[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14645-S14689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 2843
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I hope we can dispose of the pending
amendment in short order. The committee reviewed all of these programs
that the amendment proposes to fund. These are all of the so-called
prevention programs that, when we debated this bill, we discussed at
great length.
What is being proposed here is to give money to the States for
activities such as midnight basketball, and to pay for it by cutting
the $80 million from the FBI. I remind my colleagues that when we
passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, we authorized additional funding for the
FBI.
What I have tried to do in this bill is to provide some of that
funding which we authorized. What we are being asked to do here is to
go back and fund the very programs that we passed over because we did
not think they were worthy, and we are being asked to pay for them by
cutting the FBI.
I think that if people could take a look at this amendment and decide
whether they wanted these prevention programs or whether they wanted
the money to go into law enforcement to grab violent criminals by the
throat and not let them go to get a better grip, I think it would be a
very clear choice.
I am opposed to the amendment. I would be happy to have a voice vote
on the amendment if the Senator is willing to do that.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will call for a rollcall vote, but I want
to answer briefly what the Senator said.
The FBI this coming year is funded at a 15-percent increase over last
year. There is not a single request the FBI has made for funding that
we have not authorized and are prepared to fund, without--without--this
$80 million. This $80 million is over and above everything that the FBI
has authorized, the President has requested and the House has funded.
He talks about midnight basketball league, and that is a synonym for
money that we think is wasted on prevention. As Senator Cohen pointed
out, this money is block granted to States. They do not have to spend
it on midnight basketball.
We have decided that much of the money we are spending at the Federal
level the States can spend much more effectively. You have made that
argument time and time again. Let the Governors, let the local
government spend the money, not Washington. That is what these crime
prevention programs are aimed at.
These crime prevention programs, if the Governors so wish, could be
spent on programs like DARE. Everyone in this Chamber understands and
recognizes that DARE is a program that works.
So midnight basketball is not where these funds are going to be
expended. They are going to be given to States and Governors and local
governments to spend as they see fit.
Again, the argument is that in any crimefighting bill, a certain
amount of money, modest as it is, needs to be spent on trying to
prevent it from occurring in the first place, and I do not think that
there are any Senators, or many Senators in this Chamber who would not
agree with this principle. And that is all this amendment intends to
do.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, $80 million will be spent here by this
amendment, our distinguished colleague talks about letting the States
spend it, but we are not taking it away from Federal midnight
basketball, we are not taking it away from Federal prevention programs.
We are taking the money away from the FBI.
We passed an antiterrorism bill by a vote of 91 to 8 authorizing
funds for the FBI. All I have tried to do in this bill is to provide
part of that funding.
What we would be doing here is cutting the FBI to fund programs that
may or may not do anything to prevent crime. The intentions of the
program may be good. There are people who are strong proponents, for
example, of midnight basketball.
The point is, do we want to cut the FBI to fund it? I say no. I think
this amendment should be rejected and it should be rejected soundly.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. First of all, this is
not about midnight basketball. That is a great thing to talk about. The
States are not using this for midnight basketball. Let me tell you what
they are using it for, to give you one example.
I can pick almost any one of your States. The thing States use this
money for, for example, is boys clubs and girls clubs. Let me tell you
about boys clubs and girls clubs. There is a study the Judiciary
Committee did and it has been done by others, and no one disputes it.
If you put in a boys club and girls club--the study was done in Chicago
and New York--you take two housing projects, the same type of housing
projects, and put a boys club and girls club in the basement of one and
no boys club and girls club in the basement of the other, the
difference in the rate of crime is as follows: 31 percent fewer arrests
in the project that has a boys club and girls club in it; 27
[[Page S 14646]]
percent less use of drugs, arrest for drugs; and 19 percent fewer
arrests for any acts of violence.
As my dear old mother would say, an idle mind is a devil's workshop.
You put these kids out there, and you have nothing for them. Let me
tell you what these boys and girls clubs do with the money we have in
here. One example: There is not a single one of these clubs that has
midnight basketball.
I will tell you what they have. They have the following deal: If you
join the club and you are involved--and particularly, they put them in
housing projects, which they are now doing in most of your States,
putting in public housing projects. What they are required to do is to
have computer classes before they can play in the gym.
