domestic 
violence, is the single largest category of cases handled by legal 
services programs across the Nation. One out of every three of the 1.7 
million cases that legal services programs handle each year involves 
family law.
  Mr. President, I will just read portions of a note from Judith 
Lennett of 

[[Page S 14613]]
the Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women Service Groups. I think 
it fairly typical of legal services, how they spend their funds:

       Legal assistance aimed at protecting women and children 
     from the devastating impact of domestic violence is the 
     highest family law priority of virtually every local legal 
     service project in Massachusetts. Based on fiscal year 1994 
     data collected by the Massachusetts legal services program, 
     4,600 low-income people received legal assistance in family 
     matters from Massachusetts legal services programs. The 
     overwhelming majority of these individuals are adult victims 
     of domestic violence.
       Without civil legal assistance in custody and visitation 
     cases, the children of domestic violence are vulnerable to 
     being ordered into the custody of the men who beat their 
     mothers. There is a solid body of clinical literature 
     describing the severe trauma suffered by these children, and 
     many of them will be even more deeply damaged without legal 
     advocacy of the kind provided by the legal services program.
       In addition, the studies show that economic dependence is 
     one of the most powerful barriers to escape for battered 
     women. Without legal services in child support actions, many 
     victims of violence will be forced to remain in or return to 
     extremely dangerous situations. Sixty thousand people are 
     likely to lose access to this critically needed legal 
     assistance if these cuts go into effect.

  This is what we are talking about. This is a third of all the legal 
services resources out there. And do not fool yourself, Mr. President. 
With the Gramm block grant proposal, you are leaving it up to the 
States. Some States may provide it; some States may not, just as 
Senator Gramm has pointed out.
  Many of us believe that the concept of equal justice under the law 
means equal justice under law. And while there is 1 attorney for every 
305 members of the general population, it is 1 attorney for every 500 
poor people.
  Mr. President, the Domenici amendment reaffirms this Nation's 
commitment to equal justice under law. It deserves the strong 
bipartisan support that it will receive.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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 further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, after consultation with the two leaders, I 
would like to ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 3 o'clock I be 
recognized to make a motion to table the Domenici amendment No. 2819, 
and that the time between now and 3 o'clock be equally divided between 
Senator Domenici and myself to complete debate on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object. I wonder if the manager 
would be amenable to permitting me to offer two very brief amendments 
at this time?
  This pending amendment has been debated now for several hours. We 
have a lot of amendments to complete. And I would very much appreciate 
the chance--I have two amendments we could complete debate on between 
now and 3 p.m. if the distinguished manager and the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico would forgo further debate. We have had hours 
on it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, if I might respond, Mr. President.
  I have been informed by the floor staff that we have other people who 
have been waiting to offer amendments. We have two others who were 
planning to be here after 3 to offer their amendments. So I could not 
agree to a unanimous-consent request to put the Specter amendments 
before them, though, obviously, after 3, if the Domenici amendment is 
tabled, then the floor will be open for another amendment. If it is not 
tabled, it is going to be the pending business and another amendment 
will not be in order.
  So, I am not in a position at the moment to add that to the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, continuing to reserve the right to 
object, the amendments that I have are right behind Senator Hatch and 
Senator Cohen. And if we proceed to further debate on the pending 
amendment, which we have been debating for hours, neither Senator Hatch 
nor Senator Cohen will have an opportunity to offer their amendments.
  If either was here, I would say, fine. But it is now 2:25 on Friday 
afternoon. We have accomplished almost no business today, and I suggest 
that if we take my two amendments, we could proceed to get something 
done.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Amen.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, Mr. President, I have asked unanimous consent to try 
to expedite matters by being recognized to make a motion to table the 
Domenici amendment at 3 p.m. I do believe that Senator Domenici is 
going to want to restate his case, and it is a case that needs 
restating many times if it is to be persuasive.
  Mr. SPECTER. Further reserving the right to object, if the Senator 
from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, would not re-re-re-restate--that is 
not stuttering; that is how many times he stated it-- we could move on 
to something else.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think the Senator from Texas ought to speak for the 
next 35 minutes to see if he could convince anyone.
  Mr. SPECTER. Minds are not going to be changed here.
  Why do we not move on with this bill? We have two amendments. Let us 
take them and get going.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues, in addition to 
the Domenici amendment, we have the Kerrey amendment which is pending 
and we have a Biden amendment which is pending.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What is wrong with taking this up? We can take this up 
and kill the half hour.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, the problem is--I do not have to have unanimous 
consent, Mr. President, to move to table the Domenici amendment. I was 
simply trying to tell my colleagues what the procedure was going to be, 
to try to bring a little order to it. It is not my intention to see the 
Domenici amendment withdrawn prior to my motion to table that amendment 
at 3 p.m.
  We have another amendment that is the pending business, a Kerrey 
amendment. We have a Biden amendment. So I think the best thing for us 
to do is to try to finish the debate on the Domenici amendment, have a 
vote to table it, see where we are on that amendment. And at that time, 
if it is tabled, we will revert back to these other amendments. If the 
people who have offered them want to proceed with them at that point, 
they have standing to do so.
  If they would be willing to step aside and allow the Senator from 
Pennsylvania to get the floor, set aside their amendments, and offer 
his amendment, if that is something he can work out with them, then I 
would certainly be happy to see that happen. The problem is we have a 
whole bunch of people who have been waiting for an opportunity to offer 
their amendments. We do not have an agreed-to time schedule set.
  So basically that is where we are. So let me renew my unanimous 
consent request. If there is an objection, I would just notify my 
colleagues that at 3 p.m., or as near to that as I can get the floor, I 
will move to table the Domenici amendment. But to try to convenience 
our colleagues, I would like to ask again unanimous consent that at the 
hour of 3 p.m., I be recognized to make a motion to table the Domenici 
amendment No. 2819 and that the time between now and 3 p.m. be equally 
divided between Senator Domenici and myself.
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object. I would make one more 
effort to ask that the unanimous consent request be amended to ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the Domenici amendment, if the Senator 
from New Mexico agrees not to have further debate, and to set aside the 
other pending amendments, and in the course of the next 30 minutes to 
complete two amendments, 15 minutes equally divided on each side.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request by the Senator from Texas, first?
  Hearing none, so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is the unanimous consent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes of debate, equally divided 
between the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Mexico.

[[Page S 14614]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes off my time to the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the clash between ideas, which is 
evidenced in this amendment, is a difficult one, because there are 
valid points to be made on each side of that argument.
  On the side of the Senator from New Mexico is the obvious proposition 
that it is an important priority for society to provide access to the 
courts in civil litigation or in civil claims for those who are too 
poor, who do not have the economic wherewithal, to hire their own 
lawyers.
  We, as a society, wish to see that justice is done. We do not wish to 
deny that justice to people simply on economic grounds, and we know of 
large numbers of people in many classes who need the kind of assistance 
which they can get, not solely but frequently, almost alone from an 
organization like the Legal Services Corporation.
  On the other side is the argument that lawyers of the governing body 
of the Legal Services Corporation have misused the money and the 
authority that they have been given by Congress to bring lawsuits 
designed primarily to meet social or political ends of those lawyers or 
of that governing body in which the poor plaintiffs are not much more 
than nominal parties, to use that money often for political or 
ideological ends which may clash not only with conservative thought but 
with any administration, no matter how liberal that administration may 
be.
  In that clash, Mr. President, it seems to me that the Senator from 
New Mexico has the better of the argument because he preserves that 
first social goal of seeing to it under many circumstances the poor can 
be represented in court while attempting, and I think attempting with a 
large degree of success, to prevent the misuse of this Federal money.
  It is rightfully not only annoying but regarded as an outrage by many 
people in our society that they, as employers or as landowners or as 
individuals, are sued by use of their own money.
  May I have another minute from Senator Domenici?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
2 additional minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. That is a justified objection, Mr. President. But I am 
convinced that we have an opportunity, if we go along the road that the 
Senator from New Mexico has set out for us, to retain what is good and 
what is important in the Legal Services Corporation and prevent the 
excesses to which many of our citizens have been subjected in the past 
and about which we have heard.
  If it turns out that these requirements, that these limitations do 
not work, that these injustices continue, well, we are dealing with 
only a 1-year appropriations bill. We can deal with those objections at 
a another time relatively soon in the future.
  So it is for that reason, Mr. President--that we can retain what is 
appropriate about the Legal Services Corporation, and we can at least 
begin, and perhaps succeed, in reining in the excesses of that 
corporation--that I support the position outlined so well by the 
Senator from New Mexico and ask that we accept his amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. The Senator from Texas 
has 15 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank you for your recognition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will Senator Gramm yield for 10 seconds?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Gorton, I want to thank 
him for his remarks. I very much appreciate it. It is very helpful to 
me hearing that statement from him. He is one of the most renowned of 
the attorneys around here, even though he is not an attorney or lawyer 
any longer, and I very much appreciate it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me go back, because we have had a lot 
said, a lot of intellectual sparring, from people who spoke with 
passion on both sides of the issue. This is an important issue, because 
you have busy people who are in the process of debating it. But let me 
remind my colleagues of how we got to this point.
  First of all, we adopted a budget that set out a goal of balancing 
the Federal budget in 7 years, and in that budget, we set out a target 
number, not binding but set out as a guideline, to fund Legal Services 
Corporation at $278 million.
  In the allocation of funds to the Commerce, State, Justice 
Subcommittee, we were given $3.4 billion less money than President 
Clinton had to write his budget; we were given $1.2 billion less than 
the comparable committee in the House. And in spreading that reduction 
in spending, I reduced the funding level for Legal Services Corporation 
proportionately to $210 million.
  Senator Domenici is proposing raising the funding level to $340 
million. I think there are a lot of issues that are important here. Let 
me just go through each of them.
  The first issue has to do with offsets. In order to increase the 
level of funding for Legal Services Corporation to $340 million, 
Senator Domenici has to cut other programs in order to make that 
possible.
  I think it is important my colleagues decide not whether or not they 
want to fund the Legal Services Corporation, but whether or not it is 
worth it to take the money away from other programs in order to pay for 
it. I want to ask my colleagues look at those other programs.
  In order to fund the Legal Services Corporation, a corporation that 
Senator Domenici, in his own amendment, says needs to be dramatically 
changed, its actions need to be reined in--I submitted for the Record 
letters from everybody, from the Farm Bureau to Citizens Against 
Government Waste, letters from outside groups that would like to 
eliminate or dramatically reduce funding for legal services. But quite 
aside, the question is, is it worth taking money away from those things 
that Senator Domenici proposes taking money away from in order to fund 
the program? Let me review a few of those proposed offsets.
  In order to fund a Federal Legal Services Corporation, Senator 
Domenici proposes to reduce general legal activities in the Justice 
Department by $25 million. I remind my colleagues that we are already 
$10 million below the President's request. This will take us to $35 
million below the President's request, and this will eliminate roughly 
200 prosecutors in the following areas: Prosecutors in the area of 
organized crime, major drug trafficking, child pornography, major fraud 
against the taxpayer, terrorism and espionage, and other types of 
activities that fall within the Federal jurisdiction.
  The first question I would like to ask is, is it important enough to 
you to fund Legal Services Corporation above the level set out in the 
budget that we adopted in the U.S. Senate; is it important enough that 
we ought to take 200 prosecutors away from prosecuting organized crime, 
child pornography, major drug trafficking, major fraud against the 
taxpayer, terrorism and espionage? I think that is the first question.
  The second question is, in order to fund a Federal Legal Services 
Corporation at a level above the level that we set out in the budget 
that we adopted, the Domenici amendment cuts the U.S. Attorney's Office 
by $11 million. That means that with the adoption of this amendment, we 
will have 55 fewer assistant U.S. attorneys and 55 fewer support 
personnel than we will have if the amendment is not adopted.
  So the relevant question is not do you want to give the Legal 
Services Corporation more money, but do you want the U.S. Attorney's 
Office to have more prosecutors to prosecute people who are selling 
drugs at the door of every junior high school in America?
  The Domenici amendment to fund the Legal Services Corporation at a 
level above the level contemplated in the budget that we adopted in the 
U.S. Senate proposes cutting the FBI by $49 million. These funds will 
largely come out of the FBI Academy at Quantico, VA. This academy is 
the most important training facility for law enforcement in the United 
States of America. This project was endorsed by 91 Senators who voted 
for the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.
  The question is not do you want to give more money to legal services, 
not do you want to fund legal services at a level above the level we 
contemplated in the budget we adopted in the Senate, 

[[Page S 14615]]
but are you willing to take $49 million away from the FBI, away from 
the principal construction project at the FBI Academy which, each year, 
funds the training of 1,225 of the most outstanding law enforcement 
officials in America.
  The Domenici amendment, in order to fund the legal services 
Corporation at a level above the level contemplated in our budget, cuts 
the Federal judiciary by $25 million. Let me put that into people. That 
is 400 probation officers, who could supervise convicted felons who are 
out on the street under supervised parole. That is 400 probation 
officers who, in conjunction with the overall program, could carry out 
the mandatory drug testing of all released convicts to assure that they 
are not on drugs.
  I could go on, Mr. President, but the basic point is that the 
Domenici amendment is cutting prosecutors, courts, the FBI, and 
probation officers in order to fund the Legal Services Corporation. 
What does the bill that Senator Domenici would amend do? What it does 
is it funds Legal Services Corporation at $210 million. It block grants 
that money back to the States exactly as we block grant AFDC, exactly 
as we are going to block grant Medicaid, and it allows the States to 
set up a system to contract with attorneys to represent poor people. It 
eliminates a superstructure, which is largely responsible for the use 
of this agency to promote a political agenda which is largely not the 
agenda of the American people.
  Senator Domenici claims in his amendment to tighten up on what the 
agency can do with this money, but the restrictions imposed are less 
restrictive than the provisions that are actually in the bill now. And 
in several areas, they simply have major loopholes. For example, the 
Domenici amendment says legal services is banned from legislative 
lobbying. But there is a major loophole, section 14B, that allows funds 
to be used to lobby for more funds and for fewer restrictions.
  The Domenici amendment prohibits the use of money for legal services 
for filing lawsuits having to do with congressional and legislative 
redistricting. As I pointed out, that is the law of the land. In 1990, 
when the Texas Rural Legal Aid filed a lawsuit against redistricting in 
Texas and the Bush-appointed Legal Services Corporation Board attempted 
to cut their funding, they filed a lawsuit; the funding continued, and 
when President Clinton's Legal Services Board took office, they settled 
the suit out of court, and the funding continues for Texas legal aid.
  The problem is that this is an agency which has not carried out the 
will of Congress, and despite the fact that literally a dozen times we 
have tried to rein in the Federal superstructure of this agency, we 
have never been successful in doing it. The proposal that I made--the 
language that is in the bill--is taking the funds, giving the funds to 
the State, cutting out this bureaucracy and this Federal infrastructure 
and letting the funds be used to represent poor people who need legal 
assistance.
  I think this is an amendment that should be defeated. I know that 
there is strong support for a Federal Legal Services Corporation. I 
personally do not share the philosophy or the views of those who are 
for it. But I ask my colleagues--even those who are for it--to look at 
the cuts that are instituted to pay for it and ask themselves: Do we 
want more prosecutors? Do we want more funding for FBI? Do we want more 
courts? Or do we want to give more money to a Federal program that has 
probably been more abused than any other Federal program that was born 
in the Great Society era?
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not know if there are any others on 
the Domenici-Hollings amendment side who would like to speak. So, in 
precaution, because there may be some, will the Chair tell me when I 
have used 7\1/2\ minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. When the Senator has used 7\1/2\ minutes or 
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes, 45 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Tell me when I have used 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me first start and make sure that everybody 
understands that when this bill cleared the subcommittee under the 
leadership of Senator Gramm, when this amendment came out of his work 
product, it had no money in it for legal services, none. Senator 
Hatfield put an amendment in to put some in it.
  What actually happened, Mr. President, is that Senator Gramm decided, 
as I see it, not to fund legal services, so he went along the line on 
every justice program, every prevention program, every law enforcement 
program, and he put a lot of extra money in it, so he could come to the 
floor and say, if you take some away, you are cutting it. What he had 
actually done is eliminate all the money from this program and bump up 
the funding levels on the above.
  Let me give you an example. Let us talk about U.S. attorneys. The 
Domenici amendment is so bad for U.S. Attorneys that the U.S. House is 
$28 million worse. They have put $28 million less in U.S. attorneys 
than when we are finished with the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Let me tell you what my amendment does. It leaves an increase of $87 
million. Who would have thought that from the argument made by my good 
friend from Texas? If his numbers are correct, then what we have done 
is we have added 440 new U.S. attorneys. The Senator speaks of losing 
55. There are 440 new ones. No U.S. attorneys office, including my own, 
has called me saying that the 440 additional U.S. attorneys, with all 
their support, was inadequate.
  You see, if you put all the money in for these other purposes so 
there is nothing left for legal services, then when legal services 
comes to talk about needing funds, it looks like you'd have to cut 
other programs because there was no money left.
  Let me go on with just one other one: the FBI building. First of all, 
I have never said we do not need modernization and new infrastructure 
and buildings for the Academy. I am one of its staunchest supporters. 
As a matter of fact, 2 years ago, I believe Director Freeh will tell 
you that it was Senator Domenici's amendment that added 350 people to 
the FBI so they would have adequate support. Director Freeh called me 
up and thanked me profusely for helping the FBI. These 1,225 American 
FBI policemen who are going through that Academy are going to go 
through this Academy without any problem if the Domenici amendment is 
adopted.
  What the Senator from New Mexico said is that there is over $80 
million in here for a building that is not ready to be built. They will 
not need the money until next year. Why do we have to put it all in 
this year again? If you put all the money in that, there is no money 
left for legal service.
  When Senator Domenici comes to the floor and says, ``Put a little in 
legal service,'' you have the FBI Academy. I cannot do any better than 
that. My friend from Texas is eloquent in his ability to draw analogies 
and all the other kinds of things that are good in debate, that I do 
not excel at. I am merely here as best I can, stating the facts.
  Now, on another matter, my friend from Texas said we fund this 
program in this bill to the tune of $210 million. Once again, what is 
important about a program is not how much you fund it but how much you 
let it spend.
  The Senator from Texas has $210 million but what you can spend in the 
whole year on lawyers for the poor is $53 million. That is what is 
allowed under this bill.
  Now, having said that, clearly I want to repeat that President 
Richard Nixon was not afraid to say Republicans are concerned about 
poor people. He joined with the bar and said, ``Let us help poor people 
who need lawyers. The American system of justice is built around equal 
representation under the law.''
  This program has gone far afield from Richard Nixon's day. My 
amendment will bring it right back where it should have been, and the 
list of prohibitions have been categorized unfairly by my friend from 
Texas as less strong than in the bill. I will just tick off the 
principle prohibitions. No class action 

[[Page S 14616]]
lawsuits, no advocating of policies relating to redistricting, no 
advocacy-influencing action by any legislation, constitutional 
amendment referendum, no legal services for illegal aliens and on and 
on. I will print the list in the Record again.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Summary: Domenici Legal Services Amendment


                               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)
       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.

  Mr. DOMENICI. We will return this to a slimmed-down legal services 
only representing poor people in their individual cases.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think the record should show not only the leadership 
of Senator Domenici but the leadership on behalf of the Senate here, 
because in essence what we have is Senator Gramm's position is not in 
accordance with the authorization.
  There is no authorization. There have been no hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee to change over and abolish the Legal Services 
Corporation.
  The fact is this Senator was waiting for a markup of this particular 
committee. My distinguished colleague, Senator Gramm, told me 2 or 3 
days before we were due he had one and would submit it to me, and we 
waited those 2 or 3 days, and finally on the afternoon before we 
submitted the next morning I finally called the chairman of the full 
committee, Senator Hatfield, who said he was just getting together with 
Senator Gramm.
  In essence, when we faced this particular markup, the subcommittee 
had not met over it, and when we got to the full committee, the full 
committee said we would take it up on the floor. This is not a 
committee markup being amended. The truth of the matter is the 
amendment of Senator Domenici really brings about the committee into 
its normal course of the treatment in accordance with the 
authorization.
  The fact is if this thing persists under the position of Senator 
Gramm I will have to raise a point of order that it is an appropriation 
for an unauthorized amount, because there is no authorization for the 
block grant program that he conceived in his own mind.
  The U.S. Senate in orderly procedure, in the Judiciary Committee and 
otherwise, has not had a chance to have hearings. This is such an 
outstanding program that has brought civic leadership and 
participation--not just the $400 million that we are appropriating but 
some $255 million that comes from the cities, the counties, the States, 
the American bar and different private groups.
  This has really engendered quite a contribution and an effort of some 
130,000 legal services lawyers paid at an average of around $30,000 a 
year. You are not going to get that in block grants. We worked with the 
block grants before, and to our embarrassment this is a subcommittee 
that finally had to abolish it because it was whitewater rafting and 
monkfish and tanks on the lawn, and airplanes so the Governor could fly 
to New York and everything else but law enforcement.
  I am absolutely opposed to any block grants back to the States. Keep 
the so-called cops on the beat on the one hand and the legal services 
attorneys representing the hungry poor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 3 minutes and 13 
seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me try to sort out the facts from the fiction.
  First of all, there is no authorization for the Legal Services 
Corporation, period; nor has it been authorized since 1980. This is a 
program that Congress has consistently refused to authorize, but every 
year we have appropriated for.
  Now, we are getting a lot of gamesmanship on these numbers because in 
reality the proponents of this amendment want to act as if it is free 
to give $340 million to the Legal Services Corporation. It is not free.
  Under the bill that is before the Senate, we are providing $10 
million less for general legal activities in the Justice Department 
than President Clinton asked for. The Domenici amendment will cut that 
funding $25 million further.
  What does that mean? That means eliminating 200 prosecutors and 
litigators that are prosecuting organized crime, major drug 
traffickers, child pornography, major fraud against the taxpayers, 
terrorism, and espionage cases.
  Now, the question is, you can jimmy the numbers however you want. 
Would you rather spend $25 million prosecuting organized crime, drug 
traffickers, child pornographers, fraud against the taxpayers, 
terrorism, and espionage, or fund a Federal legal services corporation? 
That is the question.
  This bill will provide 55 fewer assistant U.S. attorneys, 55 fewer 
support personnel than the bill that is before the Senate, in order to 
fund the Legal Services Corporation.
  Would you rather have 55 more assistant U.S. attorneys to prosecute 
people selling drugs at every junior high school in America, or would 
you rather fund the Legal Services Corporation?
  Finally, in terms of the FBI, Senator Domenici constantly confuses 
two projects. One, a technical support center which he cuts; but 
another which is the upgrade of the FBI Academy, a project that we do 
have plans for, a project that is desperately needed. In order to fund 
a Federal legal services corporation, the Domenici amendment cuts the 
FBI by $49 million, denies the upgraded facilities at the FBI Academy, 
which is the most important law enforcement training center on the 
planet.
  Now, the question is this: Is it worth it to you to have a Federal 
legal services corporation; and is it worth taking $49 million away 
from the FBI and the FBI Academy to fund it? I think the answer to that 
is no.
  We have in the committee bill a block grant of legal services.
  Our colleagues say you cannot block grant legal services because the 
States will not do it right. Why do we trust them to do aid to families 
with dependent children? Is having the ability to get legal 
representation when you are drug dealing in public housing, to keep 
them from kicking you out, more important than eating? Why do we trust 
them to administer Medicaid? Is getting medical care less important 
than getting a lawyer? I do not think so. 