Second, they are required in a State like mine, and many of yours, to
have mentoring programs. They bring the mentoring programs into the
schools. Of the people who volunteer in the boys and girls clubs, 80
percent are uniformed police officers.
Third, what they do is they get these kids into these programs, and
part of the requirement to stay in the program and to be able to use
the boys and girls club is you have to stay in school and have passing
grades. What they have done is changed the culture in those
communities. I will give you one example by limiting it to boys and
girls clubs. YMCAs and church groups are all involved in these
programs. We are not talking about midnight basketball.
Second, we are talking about the weed and seed program, which started
under President Bush. I can pick 50 quotes. I will pick one from a
Republican U.S. Attorney from Georgia, Joe Whitley, former U.S.
Attorney from the northern district of Georgia:
I have said that this is the most important matter I have
ever dealt with as U.S. Attorney. It's a simple but
fundamentally sound idea that people in communities really
seem to believe.
. . . The program is responsive to the concerns of
citizens. It's positive because residents thought it had real
and credibility--combining law enforcement and prevention.
I can talk about Michael Chertoff, former U.S. Attorney for New
Jersey, a Republican, and Debra Daniels, former U.S. Attorney, southern
district of Indiana, a Republican. The list goes on.
Crime prevention is an issue that has been the subject of more
misinformation and outright mischaracterization than perhaps any other
in the crime debate--
Whether we should work to prevent crime before it happens, instead of
waiting until after the shots are fired, until after our children
become addicted to drugs, until after more Americans' lives are ruined.
The anticrime law enacted last year answered that question
unapologetically. In addition to fighting crime--the law made a
commitment to preventing crime.
A commitment supported by virtually every criminologist, every legal
scholar, every sociologist, every psychologist, every medical
authority, and nearly everyone's common sense.
Those who study this issue agree that breaking the cycle of violence
and crime requires an investment in the lives of our children--
With support and guidance to help them reject the violence and
anarchy of the streets in favor of taking positive responsibility for
their lives.
In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District
Attorneys Association, and the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers cite prevention programs as critical to a long-term cure for
crime.
Prevention is what cops want--what virtually everyone in law
enforcement wants. Every police officer I have talked to, every
prosecutor, every prison warden, every probation officer says the same
thing--we can't do it alone.
And listen to local officials--the very people the Republicans say
they want to give greater voice.
Republican Mayors Giuliani of New York and Riordan of Los Angeles say
this:
By funding proven prevention programs for young people, the
crime bill offers hope--hope that in the future we can reduce
the need for so many police officers and jails.
Listen to Paul Helmke, the Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, IN:
It's a lot less expensive to do things on the prevention
side than on the police side.
And prevention of crime--particularly juvenile crime--is more
important now than ever before.
Last week the Department of Justice released its first national
report on juvenile offenders and victims. The report found that between
1988 and 1992 the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has increased by
more than 50 percent.
It further estimated that even if the crime rate ceases to grow in
future years, juvenile population growth alone would produce a 22
percent rise in violent crime arrests. Should the violent rate continue
to grow as it has between 1988 and 1992, the number of juveniles
arrested for violent crimes will double by the year 2010--to more than
260,000 arrests!
Attorney General Janet Reno specifically cited prevention and
intervention programs as one of the fundamental ways to combat this
type of growth in juvenile crime.
Prisons, though essential, are a testament to failure: They are the
right place for people gone wrong.
On the other hand, when a life about to go wrong is set back on the
right track--that is a testament to hope.
We build hope by showing children that they matter, by challenging
disaffection with affection and respect, and by contrasting the dead-
end of violence with the opportunity for a constructive life--
I would now like to briefly comment on the three programs in this
amendment.
local crime prevention block grants
Local crime prevention block grants were created to allow cities and
towns to develop their own prevention programs to combat child abuse,
youth gangs, drug abuse by children, and crimes against the elderly--
including the D.A.R.E. Program and the boys and girls clubs.
Local crime prevention grants enable communities to institute
successful initiatives such as: Measures to prevent juvenile violence,
juvenile gangs, and the use and sale of illegal drugs by juveniles,
programs to prevent crimes against the elderly, midnight sports league
programs to keep kids off the street and away from drugs, supervised
sports and recreation programs after school and on holidays, the
establishment of Boys and Girls Clubs of America in public housing
facilities, and the creation of special crime units to deal with crimes
in which a child is involved, to name a few.
These prevention strategies and programs have proven effective in
reducing the incidence of crime in both the short and long term. Here
are some examples of programs that have proven track records:
In hundreds of public housing projects across the country, boys and
girls clubs give kids a safe place to hang out after school--a place
with positive activities and positive role models.
A recent, independent evaluation has reported that housing projects
with clubs experience 13 percent fewer juvenile crimes, 22 percent less
drug activity, and 25 percent less crack use, than do projects with
clubs.
In Honolulu, professionals identify families at risk for neglect or
abuse when children are born and then visit their homes regularly over
several years to help parents learn to care for their children.
In Houston, Texas, a core of professionals provides one-on-one
counseling, mentoring, tutoring, job training and crisis-intervention
services to students at risk for dropping out.
And in Delaware, ``Stormin' Normin'' Oliver runs an award-winning
summer basketball league--in which team members must participate in
supervised study sessions and perform community-service work in
addition to their time on the courts.
Although many communities are putting their best foot forward, the
need and demand for prevention programs far outpace the supply.
And yet the republicans have targeted prevention grants in the crime
law for complete elimination--a move some charge is cold-hearted and
mean. But I say it is just plain dumb.
Local crime prevention block grants are one of the best means we have
to ensure States and localities have the funding they need to reduce
crime over the long haul.
Weed and seed is a republican, Bush administration program, the
brainchild of former Attorney General William Barr.
The program funds prevention efforts and comprehensive law
enforcement efforts.
[[Page S 14647]]
The weed and seed program has achieved notable success primarily
because it requires the kind of community policing that works, and then
requires that law enforcement, social service agencies, the private
sector, and the community work together to prevent crime.
So this is a program that works because it utilizes both law
enforcement and community participation.
In a number of cities--such as Madison, Houston, Trenton, and
Camden--notable reductions in crime have been achieved in weed and seed
areas.
Many of weed and seed's biggest fans are former Republican U.S.
attorneys. Let me tell you what a few of them have said:
Joe Whitley, former U.S. attorney from the northern district of
Georgia:
I have said that this is the most important matter I have
ever dealt with as U.S. attorney. It's a simple but
fundamentally sound idea that people in communities really
seemed to believe. * * * The program is responsive to the
concerns of citizens. It's positive because residents thought
it had real credibility--combining law enforcement and
prevention.
Michael Chertoff, former U.S. attorney for New Jersey:
Trenton was a pilot city. It was a very successful project
and I think very highly of it. * * * Community policing
worked very well in closing the distance between the police
and the community, and it deterred crime because it gave the
police a better reputation within the community.
Debra Daniels, former U.S. attorney from the southern district of
Indiana:
In a nutshell, it is the kind of program that you want.
``Program'' is the wrong word because it connotes money
only--you want to emphasize the aspect of weed and seed that
has to do with planning at the grassroots level.
Weed and seed requires collaboration of all governmental
agencies working closely at all levels with people in
neighborhoods to create a complete package of crime fighting,
policing, human services and economic development. * * * The
community leadership development was miraculous and the crime
rate decreased.
The consensus of all the law enforcement experts around the country
is that youth gangs are a serious problem and a growing problem.
The most recent report on juvenile offenders from the office of
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention at the department of
justice reports that the number of jurisdictions affected by youth
gangs has increased substantially in the last 20 years and that gang-
related crime has increased since the late 1980s.
Yet very little is done to directly target youth gangs.
This amendment would boost funds for the two Department of Justice
programs that specifically target this problem.
One of these is the gang free schools and communities program, which
funds counseling, education, and crisis intervention through
coordinated social service, substance abuse treatment and other means.
The other is the community based gang intervention program, which:
(1) develops regional task forces of state, local and community
organizations to fight gangs; (2) encourages cooperation among local
education, juvenile justice, employment, and social service agencies
and community based organizations; and (3) funds programs offering
effective punishment options, including restitution, community service,
home detention, and boot camps.
So this amendment provides an absolutely critical prevention element
to our overall anti-crime efforts.