[[Page S 14617]]

  I think what we are seeing here is a commitment to a program which is 
the most abused program of any program that was developed in the great 
society. Not even the proponents of maintaining the Federal program 
will defend its record.
  I believe this program should be block granted. I believe we should 
not cut law enforcement to fund the Legal Services Corporation.
  Mr. President, under the previous order I move to table the Domenici 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 2819.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 476 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2819) was 
rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What was the vote, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas were 39 and the nays 
60.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Domenici 
amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have 60 votes. I wonder if the 
Senator would consider vitiating the yeas and nays on an up-or-down 
vote?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it had been my determination to continue to 
fight this amendment if it did not have the 60 votes in order to get 
cloture. Needless to say, I am disappointed. I think we are making a 
mistake here, but it is clear to me, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I am never going to be able to eliminate the Legal Services 
Corporation. Since this is my last day as a member of this committee, I 
will allow Senator Domenici to proceed with a voice vote. Having a 
recorded vote, I assume, would produce the same result, would simply 
tie up the Senate's time, and as a result I ask unanimous consent to 
vitiate the requested rollcall vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for his 
gentleness.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate? I wish 
Senators would just stop and look around at what is going on in the 
Senate. There should be order in the Senate. The Senator has a right to 
be heard, and other Senators have a right to understand what he is 
saying.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will desist until the 
Chair gets order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will desist----
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, may we have order?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Until there is order in the Senate. The Chair has the 
responsibility to get order in the Senate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Whether or not it is requested from the floor. And I hope 
Senators will assist the Chair in getting order. This looks like the 
floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will carry their conversations 
outside the Senate.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have nothing to say. Why not vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2819.
  The amendment (No. 2819) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me first indicate that we are making 
progress. I am not certain where, but somewhere we must be making 
progress. It is still our hope we might be able to complete business 
sometime tomorrow or Monday. We are still in the Finance Committee. We 
have 40 or 50 amendments left in the Finance Committee to deal with. I 
do not see how we are going to do all that today.
  In addition, one urgent thing we need to address is the continuing 
resolution because we have about 435 House Members who would like to 
depart and they cannot do that until we pass the continuing resolution. 
I am advised by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Gregg], that he 
intends to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment with reference to 
Bosnia on the continuing resolution once it is before the Senate.
  It is our hope, if it is necessary to offer that amendment, it can be 
offered on the State-Justice-Commerce bill. And also to notify the 
Senator from Texas his last day on the Appropriations Committee is when 
we finish this bill. So if the Senator is in a hurry to leave, why, we 
hope he will cooperate in any event.
  So I do not know precisely what to do here. I would like to expedite 
this and everybody be able to go home tonight and not come back for 8 
days. But to do that we have to make some accommodations one way or the 
other. And we would like to pass the pending bill yet today. Senator 
Hatfield is insisting we pass the Labor-HHS appropriations bill so all 
the appropriations bills and the CR will have passed the Senate. This 
does not mean they are not going to be vetoed. They may not get to 
conference.
  So if the Democratic leader has any suggestions, I will be happy to 
hear them.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to propound the unanimous-consent request 
on the CR. I think we are prepared to enter into that arrangement. And 
I would like to work through the remaining amendments on Commerce, 
State, Justice. I think we have come to the point where we might be 
able to put most amendments in a package and dispose of that bill. And 
if we could work out some understanding of Labor, HHS, I think we could 
even do a voice vote on that one. So we are prepared to cooperate. And 
I think the first step would be the passage of the UC on the CR.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the leader entertain a question?
  Mr. DOLE. I will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. It had been my original intention to offer this amendment, 


[[Page S 14618]]
which simply states what I believe is the administration's policy, 
which is they should come to the Congress before they introduce 25,000 
American troops into Bosnia. I do think it our legitimate right as 
Congress to request that they do come to the Congress before that 
occurs.
  It had been my intention to put this amendment on the continuing 
resolution, and put it on as a matter of law, raising that point. Now I 
have agreed to move to a sense-of-the-Senate, which is a fairly 
significant reduction of position on my part.
  Second, I even agreed to put it on the Commerce bill, which was an 
even more significant reduction on my part. What I am not getting is 
any cooperation on this from the other side for a time agreement. 
Basically, I am told there will be no agreement on a time agreement on 
this.
  Now, I can get this up now by putting it on the continuing 
resolution, which I think would be very appropriate. I think the House 
should have a chance to act on this before they go home for a week and 
we might find American troops moved into Bosnia while we are away.
  But, as a practical matter, I am not willing to take that position if 
we can get a vote on this today before we adjourn and before we get too 
far into any further consideration of the Commerce bill, as I would 
have had the opportunity to have such a vote had I put it on the 
continuing resolution.
  I do not feel this is being unreasonable. I think it is being very 
reasonable in the light of the timeframe here and in an attempt to work 
with leadership.
  Mr. DOLE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I understand the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, 
indicated a willingness to sit down with the Senator from New Hampshire 
to try to work out some language that could be supported. I do not have 
any idea what he has in mind. Maybe it is precisely what the Senator 
from New Hampshire already has.
  Does Senator Nunn have a copy of your resolution?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, he does. We would like to work with it in view of the 
White House. It is basically language that already existed in another 
piece of legislation that I believe came through this body.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not know why that language would 
have to be offered on this legislation. It is not germane to the 
Justice-State-Commerce bill. It is not germane to the CR.
  We are willing to try to accommodate the Senator if we can have some 
time to look at the language and find out whether this is in keeping 
with past precedent. We want to be sure that we are not cutting new 
ground here. And I think perhaps over a period of time we might be able 
to resolve this matter.
  We cannot do it now. There is no way we can agree to any time 
agreement until many of us have had a chance to look at it. So it will 
probably be some time prior to the time we can give any assurance to 
the Senator from New Hampshire. But we will certainly look at it and 
see if there is a way to do it in spite of the fact we do not think it 
belongs on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. GREGG. If I may respond to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. It is clearly germane because it is in terms of spending 
money for purposes of introducing troops into Bosnia. Now, that is 
clearly germane to a continuing resolution which involves spending 
money. And it is clearly topical and timely in light of the rather 
intense discussion that is going on about moving American troops into 
Bosnia. It does seem appropriate that this body should speak on that 
issue before it occurs.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Let me first yield to the Senator from South Carolina, 
seeking recognition. I know it is for an accommodation.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, the reappointment of General 
Shalikashvili we will take up this afternoon, that nomination, in order 
for him to continue in office. It will not take over 10 minutes, I do 
not think. I just wanted to remind everyone we will have to take it up.
  Mr. DOLE. We will take it up before we recess because it is important 
and should be done.
  I will be happy to yield to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, who would like us to complete action on these two bills.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the leader.
  Let me just reiterate the procedure we are in at this moment on these 
two appropriations bills.
  To put it very bluntly, these are corpses, and all the prayers and 
all the amendments that you can pray or offer are not going to change 
the reality that these two bills have been clearly identified as two 
bills to be vetoed. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the wasted 
effort that is going on on the floor and for the last 48 hours in 
trying to revive a corpse. It just does not happen this way. It only 
happened once. [Laughter.]
  So consequently, it seems to me, if we could voice vote these two 
bills out, move the process with the CR, the reality is the White House 
and the Members of Congress, the Budget Committee people, the 
Appropriations Committee people, are going to have to revisit Defense; 
Labor-HHS; State, Justice, and Commerce; HUD and independent agencies; 
and possibly, although the House has now rereferred the bill back to 
committee, the report on the Interior. Those are veto bills.
  Now, we are going to have to find more money. It is not a simple 
proposition to satisfy the White House on those three nondefense bills. 
So I say, for one who cannot get a plane reservation on a moment's 
notice like some can--I do have to go clear to the west coast--and my 
colleagues like me, we cannot just find an hour and say, well, we are 
going to be finished in the next hour, and get a reservation. So have 
some consideration, please, on that basis as well, the personal basis.
  But I just want to say--there is no more blunt way I can put it--we 
are wasting our time on these two appropriations bills.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. First of all, I am very responsive to the Senator's 
personal plea. It strikes me this may be in the way of being an autopsy 
in order to find out why these bills are corpses, and that is the 
process we are engaged in, trying to discover what it is about these 
bills that made them corpses.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I could tell you simply, in conjunction with 
discussions with people at the White House and people representing the 
White House position, we did not have enough nondefense discretionary 
dollars for the 602(b) allocations. We had cut too much out of our 
budget resolution of the program needs and the priorities of the White 
House, the dollars necessary to get their signature to these bills.
   Mr. DOLE. As I understand it now, based on conversations with people 
I have confidence in at the White House, the President will not sign 
these two bills. They are essentially dead. And I would like to remove 
them from the Senate Chamber for last rites.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I think everybody here is extremely sympathetic to the 
majority leader's problem in trying to get these bills passed and to 
get us out of here for a recess that everybody is looking forward to. 
Now, the chairman of the committee has just said that these bills are 
dead on arrival at the White House.
  But here is the problem I have with that, and in not offering a 
couple of amendments I feel very strongly about. The President, like 
every Member of the Senate, reserves the right to change his mind. One 
of the prime objections he had to this bill was legal services, 
torpedoing the Legal Services Corporation. We have just taken a giant 
step toward satisfying one of the objections the President had to this 
bill.
  If we legislate in a diligent way here, we might address a couple of 
others, and he might sign it. If I do not offer my amendments and the 
President does sign the bill, I am out until 1996, as is every other 
Senator here. I want to be as cooperative as possible. I have a couple 
of amendments. I think one will be accepted; I will agree to a short 
time agreement on the other. But I am reluctant to quit or to withdraw 
my amendments or not offer them on the proposition that the President 
is going 