The 1994 crime law provided over $300 million of authorized funding
for prevention programs for the next year but the Republican
appropriations bill eliminated virtually all of it.
Offset: this amendment would restore $80 million--one quarter of the
lost prevention funds--to fund these three programs. The money is taken
from a portion of new FBI salaries and expenses that were increased
above the president's request.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.
I will conclude by saying that I have great respect for the abilities
of my friend from Texas. But this is about weed and seed and other good
programs, not about midnight basketball. Whenever I debate him on
issues relating to guns, he pulls out his mama's gun and says, ``You
ain't going to take my mama's gun from her.'' I am not after his mama's
gun or midnight basketball.
This works. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to go home and ask 10
police chiefs in your State--10--and I am prepared to bet you that 9 of
those 10 will tell you that they desperately need these local
prevention programs. The reason they got put in the bill in the first
place is because of the cops. Not a single social worker came to me and
said: You have to put in prevention when this bill is written. Not one
single bleeding heart liberal came to me and said: You have to put in
prevention. The cops want the prevention money. Senators Cohen and Kohl
are correct.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 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 clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
Inhofe], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], and the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] would vote ``nay.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], the
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
Kerrey], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], and the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 480 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Campbell
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simpson
Snowe
Wellstone
NAYS--41
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--10
Bennett
Glenn
Helms
Inhofe
Johnston
Kerrey
Lieberman
Shelby
Simon
Specter
So the amendment (No. 2843) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table was agreed to.
The motion to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am trying to work out an agreement here.
I do not know that starting a debate on a new amendment moves us toward
that objective. I would like to ask unanimous consent that debate on
all amendments to this bill end, and that we proceed to third reading
by 8:30.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I have to object to the request at this time.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.
[[Page S 14648]]
Amendment No. 2844
(Purpose: To restrict the location of judicial conferences and
meetings, and for other purposes)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
committee amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself, and Mr.
Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 2844.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 92, insert between lines 13 and 14 the following
new sections:
Sec. 305. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds made available under this title shall be
used for any conference or meeting authorized under section
333 of title 28, United States Code, if such conference or
meeting takes place at a location outside the geographic
boundaries of the circuit court of appeals over which the
chief judge presides, except in the case of the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which shall be
permitted to host conferences or meetings within a 50-mile
radius of the District of Columbia without regard to the
geographic boundaries of the circuit.
(b) Of the funds appropriated under this title, no circuit
shall receive more than $100,000 for conferences convened
under section 333 of title 28, United States Code, during any
year.
Sec. 306. (a) Section 333 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in the first paragraph, by striking ``shall'' the
first, second, and fourth place it appears and inserting
``may''; and
(2) in the second paragraph--
(A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``may''; and
(B) by striking ``, and unless excused by the chief judge,
shall remain throughout the conference''.
(b) In the interest of saving taxpayer dollars and reducing
the cost of Government, it is the sense of the Senate that
the chief judges of the various United States circuit courts
should use new communications technologies to conduct
judicial conferences.
(c) This section shall apply only to contracts entered into
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment,
on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl, that would stop a wasteful
Government practice that has received a lot of press attention lately
and has drawn sharp criticism from watchdog groups like the National
Taxpayers Union. Mr. President, the practice I am talking about is
taxpayer-funded travel by Federal judges to so-called judicial
conferences. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, I am concerned about the budgetary propriety
of continuing current practice with regard to judicial conferences in
this new era of balanced budgets and streamlined Government.
Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that two
newspaper articles be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks. The first article is entitled ``Taxpayers Foot the Bill for
Judges to Meet at Resort'' and the second is entitled ``Times Are
Tight, But Circuit Isn't.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I commend these revealing articles to my
colleagues.
In the first article, U.S. District Court judge, William Nickerson,
is quoted as saying, ``As a taxpayer, I would probably complain,'' when
asked about a judicial conference hosted at the five-star Greenbrier
resort in West Virginia. The second article recounts that a Federal
judge and former Congressman introduced a resolution to reduce the cost
of judicial conferences in the ninth circuit by having them less
frequently. Sadly, this responsible and wise proposal was defeated by a
vote of 5 to 3. This amendment removes the requirement that conferences
be held, giving Federal courts the flexibility to schedule conferences
or, if they decide not to schedule them, just to not have a conference.