[[Page S 14619]]
to veto all of them because, as I say, he may change his mind.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. DOLE. My understanding is he will not change his mind, but I will 
be happy to yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, unless there is a resurrection that occurs 
here, talking in metaphorical terms, there is no possibility that the 
President will sign the bill with your amendment in it or not--zero, 
none, no possibility. I have been told that by the White House. There 
is not enough money, there is not enough time, there is not enough 
ingenuity and enough anything to make this bill palatable to the 
President, in just talking about the criminal justice side of things.
  So I think the majority leader is absolutely, positively correct. I 
think we should do a managers' amendment on a few of the major chunks 
of the bill and get on with the show. This really is an exercise in 
futility.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the leader for yielding. I just discussed with 
the chairman of our Labor-HHS committee, Senator Specter, and consulted 
with our side and on Labor-HHS, with the knocking out of that one 
provision--and we all know what that is--we can voice vote that in the 
next 3 minutes. We would be willing to do that. I checked with Senator 
Specter, and I believe I am representing him correctly.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the majority leader. I consulted with the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, who said that he 
would be willing to, at least speaking for himself, withdraw the 
amendment on striker replacement, which would set the stage for a voice 
vote. And here we are dealing again with a corpse that is a pro forma 
matter.
  It seems to me what the distinguished majority leader has said is 
preeminently correct, backed up by almost everybody, that we ought to 
voice vote these two bills and move on to the continuing resolution and 
conclude our business.
  For the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, we 
are prepared to move in that direction right now.
  Mr. COATS. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate first, I think what we are engaged in--and 
I do not quarrel with anybody, I talked with the leader about it, and 
we do waste time periodically in the Senate--but this is a total waste 
of time to continue on these two bills because they are not going 
anywhere.
  I know some want to make a point. We are going to have to do that in 
about 6 weeks when we have a real live bill on the floor. I do not see 
any reason to take today, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday of next week to 
finish two bills that are already in the ash can. If people insist on 
it, we can accommodate them.
  I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa 
that we ought to pass that bill on a voice vote. We cannot get cloture. 
There were two votes, 54-46, party-line votes. So my view is we ought 
to do it, pass it and find out what happens after the veto in the next 
round.
  I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to just see if I understand 
the situation here. It seems that the coroner has pronounced these two 
bills dead, and we all wanted to look at the body and we have all 
concluded that they are dead, or most of us have concluded that they 
are dead.
  In that light, it is hard for me to understand why the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire is something that 
needs to be delayed. He feels, as a matter of law--and I daresay that 
would be supported by a strong majority of people on both sides of the 
aisle--that the President ought to seek congressional authorization for 
putting 25,000 American troops in Bosnia, something the President has 
already indicated he wants to do.
  But the Senator from New Hampshire has said he will not offer that as 
a matter of law, nor will he offer it on the continuing resolution, 
which is a bill which is not dead and will go through here. He will put 
it on a bill that we have all agreed is going nowhere, and yet 
objection is raised to the Senator doing that, that the bill has to be 
examined.
  It is a sense of the Senate and something we have already voted on. 
It is being put on a bill that we have all agreed is going nowhere. The 
President has already signified his support for the notion, but the 
Senator is not allowed to go forward with it.
  Can anybody explain to me why we now need to delay to examine 
something that is going nowhere?
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield, I think there is discussion 
right now with someone on the other side at least to look at the 
language to see if they can reach some agreement. I think Senator Nunn 
has a copy of the resolution. Hopefully, we can work it out in a few 
moments.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the leader.
  Mr. DOLE. But I am not going anywhere this weekend, so I do not care.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the leader yield for an observation? It will take 
little time. I think the discussion we have been having is a good one. 
But I do not think the White House ought to gather from this discussion 
that the U.S. Senate is ready to give them more money on the domestic 
side for these bills. That is not a foregone conclusion. We would be 
breaking the budget we worked very hard to pass.
  I just want to make sure everybody knows that there is no easy 
solution to the bills the President vetoes. That is his prerogative. 
But obviously, sooner or later, we have some prerogatives, like maybe 
we do not get a bill and maybe something happens; maybe Government is 
not alive and kicking all at the same time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire and then the 
Senator from Massachusetts. Then I hope we can work out some agreement 
on the CR and pass the other bill, and then we only have one left.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I just ask the leader, it would be the 
intention, after the President vetoes this bill, that we would have the 
opportunity to debate and vote on the various issues of concern that 
some Members have regarding this bill; is that his intention?
  Mr. DOLE. Is the Senator talking about the Labor-HHS bill?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there are three provisions we are both 
concerned about that were stripped from the bill, and the answer is 
yes. My point is we can make that fight now, but it is not going to 
accomplish anything. We can make the fight the next time around, and I 
think it is for real.
  So the answer is yes, and I support the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator for that clarification.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think that the Senator from New Hampshire 
has made a very fair downscaling of a request. What I want to suggest, 
I ask the leader, is if we can take a few minutes to see if we can try 
to come to some agreement with respect to language that might be able 
to expedite the process, and then conceivably have a managers' 
amendment and a vote up or down. That might be able to expedite it. I 
wonder if it might be possible to take the time to do that.
  Mr. DOLE. Are you talking about State, Justice, Commerce?
  Mr. KERRY. State, Justice, Commerce, and with respect to the State 
portion of that, if we can spend a minute on the Bosnia issue, we might 
be able to resolve that, hopefully, with Senator Nunn and other 
interested parties and come up with language quickly on which we can 
move forward.
  Mr. DOLE. I certainly have no problem with that. Let me indicate, I 
am not going to ask consent now on the continuing resolution. There 
will be an objection or an amendment. I hope we can resolve it. There 
is not an amendment on the CR. A sense of the Senate would not require 
concurrence by the 

[[Page S 14620]]
House. But I hope we can pass a clean CR. We promised our colleagues in 
the House we would try to do that if they do that, because they had 
people who wanted to offer amendments, too, and they were not permitted 
on the House side, and they have different rules.
  I will not make that request at this time. I hope in the meantime 
those Senators who have an interest in the Bosnia resolution can come 
together and work out some language. It cannot be that difficult. We 
passed it before, and the President has indicated to us today at the 
White House he intends to consult with Congress.
  So I think it is a fairly moot point, but if we want to vote on a 
moot point, we have done that from time to time here, too. So I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Currently the majority leader has the floor. 
He has just yielded the floor. The Biden amendment is pending.


                Amendment No. 2818, As Further Modified

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think the Biden amendment is pending. I 
already debated the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be able 
to amend my amendment. The managers are aware of the amendment. It 
relates to a $60 million offset--not offset--$60 million offset to 
accommodate the Senator from Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that I be 
able to so amend my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am ready to vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the modification to the 
desk?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes, I will.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Delaware 
yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield.
  Mr. LOTT. The manager of the bill is not on the floor right now. I 
wonder, has the Senator had an opportunity to discuss and clear this 
with the manager of the bill?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I beg the Senator's pardon?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am just inquiring about the manager of the 
bill. Has the Senator had an opportunity to discuss it with the 
manager?
  Mr. BIDEN. I have a second issue. I do not want to confuse the 
Senator. There are two amendments: One, the Biden amendment referred to 
earlier was debated yesterday. That amendment has a number of offsets 
in it which we discussed for 2 hours yesterday. That is the one I just 
amended to accommodate a DeWine proposal.
  There is a second issue here and that is a managers' amendment going 
to the funding in this bill for the police program.
  I have reached an agreement, to the best of my knowledge, with the 
Senator from Kansas, with the Senator from Texas, the manager of the 
bill, and with the Senator from South Carolina. I have that agreed upon 
language between the manager and the parties I suggested. That goes to 
another big chunk of the difference of the debate. All that relates to 
is, one sentence --it takes out the block grant language for the police 
and reinstates the original language. That is a separate issue than the 
Biden amendment. I am not sure if I am answering the Senator's 
question. If that is the answer, I am prepared to move that amendment 
right now. That is, the so-called managers amendment and ask for a 
voice vote on it.
  I am not looking for a rollcall vote because we have all agreed as of 
at least 10 minutes ago. Does that answer the question of the Senator 
from Mississippi?
  Mr. LOTT. I think it does. Let me inquire, Mr. President, so the 
pending business then is a modification of the managers' amendment, is 
that correct?
  Mr. BIDEN. A modification of the Biden amendment, which is the 
pending business. The Biden amendment, which was introduced and debated 
for an hour and a half yesterday, relates to the drug courts, relates 
to drug treatment in prisons and to boot camps. The modification I am 
sending to the desk is a modification of Mr. DeWine in the Biden 
amendment which, in a nutshell, I will explain to my colleagues. In the 
terrorism bill that passed the Senate, Senator DeWine----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We need to have the modification sent to the 
desk.
  Mr. BIDEN. I send the modification to the desk.
  The amendment (No. 2818), as further modified, 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; $10,000,000 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, 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 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.
       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec.     . (a) State Compatibility With Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation Systems.--(1) The Attorney General shall make 
     funds available to the chief executive officer of each State 
     to carry out the activities described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Uses.--The executive officer of each State shall use 
     the funds made available under this subsection in conjunction 
     with units of local government, other States, or combinations 
     thereof, to carry out all or part of a program to establish, 
     develop, update, or upgrade--
       (A) computerized identification systems that are compatible 
     and integrated with the databases of the National Crime 
     Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (B) ballistics identification programs that are compatible 
     and integrated with the Drugfire Program of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation;
       (C) the capability to analyze deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 
     in a forensic laboratory in ways that are compatible and 
     integrated with the combined DNA Identification System 
     (CODIS) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
       (D) automated fingerprint identification systems that are 
     compatible and integrated with the Integrated Automated 
     Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall require that each person 
     convicted of a felony of a sexual nature shall provide a 
     sample of blood, saliva, or other specimen necessary to 
     conduct a DNA analysis consistent with the standards 
     established for DNA testing by the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation.
       (c) Interstate Compacts.--A State may enter into a compact 
     or compacts with another State or States to carry out this 
     section.
       (d) Allocation.--The Attorney General shall allocate the 
     funds appropriated under subsection (e) to each State based 
     on the following formula:
       (1) .25 percent shall be allocated to each of the 
     participating States.
       (2) Of the total funds remaining after the allocation under 
     paragraph (1), each State shall be allocated an amount that 
     bears the same ratio to the amount of such funds as the 
     population of such State bears to the population of all 
     States.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby 
     appropriated to carry out this section $60,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1996.

  Mr. BIDEN. This is a modification being proposed at the request of 
Senator DeWine. When the terrorism bill passed several months ago, 
Senator DeWine, with the unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate, 
authorized a technical assistance program for the FBI to upgrade their 
computers and a number 

[[Page S 14621]]
of other things, a technical upgrade for the FBI. Senator DeWine has 
come to me and asked me whether I would be willing to include not the 
full funding of that amount, but $60 million as opposed to the $200 
million that was authorized. I am more than happy to do that.
  The offset for that is the money that, quite frankly, has been saved 
as a consequence of the adoption of the amendment by the Senator from 
New Mexico relating to Legal Services. So it does not require an 
offset. It has been agreed to by Senator Hollings--agreed to in the 
sense that I am able to modify this amendment, and I believe it has 
been agreed to by the majority to modify it.
  I am asking to be able to modify my amendment, which is pending, with 
the DeWine language that I have sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for 5 minutes for consideration of a Brown 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I cannot grant a unanimous-
consent until I have seen the amendment and know what we are doing. I 
do not mind it being brought up if the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska is willing to step aside, but I cannot agree to a time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute to describe the amendment that I would like the body to 
consider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, many Members will be surprised to learn 
that we have a different standard for legal conduct that is written 
into the Legal Services Corporation Act than exists in our law.
  Under our law, under rule 11, we permit sanctions in the event an 
attorney engages in bringing frivolous actions and the sanctions are 
discretionary in rule 11. Nevertheless, there is at least some 
potential penalty if someone abuses the legal process.
  Under the Legal Services Corporation statute, however, Legal Services 
is responsible for their action on a much more limited area that 
involves very, very extreme action. My hope is the body would consider 
an amendment that simply brings the Legal Services standards into line 
with what we impose on every other attorney, that we would put Legal 
Services under exactly the same standards as any other person who 
appears in person.
  It is one that I think merits the consideration. I assume I would 
have the support of all Members. It would be my hope the body would 
allow it to be considered while we are awaiting further action.
  Having given that brief explanation, I have given copies of this 
amendment to both sides. I renew my request in asking unanimous consent 
to set aside the pending question for 5 minutes only for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERREY. I object.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. KERREY. 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. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill, my 
amendment is the amendment after Senator Biden. I am willing to go 
immediately to it and ask unanimous consent that the Biden amendment be 
set aside for consideration.
  Mr. GRAMM. I object.
  What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the modified Biden 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. And the Biden amendment has been modified?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAMM. If there is no debate, I am ready to move to table the 
Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question----
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Biden amendment 
2818 as modified.
  Mr. BIDEN. As modified by Senator DeWine?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I personally do not object to the 
modification, but it was my understanding that there had been an 
objection on our side and that it had not been modified.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair granted that request previously. 
That request can be vitiated.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would like to not have it vitiated if it had been agreed 
to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. So that we can get things moving, why do you not go ahead 
and start debating the amendment. Let me notify the Senator who thought 
he had objected that the unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and 
if he wants to do something about it, he should come over.
  In the meantime, we will begin the business.
  Mr. BIDEN. I do not have an objection to that.
  Let me review quickly, and hopefully this will take just a moment. We 
debated this amendment at length yesterday, although I have the right 
to continue to debate it unless there is a motion to table. I do not 
want to take more time on the part of the Senate.
  Let me just briefly, very briefly, explain what this amendment does. 
First, it reinstates two-thirds of the money for drug courts, mandatory 
drug testing, drug treatment backed up by certain punishment for 55,000 
offenders now on probation. They would all be put into this program. It 
provides for two-thirds of the funding that we originally agreed to.
  The second thing it does is allow States to continue to have the 
option to have drug treatment in their prisons. We are not talking 
about drug treatment for people out on the street; we are talking about 
treatment for people in prisons, administered by States in prisons.
  The third thing it does, it reinstates the money--$10 million--for 
rural drug enforcement. That function was zeroed out. Again, I will not 
go into all the arguments, but yesterday we spent a lot of time and I 
pointed out that the violent crime rate and the drug problem in rural 
America is increasing at a faster rate than it is in urban America.
  Every single, solitary Governor that I am aware of, every single, 
solitary local official that I am aware of, has said on drug matters, 
in rural areas, we need help. When you have a 2- or 3-person or 10-
person police force facing what is happening, particularly in the 
Midwest, in the Rocky Mountain West, where drug gangs are moving to 
those rural areas setting up methamphetamine labs, they say they need 
help.
  This allows the control of the cooperation between Federal and local 
law enforcement officers to drug enforcement. It also reinstates what I 
think may have been unintentionally taken out of bill; that is, $1.2 
million for law enforcement family support. What that is all about is 
funds to support families who have had their loved ones slain as peace 
officers. That is, cops who are killed, their families, their husbands, 
wives, children.
  They, in fact, are involved in and have made available the counseling 
for families killed in the line of duty, post-shooting debriefings for 
officers and 

[[Page S 14622]]
their spouses and marital support groups that relate to the outcome of 
what happens when an officer is killed and/or wounded. Many have 
attended along with me every year the police memorial. Every year we 
honor slain officers that are killed that year. Every year the families 
line up and are greeted by the President and me and others who are 
there--Senator Thurmond. Every year immediately after that occurs, they 
all get on a bus and they go to these counseling services for 2 days.
  If you speak to the families of those officers, slain officers, you 
will find they say it is the single most important thing the Government 
does for them, the single most important thing for them to cope with 
this tragedy.
  The last piece of this amendment is $60 million for technology grants 
to the FBI.
  Those technology grants to the FBI are moneys that allow the FBI to 
upgrade all of their, what the average person would say is their very 
sophisticated technology capabilities and facilities. Frankly, they 
could use $200 million, which the distinguished Senator from Ohio put 
in the terrorism bill for them. But that has been stalled. The only 
reason we are going with only $60 million is so we do not have to go 
out and seek offsets to get this money. The offsets to pay for the 
entirety of this amendment come from reducing the State prison money 
from $750 million in this bill to $729 million. The House bill only has 
$500 million in it. The President only requested $500 million. And the 
second piece comes from increasing the fees related to acquisition of 
green cards. So, there are the offsets.
  Senator Bond and Senator Specter and a number of my Republican 
friends, including Senator DeWine, have spoken to pieces of this 
amendment. Again, the only reason I am continuing to speak is, not 
because I like to hear my voice and not because it needs further 
explanation, it is because I am told we are waiting to determine 
whether or not the modification will be accepted.
  If it was accepted--I think it is important we all exercise comity 
here--if, in fact, the DeWine amendment that I sent as an amendment to 
the Biden amendment was accepted and it was accepted without the 
knowledge of one of my Republican colleagues, I will not insist that be 
done. I would withdraw the modification because I do not want to catch 
anyone unawares here. But maybe my friend from Texas has been able to 
find out whether or not the modification, including the DeWine 
provision, is acceptable, whether I have unanimous consent to modify my 
own amendment to that extent.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. The modification is certainly acceptable to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to withdraw his motion 
to table?
  Mr. GRAMM. I withdraw the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think Senator Hatch is coming over to 
debate this amendment. What I suggest is that we set this amendment 
aside and that we take up the Kerrey amendment. I think we can make 
arguments on both sides very briefly, and then we can have a vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection to that, Mr. President. That is fine 
with me.


                           Amendment No. 2817

  Mr. GRAMM. I think having that vote and getting everybody over here 
will move us in the right direction.
  So I ask unanimous consent the Biden amendment be temporarily set 
aside and that the Kerrey amendment be the pending business. I ask 
unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided on 
the Kerrey amendment, to be controlled by Senator Kerrey and by myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2817, As Modified

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a 
modification, I say to the Senator from Texas, to my amendment. Let me 
send a copy of it over to him.
  Essentially the modification enables me to strike the offset, as a 
consequence of the Domenici amendment. He was going to take an offset 
that I originally identified, and that was dropped. As a consequence of 
that, I no longer need an offset, I am told by staff on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I also ask, as part of that unanimous consent, that Senator Daschle 
and Senator Jeffords be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the modification to the 
desk?
  Mr. KERREY. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I did not 
hear the motion. I am sorry.
  Mr. KERREY. The unanimous consent request is to modify the 
amendment--I sent the modification to the desk--and to add Senator 
Daschle and Senator Jeffords as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply like to add to that that there be no amendment in order as a 
second-degree amendment to the Kerrey amendment--so we are sure we are 
going to go to a vote--prior to a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2817), as modified, is as follows:
       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, $18,900,000, 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 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: 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. Mr. President, the modification basically was done as a 
consequence of really not needing an offset now, as I explained 
earlier, from the Domenici amendment. Staff informs me the $18.9 
million we are adding back is available in the bill.
  This is a very straightforward amendment. This program, in 1994, had 
90-some individual community organizations that filed applications. 
They match two for one.
  I ask unanimous consent a letter from many, many community-based 
organizations who have indicated they support this amendment, be 
printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               September 28, 1995.
       Dear Senator: We write on behalf of a diverse coalition of 
     education, library, arts, disability, civil liberties, trade 
     unions and other civic organizations to urge you to vote for 
     the Amendment to restore $18.9 million of funding for the 
     Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance 
     Program (TIIAP) to be offered by Senators Bob Kerrey (D-NE), 
     Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and others, with bipartisan support, to 
     the Senate Appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, State, 
     and the Judiciary (H.R. 2076).
       TIIAP, a program administered by the National 
     Telecommunications and Information (NTIA), matches private 
     contributions with government funds to promote the 
     development and widespread availability of advanced 
     telecommunications technologies. Through TIIAP projects, 
     people who may not otherwise have the means or opportunity--
     like citizens in rural and low income areas 

[[Page S 14623]]
     and citizens with disabilities--are able to tap into the wealth of 
     information that is accessible via advanced 
     telecommunications technologies. TIIAP dollars are used to 
     purchase equipment for connection to communications networks 
     such as the Internet, train people in the use of equipment 
     and software, and to purchase telephone links and access to 
     commercial on-line services.
       Resouces such as the Internet play an increasing role in 
     many facets of the lives of all Americans. Schoolchildren are 
     able to benefit from a wealth of educational information not 
     otherwise available to them. Citizens are able to engage in 
     an active discussion of public issues. And Americans in rural 
     areas are able to access health care-related and other 
     important information without having to travel far distances. 
     To fully realize the benefits of advanced technologies, 
     however, every American must have the opportunity to access 
     these resources. TIIAP-funded support helps to realize this 
     goal by extending advanced telecommunications capabilities, 
     in conjunction with the private sector, to people and places 
     that would otherwise be left out.
       Recipients of the grants have included local governments, 
     universities, schools, and libraries. Listed below are just a 
     few examples of how TIIAP has helped these groups utilize 
     telecommunications systems for education, community 
     development and ultimately for economic empowerment:
       The University of Oregon, along with fifteen other 
     educational, governmental, health care, community and 
     industrial partners, have received funds for equipment 
     necessary to complete construction of the Lane Education 
     Network. This Network will be fully accessible by the 
     community, and will be the conduit for such educational 
     programs as network mentoring among high schools and on-
     line training.
       In West Virginia, TIIAP funds served to help complete a 
     computer network infrastructure at the College of Human 
     Resources and Education at West Virginia University. This 
     network would both provide the Professional Development 
     Schools with access to the Internet, as well as allow the 
     College of Human Resources to provide information via the 
     Internet on professional development for teachers.
       In Montana, TIIAP funds have enabled the Hall Elementary 
     School District to install the town's first Internet 
     connection in the school building which will give the entire 
     town and the students access to Montana statewide 
     information, as well as national services.
       In a time of significant budget cutting, TIIAP provides the 
     seeds to help forge partnerships with the private sector to 
     ensure that telecommunications technologies live up to their 
     potential to enhance education, library services, health 
     care, community services, civic participation and much more. 
     The TIIAP is a modest program which can contribute 
     significantly to the development of a truly National 
     Information Infrastructure.
       We urge you to support the Kerry/Snowe Amendment to H.R. 
     2076 and restore partial funding to the TIIAP program for 
     fiscal year 1996.
           Very truly yours,
       AFL/CIO Department for Professional Employees.
       Alliance for Community Media.
       Alliance for Public Technology.
       American Arts Alliance.
       American Association of Community Colleges.
       American Association of Law Libraries.
       American Association of School Administrators.
       American Association of School Libraries.
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       American Library Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
       Association of Art Museum Directors
       Association of Research Libraries.
       Berinstein Research.
       Catalyst Project.
       Center for Democracy & Technology.
       Center for Information, Technology & Society.
       Center for Media Education.
       Civic Access, Bellingham Washington.
       Communications Workers of America.
       Computing Research Association.
       Consortium for School Networking.
       Consortium of Distance Education.
       Consumer Interest Research Institute.
       Council for Advancement and Support of Education.
       Council for American Private Education.
       Council of the Great City Schools.
       Davis Community Network.
       Davis Community Television.
       Delaware Association of Non Profit Agencies.
       Delaware Service Provider Network/Diamond Net.
       Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE).
       Educational Teleconsortium of Michigan.
       Florida Community College Television Consortium.
       Higher Education Telecommunications Association of 
     Oklahoma.
       Independent Sector.
       Instructional Telecommunications Council.
       Instructional Telecommunications Foundation.
       International Society for Technology in Education.
       Intelecom Maryland College of the Air Teleconsortium.
       International Telecomputing Consortium.
       Learning and Information Networking for Community 
     Telecomputing (LINCT) Coalition.
       Libraries of the Future.
       Media Access Project.
       Media Consortium--Media Democracy in Action.
       Museum Computer Network.
       National Association of Independent Schools.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals.
       National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
     Colleges.
       National Association of State Arts Agencies.
       National Campaign for Free Expression.
       National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of 
     History.
       National Education Association.
       National Federation of Community Broadcasters.
       National School Boards Association.
       National Writers' Union (UAW Local 1981)
       NILRC--A Consortium of Midwestern Community Colleges & 
     Universities.
       OMB Watch.
       Oregon Community College Telecommunications Consortium.
       Organizations Concerned about Rural Education.
       People For the American Way Action Fund.
       Playing to Win Network.
       Public Service Telecommunications Corporation.
       Texas Consortium for Educational Telecommunications.
       United Cerebral Palsy Association.
       United Church of Christ, Office of Communication.
       United Way of Delaware.
       Urban Libraries Council.
       Western Consortium for Distance Education.
       World Institute on Disability.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this particular program is a very small 
program. It has strong support from the Republican leadership in the 
House. There is $40 million in the bill on the House side. It does 
enable us to expand not only educational opportunities in 
telecommunications, but it empowers local communities to be able to 
create jobs and, as I said, create an understanding of how this 
telecommunications technology can be used in a variety of different 
ways. There are lots of organizations that have used it, educational 
institutions K-12, and universities.
  I hope my colleagues will be able to support the amendment. It has a 
very simple, straightforward purpose. It is consistent with the 
essential message we have been trying, I believe successfully, to use, 
which is we are trying to empower people at the local level, shifting 
power away from the Federal Government.
  I think it is a program, thus far at least, that has proven its 
merit, and it needs to be continued.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the argument against this amendment is very 
simple. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
is not, nor has it ever been, authorized. There is no offset in this 
amendment because it is picking up excessive authority under another 
amendment. I think, in terms of the budget that we face in this bill, 
this is not something we ought to be spending money on. As a result I 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator from Maine 
wants to speak on this amendment. I will be pleased to yield time. If I 
may take just an additional 30 seconds, there is not a need for an 
offset with this amendment. As a consequence of the Domenici amendment, 
an offset is not needed. That is what my modification did, was to 
strike it.
  His is a straightforward argument against this amendment. It can only 
be made on the basis the Senator from Texas used, that this is a 
program that Members do not want to fund and do not support.
  As I said, it has very strong support from a wide variety of 
community organizations that matched the Federal dollars, used the 
Federal dollars two to one. I think this program not only deserves to 
be supported, but has very strong support from the Republican 
leadership on the House side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Senator 
from Nebraska's amendment to restore funding for the Telecommunications 
Information and Infrastructure Administration 