In brief, Mr. President, the amendment will limit the location of
judicial conferences to the geographic boundaries of the circuit to
minimize travel costs which obviously come when there is travel outside
of the circuit.
It would also amend Federal law so that judicial conferences are no
longer mandatory, and express the sense of the Senate that the Federal
Judiciary should explore the idea of using new communications
technology--teleconferencing, et cetera--to conduct conferences without
travel.
I believe the amendment will save money and give new and needed
flexibility to the Federal courts.
As I said, Federal judges from around the country are currently
compelled by law to attend a conference with other judges at least once
every 2 years. So, I cannot fault anyone with scheduling these
conferences or attending them since the law requires it.
But I can--and do--find fault with those who choose only the most
luxurious hotels and resorts.
I can--and do--find fault with some of the activities at these
publicly funded conferences.
According to some press reports, less than a third of the time judges
spend at these conferences relates to judicial work. In one case,
according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, during one 3-day
conference at Hilton Head, SC, only 10 hours were set aside for work.
The rest of the time was left open so that the attendees could
socialize, visit with each other, or do whatever.
Importantly, Federal courts are continuing these expensive
conferences at the same time judicial resources are scarce and funds
for representing poorer Americans are drying up. I respectfully submit
that these are not sound priorities.
The amendment that I and Senator Kyl offer today does what even some
judges want to do. It would limit the location of judicial conferences
to major urban areas--I want to emphasize this--within the circuit
court of appeals, not outside. A few circuits, where judges are
dissatisfied with the resorts within their circuit boundaries, have
been going halfway across the country to attend a judicial conference--
at taxpayer expense.
I am not the first to note the extravagance and unnecessary expense
associated with these conferences. Fair-minded judges have been
complaining about these conferences themselves for years. To name just
a few, Circuit Judge Charles Wiggins, of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals and U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Smalkin have both
complained that these conferences are unjustifiably expensive. A few
years ago, a district court judge in Kansas City, like Judge Wiggins in
the ninth circuit, was so outraged by the posh, remote resorts where
these conferences are hosted that he introduced a resolution to limit
the location of conferences. Yet another judge has referred to judicial
conferences as a sort of ``camp.'' And U.S. District Court Judge Carl
Rubin was quoted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as saying ``there are a
lot of things I'd rather see the taxpayers' money spent on than sending
me to Hilton Head for 3 days.'' According to that same article, Pete
Seep of the National Taxpayers' Union states his opinion that ``Federal
taxpayers are paying judges to party.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters written to me
by Federal judges--one from Michigan and one from Texas--urging me to
trim the excesses associated with judicial conferences be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of
Michigan,
Flint, MI, July 6, 1995.
Re Travel/Chambers savings.
Senator Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I read in a recent article in the
Wall Street Journal how you were trying to effectuate needed
savings in the budget for the federal judiciary. As a member
of the lowest rung on the ladder of the federal judiciary, I
offer two suggestions for savings within the judicial branch.
I have been a bankruptcy judge for 11 years. As you know,
federal judges are required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 333 to attend a
judicial conference each year. The first year I attended such
a conference, it occurred to me that there was a place where
some savings could be effected. In my experience, the
judicial conferences are arranged so that the judges travel
usually on a Tuesday and return home on a Friday or Saturday.
As you are well aware, commercial airlines give tremendous
discounts for early booking with a Saturday night stayover.
The thought came
[[Page S 14649]]
to mind long ago that if judges were required to attend the conference
over a Saturday night, it could save a lot of money. This
concept holds true for Federal Judicial Center functions as
well.
My suggestion was met with the response that judges prefer
to be home with their families on the weekends. While that is
obviously true (when I suggested this, I had two small
children at home, ages eight and five), I did not think it
was too much to ask high government officials to give up a
weekend once in a while, especially since such a large
savings would be created. Now that funding is much tighter, I
repeat this suggestion.
Another suggestion deals with the cost of furnishing
chambers. Due to expansion in the district court, I was asked
to move my courtrooms and chambers out of the federal
buildings in Flint and Bay City. In the process, I was given
a budget for furnishing chambers (which included my personal
office, my secretary's office and reception area, my law
clerk's office, the library, the media room, two attorney
conference rooms, and the courtroom waiting area) for $25,000
total. We just about made it for that amount. I do not know
for sure, but I have been told that other judges are allowed
roughly $50,000 for furnishing a much smaller chambers' unit.