[[Page S 14624]]
Program [TIIAP]. This amendment is fully offset.
  In today's world of innovative telecommunications, this program helps 
us meet the demands of keeping up with this constant change. TIIAP 
develops partnerships with local governments, schools, hospitals, 
libraries, and the business community to increase access to advanced 
information and communications infrastructure. These partnerships will 
be the key to our educational and economic success in the remainder of 
this decade and into the next millennium.
  Unfortunately, this bill terminates TIIAP. Some are trying to abolish 
this program to claim they have ended an unnecessary, big-government 
program. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  TIIAP is more than necessary in today's world. It is essential. The 
world has shrunk because of advances in telecommunications. Today, 
Americans do not just compete with each other, they compete with 
Japanese, Germans, New Zealanders, and the other citizens of our global 
economy. To meet the demands of this new global economy, we must 
develop and maintain world-class telecommunications networks and 
infrastructure.
  Moreover, TIIAP is not big government. Because of its Federal seed 
money, private companies and public players have come together to form 
community-based projects. Each project must have at least 50 percent 
matching funds from the private sector. This requirement had led to 
innovative networks with groups that have never worked together before. 
There is no Government redtape restricting these partnerships. Instead, 
Government seed money is making these partnerships happen.
  Let me describe just a few of these innovative partnerships from 
around the country that have gotten off the ground because of TIIAP's 
help:
  The State of Alaska, the University of Alaska, the K-12 educational 
system, public broadcasting, and the library community are working 
together to integrate networks that will result in 81 percent of 
Alaskans having non-toll access to an education-government-library 
network;
  In South Dakota, 47 rural schools are working together to combine 
forces to provide distance learning programs;
  Youth service organizations in New Haven, CT, and East Palo, CA, are 
working together to link teenagers in the two cities to keep them off 
their streets and in their schools;
  Schoolchildren right here in the District of Columbia are studying 
together on virtual visits to museums in New York by using two-way 
video and teleconferencing technology;
  In my home State, the citizens of Fairfax, VT are working together to 
develop an electronic bulletin board so this small, rural community can 
share information on the Internet; and
  Physicians from big city medical centers in North Carolina are 
working together with rural hospitals to provide video 
teleconsultations and diagnostic images for emergency care.
  TIIAP is about finding new ways to learn, to practice better 
medicine, and to share information. It spurs the growth of networks and 
infrastructure in many different fields of telecommunications with only 
a small Federal investment. It is essential and innovative.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kerrey's 
amendment to restore this vital program.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 4 minutes 16 
seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me remind my colleagues where we are. There may very 
well be the votes on this amendment, but I am still going to oppose it, 
and let me tell you why.
  First of all, we passed a budget that contemplated the elimination of 
the Commerce Department. We have passed a bill out of committee that 
calls for the elimination of the Commerce Department. We have a budget 
that sets out, over a 7-year period, a plan which would achieve a 
balanced budget by cutting spending, and possibly by eliminating the 
Commerce Department. Given these facts, we have set out in this bill a 
procedure to eliminate the Commerce Department.
  We are now talking about providing funding for a program that has 
never been authorized and that represents the Government, basically, 
being involved in the whole area where we have the largest private 
investment, in history, underway. So this is basically an issue as to 
what is the role of Government and what do we mean when we write a 
budget which says that we are going to eliminate a department. When we 
set out on a program to balance the budget, and we count on savings 
from eliminating a department, are we serious or are we not?
  I believe that if you are serious about reducing funding for the 
Commerce Department, and if you are serious about eliminating this 
Department, then you cannot be serious about supporting funding for the 
National Telecommunications Information Administration.
  This was one of the hard choices we had to make in committee, and it 
seems to me that it was the correct choice. I do not want to go back on 
that choice.
  So when the Senator finishes his debate time, I will yield my time 
and move to table.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one quick point, and then I will yield 
whatever time the Senator from Maine wants to take, and we will finish.
  There is already in this bill a continuation of this program with $3 
million for salaries and expenses. This money provides restoration to 
the grants.
  I yield whatever time is left to the distinguished Senator from 
Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. How much time is left, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 2 minutes and 24 
seconds.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the Senator 
from Nebraska on this amendment because I do think it is very, very 
important that we do everything that we can as a Government to support 
the communities, public school systems, and our health care systems in 
joining the information superhighway.
  Frankly, I believe that the grants provided to local communities, 
States, and public entities by the Telecommunications and Information 
Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP] play a very important role in 
enabling these public entities to do everything they can to help serve 
their communities with advanced technology.
  As I said during the telecommunications debate when we are reforming 
that area of our policy, one of the most important aspects is to make 
sure that we transmit information across traditional boundaries of time 
and space. Even the House recognized the importance of these grants to 
the States and local communities and public entities. They understand 
that we have to do everything that we can to help serve those 
populations, particularly those in rural areas that do not have access 
to this technology.
  In 1994, half of the grants went to the rural areas and rural States 
of our country. One-quarter of the 1994 fund went to the underserved, 
often low-income areas to enable school children, the elderly, and the 
other at-risk groups to connect with information resources from their 
homes, schools, and communities centers. In fact, the House 
appropriation include report language that said this program:

       is critical to the development of the national information 
     superhighway which will be of particular value to underserved 
     rural areas. This emerging telecommunications infrastructure 
     will allow more remote areas to gain access to enhance 
     education, health care, and social services, as well as 
     provide enhanced economic opportunity.

  I think that characterizes very well the importance of these grants 
to communities. In my State of Maine, a 1994 planning grant of more 
than $113,000 was awarded. This grant will be utilized to develop a 
telecommunications plan that will link the State to the national and 
global networks. Involved in this planning effort will be not only the 
University of Maine, but also Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation and 
a consortium of public, private, and nonprofit organizations--including 
NYNEX and Central Maine Power. Telecommunications can also help us 
provide a world class education to children across America. If we want 
young people to actively use and understand the technology of the 
future, then we must ensure that schools are part of the National 
Information Infrastructure. 

[[Page S 14625]]

  For starters, telecommunications will enable students and teachers to 
gain access to libraries across the country, and will allow them to 
communicate with experts and other students around the world. It will 
ensure that small schools in remote areas, and schools with limited 
financial resources will have equal access to the same rich learning 
resources.
  It is also in the Nation's best interest to ensure that all schools 
and libraries, even those in rural areas, have access to educational 
services. In the 21st century, our children will be competing in a 
global economy where knowledge is power. Our future as a nation depends 
on our children's ability to master the tools and skills needed in that 
economy. I agree with House Speaker Newt Gingrich who said that if the 
country doesn't figure out a way to bring the information age to the 
country's poor, that we are buying ourselves a 21st century of enormous 
domestic pain.
  Consider that only 30 percent of schools with enrollments of less 
than 300 have Internet access, while 58 percent of schools with 
enrollments of 1,000 or more reported having Internet access. Only 3 
percent of classrooms in public schools are connected to the Internet, 
and cost is cited as a major barrier to access. Seventy-seven percent 
of libraries serving a populations base of more than 1 million--almost 
the total population of Maine, I might add--had Internet access, 
whereas just 13.3 percent of libraries serving communities of 5,000 or 
fewer people had Internet access.
  In addressing these needs, TIIAP grants have served an integral role 
in connecting our schools to the information superhighway. In Montana, 
TIIAP funds enabled the Hall Elementary School District to install the 
town's first Internet connection in the school building. A TIIAP grant 
in Oregon aided in the construction of the Lane Education Network--a 
system that is fully accessible to the community and will serve as a 
conduit for educational programs among high schools.
  If we are going to ensure that all of the areas of this country are 
going to have access to educational telecommunications services, if we 
are going to be competing in a global economy where knowledge is 
power--and our future depends on our children's ability to master the 
tools and skills needed in that economy--then I think that we have to 
do everything as a Government to promote and to serve that program and 
those interests.
  Mr. President, the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure 
Assistance Program works to ensure that rural and low-income regions 
are not passed by. So I encourage my colleagues to support the Kerrey-
Snowe amendment that would restore the funding to this program as the 
House did in a recent vote in their appropriations bill. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, do I have any remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes and twenty-five seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let finish by saying--and then I will move 
to table--that we eliminated this program because it has never been 
authorized, because it is not part of the budget we adopted that 
contemplated moving toward eliminating the Commerce Department as part 
of balancing the Federal budget.
  It is almost comical that somehow the Government, with $19 million, 
is going to open up telecommunications and information systems for 
America when the private sector is already investing tens of billions 
of dollars in this area. This is another Government program which is 
unauthorized, and which does not fit in any program to balance the 
Federal budget.
  So if you are serious about the budget we adopted, if you are serious 
about saying no to Government programs, then this is one of the easiest 
places to start.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Texas to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator 
from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] and the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 477 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Campbell
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Smith
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Glenn
     Johnston
     Shelby
  So, the motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays and 
do it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2817, as modified.
  So the amendment (No. 2817) as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2818, As Further Modified

  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Biden amendment 
No. 2818, as further modified.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
Biden amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will just urge adoption of my amendment 
and ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one more parliamentary inquiry. The 
amendment is modified by the DeWine language; correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the Biden amendment is 
modified.
  Mr. BIDEN. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 2818), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  
[[Page S 14626]]

  Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate to send up an 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendments are still pending.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendments be set aside so that I can send an amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2838

  (Purpose: To provide for appropriate remedies for prison condition 
lawsuits, to discourage frivolous and abusive prison lawsuits, and for 
                            other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. Dole, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Abraham, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Grassley, and 
     Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 2838.

  Mr. HATCH. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask the managers of the bill how much 
time they want us to take on this amendment.
  Let me ask my colleague from Nevada how much time he thinks he needs.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. I will 
be happy to do whatever is appropriate. I would like 15 or 20 minutes 
myself.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask my colleague if we can do it in a half hour equally 
divided.
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
take a half hour equally divided on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I shall 
not object, I just want to tell my colleagues, there are two of my 
colleagues on this side who are going to seek to modify the Senator's 
amendment. I am not sure that is going to actually happen, so he is not 
caught blindsided by that. I am not at liberty to agree to a time 
agreement that is not subject to an amendment in the second degree. I 
do not know that will happen, so I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request that there 
be 30 minutes equally divided?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Delaware is going to 
offer a second-degree amendment to this, I am not sure it would be in 
the best interest of the proponents of the amendment to agree to a 30-
minute time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I 
can get the same time limit pertaining to a second-degree amendment, if 
there is a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, what 
is the subject matter of the amendment?
  Mr. HATCH. This is the prison litigation reform amendment to do away 
with frivolous lawsuits. It should not take a lot of time, and if there 
is a second-degree amendment, we will just have to face that when that 
happens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to say a few words in support of the 
amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator 
Hatch.
  Unfortunately, the litigation explosion now plaguing our country does 
not stop at the prison gate. The number of lawsuits filed by inmates 
has grown astronomically--From 6,600 in 1975 to more than 39,000 in 
1994. These suits can involve such grievances as insufficient storage 
locker space, a defective haircut by a prison barber, the failure of 
prison officials to invite a prisoner to a pizza party for a departing 
prison employee, and yes, being served chunky peanut butter instead of 
the creamy variety.
  These legal claims may sound far-fetched--almost funny--but 
unfortunately, prisoner litigation does not operate in a vacuum. 
Frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners tie up the courts, waste valuable 
legal resources, and affect the quality of justice enjoyed by law-
abiding citizens. The time and money spent defending these cases are 
clearly time and money better spent prosecuting violent criminals, 
fighting illegal drugs, or cracking down on consumer fraud.
  The National Association of Attorneys General estimates that inmate 
civil rights litigation costs the States more than $81 million each 
year. Of course, most of these costs are incurred defending lawsuits 
that have no merit whatsoever.
  This amendment will help put an end to the inmate litigation fun-and-
games. It establishes a garnishment procedure so that prisoners, like 
law-abiding citizens, will have to pay the court fees associated with 
filing a lawsuit. It requires State prisoners to exhaust all 
administrative remedies before filing suit. It would allow Federal 
courts to revoke the good-time credits accumulated by a prisoner who 
files a frivolous suit. And it prohibits prisoners from suing for 
mental or emotional injury, absent a prior showing of physical injury.
  The second major section of this amendment establishes some tough new 
guidelines for Federal courts when evaluating legal challenges to 
prison conditions. These guidelines will work to restrain liberal 
Federal judges who see violations of constitutional rights in every 
prisoner complaint and who have used these complaints to micromanage 
State and local prison systems. More specifically, by requiring Federal 
judges to meet a high burden of proof before imposing a prison cap 
order, this amendment will help keep convicted criminals behind bars 
where they belong.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need, and 
I will try to reserve time for the Senator from Nevada.
  I am pleased to be joined by the majority leader and Senators Reid, 
Kyl, Abraham, Gramm, Specter, Hutchison, Thurmond, Santorum, and 
Grassley in offering this amendment. Our amendment is virtually 
identical to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, S. 1279, which 
we introduced yesterday. This landmark legislation will help bring 
relief to a civil justice system overburdened by frivolous prisoner 
lawsuits. Jailhouse lawyers with little better to do are tying our 
courts in knots with the endless flow of frivolous litigation.
  Our legislation will also help to restore a balance to prison 
conditions litigation and will ensure that Federal court orders are 
limited to remedying actual violations of prisoners' rights, not 
letting prisoners out of jail. It is time to lock the revolving prison 
door and to put the key safely out of reach of overzealous Federal 
courts.
  As of January 1994, 24 corrections agencies reported having court-
mandated population caps. Nearly every day, we hear of vicious crimes 
committed by individuals who really should have been locked up. Not all 
of these tragedies are the result of court-ordered population caps, of 
course, but such caps are a part of the problem. While prison 
conditions that actually violate the Constitution should not be allowed 
to persist, I believe that the courts have gone too far in 
micromanaging our Nation's prisons.
  Our legislation also addresses the flood of frivolous lawsuits 
brought by inmates. In 1994, over 39,000 lawsuits were filed by inmates 
in Federal courts, a staggering 15 percent over the number filed the 
previous year. The vast majority of these suits are completely without 
merit. Indeed, roughly 94.7 percent are dismissed before the pretrial 
phase, and only a scant 3.1 percent have enough validity to even reach 
trial. In my own home State of Utah, 297 inmate suits were filed in 
Federal courts during 1994, which accounted for 22 percent of all 
Federal civil cases filed in Utah last year. I should emphasize that 
these numbers 

[[Page S 14627]]
do not include habeas corpus petitions or other cases challenging the 
inmate's conviction or sentence. The crushing burden of these frivolous 
suits makes it difficult for the courts to consider meritorious claims.
  Indeed, I do not want to prevent inmates from raising legitimate 
claims. This legislation will not prevent those claims from being 
raised. The legislation will, however, go far in preventing inmates 
from abusing the Federal judicial system.
  In one frivolous case in Utah, for example, an inmate sued demanding 
that he be issued Reebok or L.A. Gear brand shoes instead of the 
Converse brand being issued. In another case, an inmate deliberately 
flooded his cell and then sued the officers who cleaned up the mess 
because they got his pinochle cards wet. And in a third case, from 
Utah, a prisoner sued officers after a cell search, claiming that they 
failed to put his cell back in a fashionable condition, and mixed his 
clean and dirty clothes.
  Mr. President, these examples from my State are far from unique. I 
believe each of my colleagues could report numerous similar examples 
from their States as well, and we had a number of attorneys general 
here yesterday who gave us a whole raft of bizarre incidents and 
litigation.
  It is time to stop this ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money. The 
huge costs imposed on State governments to defend against these 
meritless suits is another kind of crime committed against law-abiding 
citizens.
  Mr. President, this legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support from 
States attorneys general from across the Nation. We believe, with them, 
that it is time to wrest control of our prisons from the lawyers and 
the inmates and return that control to competent administrators 
appointed to look out for society's interests as well as the legitimate 
needs of prisoners.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I look forward 
to securing its quick passage by the Senate.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the 
senior Senator from Utah, and especially to his staff. The staff has 
worked on this legislation for many, many weeks. And I publicly express 
my appreciation to them and to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
the Senator from Utah.
  I also thank the majority leader, who has been with us on this 
legislation from the beginning. I appreciate his being with us 
throughout the development of this legislation.
  I also wish to thank our Nation's attorneys general who have worked 
diligently to bring this problem to our attention. I understand they 
would like to see some minor modifications made to this amendment as it 
works its way through conference and I hope the conferees will consider 
their expertise.
  Mr. President, when I was a new lawyer in Las Vegas, I was appointed 
by a Federal judge to represent someone charged with stealing cars, a 
violation of taking a car across State lines. I went to see this man as 
a young lawyer, very anxious to help him. When I got to the prison, 
this man said, ``Don't bother, I committed this crime on purpose. I 
wanted to go back to a Federal prison. I did not want to go to a State 
prison. I like being in a Federal prison.'' Ever since that, Mr. 
President, I have thought to myself, there is something profoundly 
wrong with a criminal justice system where people look forward to going 
to prison.
  Now, this amendment deals with a lot of things. One of the things it 
deals with is frivolous lawsuits by prisoners. I wrote an article for a 
Las Vegas newspaper. I would like to recite part of what I wrote.

       Life can be tough. Mom brought home creamy peanut butter 
     when you asked for extra chunky? You didn't get that fancy 
     weight machine you wanted for Christmas? Don't like the type 
     of music they play over the stereo system at work.
       Well, heck. Why not file a lawsuit?
       Oh, I know what you're thinking: ``I can't afford a 
     lawyer.''
       Suppose, though, I told you about a plan that provides you 
     with an up-to-date library and a legal assistant to help in 
     your suit. This plan not only provides legal research, it 
     also gives you, absolutely free, three square meals a day. 
     And friends, if you get tired of legal research, you can 
     watch cable TV in the rec room or lift weights in a nice 
     modern gym.
       ``OK, OK,'' you're saying. ``What's the catch? How much do 
     I have to pay to sign up for the program?''
       Well, folks, that's the best part. This assistance plan is 
     absolutely free. All you have to do to qualify is to commit a 
     crime, get caught and go to the pen.

  That is like the man I met, Mr. President, a number of years ago in 
the Clark County jail.
  Mr. President, prison inmates are abusing our system. I have behind 
me a chart that shows the lawsuits that have been filed. In 1970, we 
had a few. Here it is, Mr. President, our last recorded number. There 
are certainly far greater than that. I will bet that today they are up 
to 50,000. Here we only go up to about 40,000.
  What kinds of lawsuits do they file? Well, Mr. President, as the 
senior Senator from Utah said, all States have some examples. I would 
like to give you what we have had in Nevada. These are the top 10 
lawsuits in Nevada filed by prisoners.
  Inmate's claim: He should not be required to open his window slot 
when meals are delivered. He filed a lawsuit.
  Inmate's claim: Limiting the receipt of stamps in mail violates his 
religious belief in writing letters.
  Inmate's claim: The prison's delivery of mail interfered with his 
usual sleeping pattern. A lawsuit was filed.
  Mr. President, 40 percent of the lawsuits--the litigation handled in 
our Federal judiciary in the State of Nevada is prison litigation--40 
percent of it. Lawsuits like: ``Prison destroyed his hobbycraft 
items.'' What were they? Woman's clothing. This was a man, of course.
  Inmate's claim: Forced to wear a size 5 tennis shoe when the actual 
size of his foot was 4 3/4.
  He filed a lawsuit.
  Inmate's claim: The prison chaplain refused to perform same-sex 
religious ceremony.
  Mr. President, if these were not so serious, we would laugh about it. 
Forty percent of the Federal judiciary in Nevada spends their time on 
this garbage.
  Inmate's claim: He filed a lawsuit claiming the cake he was served 
for dessert was hacked up.
  Inmate's claim: Jeans fit him improperly, and because of that he 
suffered an epileptic seizure.
  Those must have been tight jeans.
  Inmate's claim: Prison denied him incense and jewelry to use in the 
practice of his religion.
  This next one is a dandy.
  Inmate's claim: He ordered two jars of chunky peanut butter from the 
prison canteen and was sent one jar of chunky and one jar of creamy.
  He filed a lawsuit.
  You know, Mr. President, this is just horrible. And to think that we, 
the taxpayers, are paying for all of this--not only in the time of the 
judiciary but, as I indicated in my narrative to begin with, we are 
often supplying the lawyers. And, the prisoners have better law 
libraries than 90 percent of the lawyers in America.
  Almost 100 percent of these claims are dismissed, but the judges have 
to go through all of them. Yet, notwithstanding the odds against 
prevailing, inmates continue to file suits. They laugh about it. On one 
national TV program, a man bragged that he filed hundreds of them 
himself. With our rate of incarceration increasing, this will go up. 
Few would back a solution that reduces our prison population. 
Ironically, this is practically what some judges are doing through the 
ordering of prison population Caps.
  There is much that this amendment has in it, Mr. President. It is 
something that we should adopt. Some may ask, is there a need to curb 
this? I have gone over the reasons I think we need to curb it. I have 
talked about some of the cases in Nevada. But these are only a few 
Nevada cases. There are hundreds of them. The attorney general--every 
time she talks, she talks about her staff time being used on these 
kinds of cases. She cannot render opinions that legal constitutional 
officers in the State of Nevada want her to do because she is defending 
chunky peanut butter. One prisoner filed a claim as to how many times 
he should be able to change his underwear.
  This problem, as the Senator from Utah indicated, plagues all States.
  In California, an inmate alleged that prison officials implanted an 
electronic 