Perhaps some uniformity would save some money. While I am in
accord with the statements of the federal judge quoted in the
Journal article with respect to there being a need for
decorum and dignity in a federal courthouse, I also concur in
your efforts and those of Senator Baucus to provide that at a
lower cost.
By effectuating some reasonable savings in non-essential
areas, Congress ought to be able to reinstitute cost of
living increases for the judiciary. Without such regular
adjustments, of course, Congress is condemning the judiciary
to consistent decreases in take-home pay.
Sincerely,
Arthur J. Spector,
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge.
____
U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas,
San Antonio, TX, June 6, 1995.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Grassley: At a recent conference of the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, we were advised of your efforts to address
government expenditures for judicial meetings and
conferences. I applaud and encourage such efforts. All
branches of government must search for and find ways of
reducing government expense. This area can be modified,
relatively painlessly, with no loss in the quality of
judicial services provided.
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 333 allows an annual circuit
conferences and requires that one be held in each circuit no
more than every two years. Attendances for judges summoned is
mandatory. Perhaps Section 333 could be amended to reduce the
number of circuit conferences and/or permit participation to
be optional. Once per year, we also hold separate workshops
for circuit judges, district judges, magistrate judges, and
bankruptcy judges. These instructional meetings address
various substantive topics and can be beneficial. However,
the information can be provided to us in written form at our
offices to avoid the cost of travel, housing, meals, and
lectures.
I am sure many more ways of reducing expenses for judicial
meetings exist. These meetings can be valuable but are not
absolutely necessary to the administration of justice.
Particularly in these economic times, their cost is difficult
to justify. I wanted you to know that judges will support,
and even participate in, efforts to reduce the amount of
money allocated to the judiciary's budget.
Sincerly,
John W. Primomo,
U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I believe that the costs of conferences
are underestimated. These estimates--which range as high as one-half
million dollars per conference--do not take into account lost time on
the bench for judges and their support staff, who also attend the
conferences at taxpayer expense. And the taxpayers foot these expenses
year after year. The party's over, Mr. President.
There is a word for this sort of thing: Boondoggle. I have fought
against wasting taxpayer money my whole career in the Senate, and I am
committed to fighting unnecessary spending in the judiciary.
Mr. President, under current law, Federal judges are required to host
and attend these conferences. This amendment will change that so that
judges have the flexibility not to call a judicial conference. This
amendment would also give individual Federal judges the option of not
attending a conference. This is fair, and permits Federal courts--which
I believe will act responsibly in light of the Federal Government's
budgetary constraints--to pitch in and tighten belts along with us in
Congress and the executive branch.
As I have said, Mr. President, this amendment is about saving
taxpayer dollars and priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Finally, I just want to say that this amendment should not be viewed
as a general indictment of the Federal judiciary. For the most part, I
think that the judiciary has taken responsible and important steps to
reduce unnecessary spending. This amendment is simply targeted to a use
of Federal funds that, in the opinion of this Senator, should be
pruned.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Exhibit 1
[From the Baltimore Sun, June 30, 1994]
Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Judges to Meet at Resort
(by Marcia Myers)
As the federal judiciary struggles amid hiring freezes and
funding shortages for basic services, 150 judges from
Maryland and other parts of the Fourth Circuit converged
yesterday on the broad verandas, lush fairways and tennis
courts of the five-star Greebrier resort.
Their taxpayer-financed gathering will demand little work
in the afternoons and barely any at night--unless you count
one banquet and a sing-along led by U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist. Of course, several hundred
lawyers pay their own way, and those who consider schmoozing
part of the job might argue that they're working tirelessly.
The cost to taxpayers for the four-day conference: about
$200,000.
Even some who appreciate the Greenbrier's pampering
question the propriety of the trip to the mountains of White
Sulphur Springs, W.Va.
``As a taxpayer, I would probably complain,'' U.S. District
Judge William M. Nickerson said, while adding that the
meeting offers a good opportunity to talk informally with
other judges. ``I think a lot of the judges have some
concerns as taxpayers. Some feel it's more of a luxury than
it needs to be.''