[[Page S 14628]]
device in his brain to control his thoughts. He claimed that his 
thoughts were then broadcast over the prison PA system.
  Another California inmate claimed he suffered mental anguish worrying 
that tear gas would be used if he refused to exit his cell.
  An Indiana inmate sued the State of Indiana for $3,000, but he was 
not sure why. He asked the court to determine what the cause should be.
  An Iowa inmate sued for the right to lobby the legislature to approve 
consensual sex between minors and adults.
  A Massachusetts inmate brought suit claiming the State should not 
have thrown out the personal property he left behind after he escaped 
from prison.
  A Missouri inmate sued because the prison did not have salad bars and 
brunches on weekends.
  Well, Mr. President, this is the worst. I feel very strongly about 
this legislation, and we can go into detail about what it does. But, 
basically, without going into a lot of detail, it would stop this kind 
of foolishness. This foolishness costs tens of millions of dollars 
throughout the States. The taxpayers finance this litigation.
  A report on ABC suggests the cost of inmate litigation hindered the 
expansion of Head Start and the rebuilding after Hurricane Andrew.
  The attorney general of California has 50 attorneys working full-time 
doing this. Dan Lungren, who I served with in the House of 
Representatives, now the attorney general, has 50 lawyers working on 
this, all the time. They do not do anything else.
  We need to make sure that the prisoners, when they file these 
lawsuits, they pay. There is no reason they should get the legal docket 
free. If they have money in the bank, let them pay. If they have a 
meritorious lawsuit, of course they should be able to file. I support 
that.
  Today, our attorneys general deal with thousands of these lawsuits. I 
have indicated that almost none of them have any merit. The amendment 
establishes procedural hurdles that will prevent frivolous lawsuits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I want to say, because I saw on the floor the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, who has been extremely helpful in preparing 
this legislation based upon his experience in the law and the work his 
staff has done, and I want to compliment and applaud the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Grassley, Brown, and Helms be added as a cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and was pleased to join Senator Hatch as 
an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  We have an opportunity here to put a stop to the thousands and 
thousands of frivolous lawsuits filed by the prisoners across this 
nation. They have tied up the courts with their jailhouse lawyer antics 
for too long. This amendment will allow meritorious claims to be filed, 
but gives the judge broader discretion to prevent frivolous and 
malicious lawsuits filed by prison inmates.
  In my home State of South Carolina, the State government last year 
spent well over $1 million to defend against frivolous lawsuits filed 
by inmates. Compare that to 10 years ago when South Carolina spent only 
about $20,000 to defend these types of lawsuits. The problem is getting 
worse, not better.
  Mr. President, the overwhelming majority of these cases are 
dismissed, in fact well over 95 percent. We need to put a stop to these 
jailhouse lawyers who are making a mockery of our criminal justice 
system.
  Mr. President, the other provisions in this bill will place limits on 
Federal judges who have been micromanaging prisoners with population 
caps. Our amendment requires a strong showing from the judge to justify 
population caps as the least intrusive means as a judicial remedy. We 
need this legislation. I commend Senator Hatch for offering it and I 
urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our colleague 
from Arizona--I do not know that there is any opposition to it. In 
fact, I believe we can probably get this accepted by voice vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Arizona who has been a 
major mover in this area, whose attorney general was one of the major 
causes of this legislation be granted, I ask unanimous consent that 4 
minutes be granted to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and 1 
minute to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, and 3 
minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
have an amendment and I have a speech. I have no problem with it being 
accepted. If other people are going to speak to it then I will speak to 
it.
  I hope that we all will have learned by now, when you win, accept the 
victory, put the speeches in later. I hope we do that.
  Stemming the tide of frivolous prisoner lawsuits is certainly an 
important goal.
  Our courts are flooded with lawsuits brought by prisoners. The 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that in fiscal year 
1994, 39,100 Federal and State prisoner civil rights cases were filed 
in Federal court. This volume of cases drains precious court resources, 
further burdening an already overburdened court system.
  But in solving these problems, we must not lose sight of the fact 
that some of these lawsuits have merit--some prisoners' rights are 
violated--some prisons are terribly overcrowded.
  In one case, for example, children in a severely overcrowded juvenile 
detention center in Pennsylvania--a facility that was at 160 percent of 
capacity--were beaten by staff--sometimes with chains and other 
objects. These problems were not resolved until a court order was 
entered.--(Santiago versus City of Philadelphia.)
  In a recent case right here in the District of Columbia, Judge June 
L. Green found that correctional officers had routinely sexually 
assaulted women prisoners--one had raped a woman prisoner, another had 
forced a prisoner to perform oral sex. When these conditions were 
reported to the D.C. correction officials, nothing was done. It was 
when court entered an order that the district take steps to prevent 
these incidents from recurring that the prisoners were able to get 
relief.--(Women Prisoners of D.C. Dept. of Corrections versus D.C.)
  Senator Hatch's amendment has two overriding problems--first, in an 
effort to curb frivolous prisoner lawsuits, the amendment places too 
many roadblocks to meritorious prison lawsuits.
  Second, in an effort to relieve the courts and State and local 
governments from the overwhelming task of dealing with frivolous 
lawsuits, Senator Hatch's amendment, in fact, creates restrictions on 
the power of those governments from voluntarily negotiating their own 
agreements and would place an even greater burden on the courts to 
litigate and relitigate these suits.
  Because Senator Hatch's amendment makes only marginal improvements 
over what is already in the bill, I oppose this amendment, just as I 
oppose the similar provision in the committee bill.
  I am willing to withhold if others are. I ask that the Senator maybe 
reconsider his request and accept it by voice vote and make speeches 
later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BIDEN. I object.
  Mr. HATCH. If my colleagues would forgo so we can pass this--we are 
all interested in passing it and establishing once and for all that we 
have to get rid of frivolous prisoner litigation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator withdraw the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent 2 minutes be given to the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes right now and speak in 
support of this legislation. I appreciate the Senator from Utah 
bringing it to the floor, and I also appreciate the kind comment from 
the Senator from Nevada. 

[[Page S 14629]]

  This is clearly a bipartisan effort. Obviously, this legislation is 
going to pass.
  I just wanted to indicate where this came from. The attorney general 
of Arizona, Grant Woods, brought this matter to my attention several 
months ago, and we brought it to the majority leader, and we introduced 
legislation to cut the prisoner litigation.
  It has been in effect now in the State of Arizona pursuant to State 
law for about a year, and the prisoner litigation there has been cut in 
half as a result of the requirements that we place on the filing of 
lawsuits, by the inmates in the Arizona State system.
  If you can extrapolate from the same statistics, it clearly ought to 
result in the reduction of delays and expenses in our Federal court 
system if we are able to impose the same requirements on our Federal 
prisoners when they attempt to litigate.
  All we are doing is asking they pay the same kind of filing fees and 
costs that a citizen who has not committed any violation of law has to 
pay, and that their suits be subject to the same kind of requirements 
in terms of meeting the tests of a legitimate lawsuit rather than just 
being a frivolous lawsuit.
  I think if we can extrapolate the figure to all 50 States, from the 
experience we had in the State of Arizona where the litigation has been 
cut in half, we ought to be able to save about $81.3 million. That is a 
significant chunk of change that would save the United States taxpayers 
in addition to the benefit of unclogging the courts.
  Mr. President, there is one other thing that this will do. I think it 
begins to send a message that prison is not necessarily a nice place. 
You do not have extra privileges when you go to prison. You certainly 
ought not to be treated any better than the average citizen.
  Another part of this bill is to put impediments on ``special 
masters,'' and I think by doing that we also make it clear we regain 
control of the Federal court system, and we do not just allow the 
Federal judges to dictate to the States how their prison systems will 
be run. I am pleased the legislation will be adopted and pleased to 
express my views.
  I ask unanimous consent to have frivolous lawsuit lists printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Top 10 List: Frivolous Inmate Lawsuits in Arizona

       (10) Death row inmate has sued corrections officials for 
     taking away his Gameboy electronic name. (Donald Edward Beaty 
     v. Bury)
       (9) An inmate brought a suit demanding $110 million because 
     of a delay in receiving a dental appointment for a toothache. 
     (Beasley v. Howard)
       (8) An inmate convicted of murder and a subsequent escape 
     attempt brought a suit based on the denial of dental floss. 
     Anzivino v. Lewis)
       (7) An inmate brought suit for damages to his electric 
     typewriter and fan. He alleges the damage was done because 
     prison officials did not allow him to have a surge protector 
     in his cell. (Prison officials disallow surge protectors 
     because they can be easily fashioned into lethal weapons.) 
     (Souch v. State)
       (6) An inmate alleged his First Amendment right to freedom 
     of religion was being denied because he was not allowed to 
     have conjugal visits. (Jamison v. ADOC)
       (5) An inmate alleged he was libeled and slandered by a 
     female prison official who referred him to disciplinary 
     action after he continually walked into the restroom she was 
     using. (Holt v. Grant)
       (4) An inmate sued because he was not allowed to reside 
     with his spouse, who is a fellow prison inmate. The inmate is 
     a convicted murderer, while his spouse, whom he has met only 
     at their prison marriage ceremony, is a convicted kidnaper. 
     (Boyd v. Lewis)
       (3) An inmate alleges that the Department of Corrections 
     failed to properly rehabilitate him. Therefore, when he was 
     released on parole he was arrested and convicted of another 
     crime, which resulted in more jail time. (Kabage v. ADOC)
       (2) A male inmate sued alleging his constitutional rights 
     were violated by the refusal of prison officials to allow him 
     to have and wear a brassieres. (Taylor V. Adams)
       (1) An inmate alleges that the correction officials have 
     retaliated against him. Part of that retaliation he alleges 
     occurred when he was not invited to a pizza party thrown for 
     a departing DOC employee. (Dickinson v. Elliott)
                                                                    ____


              Top 10 Frivolous Inmate Lawsuits Nationally

       (10) Inmate claimed $1 million in damages for civil rights 
     violation because his ice cream had melted. The judge ruled 
     that the ``right to eat ice cream . . . was clearly not 
     within the contemplation'' of our Nation's forefathers. [NT--
     Clendenin v. State]
       (9) Inmate alleged that being forced to listen to his unit 
     manager's country and western music constituted cruel and 
     unusual punishment. [OK--Watkins v. Sutton]
       (8) Inmate sued because when he got his dinner tray, the 
     piece of cake on it was ``hacked up.'' [NV--Banks v. Hatcher]
       (7) Inmate sued because he was served chunky instead of 
     smooth peanut butter. [TX--Thomas v. State]
       (6) Two prisoners sued to force taxpayers to pay for sex-
     change surgery while they were in prison. [PA--Brown v. 
     Jeffes and Doe v. Vaughn]
       (5) Inmate sued for $100 million alleging he was told that 
     he would be making $29.40 within three months, but only made 
     $21. [KS--Williams v. Dept. of Corrections]
       (4) Inmate claimed that his rights were violated because he 
     was forced to send packages via UPS rather than U.S. mail. 
     [CA--Alcala v. Vanquez]
       (3) Prisoner sued demanding L.A. Gear or Reebock ``Pumps'' 
     instead of Converse. [UT--Winsness v. DeLand]
       (2) Prisoner sued 66 defendants alleging that unidentified 
     physicians implanted mind control devices in his head. [MI--
     Doran v. McGinnis]
       (1) Death row inmate sued corrections officials for taking 
     away his Gameboy electronic game. [AZ--Donald Edward Beaty v. 
     Bury]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2838) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed in morning 
business for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________