Others are more direct in criticizing the annual
conference, for which taxpayers will pay up to $1,000 per
judge plus travel expenses. ``I don't think the expense is
justified on an annual basis,'' said U.S. District Judge
Frederic N. Smalkin.
Consider the schedule for the conference, which includes
district, magistrate and bankruptcy judges from Maryland,
North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia:
Day 1: Judges arrive--no activities are planned.
Day 2: Judges attend a morning session for about 3 hours to
discuss court business. No other activities are planned until
the Rehnquist sing-along that evening.
Day 3: A trio of one-hour lectures on ethics is scheduled.
At noon, the six new judges in the circuit offer brief
remarks. Nothing else is planned until an evening reception
and banquet.
Day 4: The morning features a panel discussion reviewing
major Supreme Court decisions of the 1993 term. That ends the
conference, although judges on committees may attend
additional meetings.
Meanwhile, conferees are encouraged to sign up for group
activities that include tennis, golf, bridge and hiking.
Among the resort's other amenities: three 18-hole
championship golf courses, fly fishing, skeet shooting,
horseback riding, swimming, and the Greenbrier Spa, Mineral
Baths & Salon.
``Personally, I think it's of real value,'' Senior U.S.
District Judge John R. Hargrove said of the conference. ``Do
we have to cut our own throats just because Congress won't
give us more money? We still have to have training. We don't
go down there and sit around.''
Why not have a shorter meeting, strictly business, at a
less luxurious spot?
``We tried that at least once in the 20 years since I came
here,'' said the circuit's Chief Judge, Sam J. Ervin III of
North Carolina. ``The afternoon sessions were not very
productive--nobody much came.
``I think the most important thing about this conference is
that lawyers have an opportunity to mingle with the judges
and share their problems and difficulties.''
That talk could include concerns over the shrinking
resources of the federal courts. Amid a hiring freeze in
Maryland and across the nation, the courts are at 84 percent
of adequate staffing levels--the lowest ever, according to a
court official.
And the situation could get worse. Court officials worry
about funds for court security, courtroom deputies and
computers. Business that used to be done in a day in
Baltimore, for example, now can take several days because of
staffing shortages.
When asked how much the conference would cost taxpayers,
Circuit Executive Samuel W. Phillips said about $55,000. But
after acknowledging the $1,000 allowance for each judge, plus
travel and administrative expenses, he estimated the cost at
$175,000 to $200,000.
Mr. Phillips said he had checked many other hotels for a
better rate. But the Greenbrier includes two meals in its
room rate, which makes it cheaper, he said. A typical room
for two costs $434 a night, although the judges receive a
discount that he wouldn't disclose.
It's also one of the few hotels capable of accommodating
everybody--judges, spouses and lawyers--under one roof, he
said.
The government pays for judges' hotel rooms and meals. The
cost of recreation--at
[[Page S 14650]]
the Greenbrier, golf fees are $80 and tennis courts are $23 an hour--
comes from each judge's own pocket.
The conference alternates every other year between the
Greenbrier and the Homestead, a similar resort in Hot
Springs, Va.
The judges are quick to note that attendance is required--
by law.
Congress passed a bill in the 1930s requiring judges in
each circuit to gather annually to consider court business.
As budget concerns have mounted in recent years, the law
was amended to require a meeting only once every two years.
Several circuits have cut back to biennial meetings, but
Judge Ervin said the Fourth Circuit had rejected that idea.
[From the Recorder, September 29, 1993]
Times Are Tights, But Circuit Isn't
(By Steve Albert)
Soon after money problems forced postponement of pay raises
for judicial employees and led federal judges to suspend
civil jury trials, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
spent about $600,000 to send 350 judges and lawyers to a
four-day conference at a luxury Santa Barbara beach resort.
While other circuits reacted to tight budgets this year by
canceling their retreats or deciding to hold them every other
year, the Ninth Circuit opted to go forward with its August
1993 conference and continue holding its retreat annually.
Circuit chief Judge J. Clifford Wallace called the
conference expenditures ``money well spent.'' Congress
mandates that circuits hold conferences, Wallace said, and
the retreats provide the only opportunity ``to bring together
people who have responsibility to improve the administration
of justice.''
Circuit and district judges, magistrates, bankruptcy
judges, U.S. attorneys, federal public defenders and court
clerks from nine Western states attend the conference. In
addition, the circuit's 27 active judges get together six
times a year, hold an annual winter symposium, and meet with
different judges once every year or two for continuing
education.
Estimates of government expenses for the Santa Barbara
conference were released last week shortly before the U.S.
House of Representatives appropriated $2.8 billion for the
judiciary for fiscal 1994, a 10 percent increase over this
year. A House/Senate conference committee is expected to
settle on the final number this week or next. The Senate
wants to give this judiciary just a 5 percent increase for
the new fiscal year, which begins Friday.
The cost estimate of the Ninth Circuit conference, prepared
by circuit executives at The Recorder's request, shows that
300 judges, prosecutors, public defenders and clerks traveled
to Santa Barbara by air at an average cost of $550 each.
Another 50 traveled by car from Los Angeles at an average
cost of $50. The attendees spent an average of $250 for room
and food each day of the four-day conference and an average
of $34 on check-out day. Add in about $27,000 for such items
as speakers' travel, printing and audiovisual material, and
the total bill for taxpayers was about $556,000. Because
judges submit individual expense vouchers, that figure is an
estimate only.
The figure does not include the cost of travel during the
rest of the year for the 12 judges who meet four times
annually to help plan the conference.
About 100 other attendees, mostly lawyers in private
practice, paid their own way.
$100 million bailout
The conference came just eight months after the U.S.
Judicial Conference--the governing body of the federal
courts--imposed a hiring freeze and postponed some pay
increases for federal court employees in the Ninth Circuit
and around the country. At the same time, the Judicial
Conference's executive committee trimmed court operating
expenses as well as probation and pretrial services funding,
citing a $100 million operating shortfall.
In June, citing a lack of funds to pay jurors, federal
trial courts around the country briefly suspended some civil
jury trials, Congress passed a $100 million bailout for the
courts in early July.
The budget shortfall prompted Wallace in May to propose
that many indigents who need court-appointed lawyers be asked
to repay the government for the cost of their defense, much
as students are required to pay off student loans for college
tuition. The savings, he theorized, could be used to avoid
funding shortfalls.
But Wallace said Monday that despite budgetary problems,
the conference remained an essential expense. He cited the
circuit's recently released study of gender bias in the
courts and its decision to study bias based on race, religion
and ethnicity as examples of the work the conference takes
on.
``No one can doubt the importance of those issues,''
Wallace said. ``It would be difficult to cut the conference
because of budget difficulty.''
Other circuits around the country have cancelled their
annual conferences, however. The New York-based Second
Circuit and Denver-based Tenth Circuit cancelled their 1993
meetings, and the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit has
cancelled its 1994 conference. Four other circuits have gone
to biennial conferences.
A call to cancel future Ninth Circuit conferences was
defeated by a 5-3 vote of the circuit's executive committee
at its August meeting in Santa Barbara. Circuit Judge Charles
Wiggins, a former Republican congressman, warned colleagues
then that the cost could engender the wrong ``public
perception,'' especially in tight budget times.
Executive committee members voted to go ahead with the
circuit's 1994 conference in San Diego and its 1995
conference in Hawaii.
Exactly how much the Ninth Circuit or other circuits spend
on annual conferences is difficult to pinpoint, according to
circuit executives and a spokesman for the U.S.
Administrative Office of the Courts, which disburses money to
the federal bench. Judges submit conference expense vouchers
and reimbursement checks are issued in Washington. The Ninth
Circuit cost estimates were based on average airfare costs
calculated by circuit executives and the $250 maximum per day
charge judges and other government employees are allowed for
lodging and food.
Circuit conference expenses are subtracted from the
``Salaries and Expenses'' line of the courts' budget.
Individual circuit expenses are never set forth in judicial
budget requests, said David Sellers, a spokesman for the
administrative office of the courts.
``It doesn't get much more specific than that,'' Sellers
said.
New Jersey District Chief Judge John Gerry, who chairs the
Judicial Conference's executive committee, said the Ninth
Circuit's conference cost estimate was the first such
estimate he had ever heard. The executive committee, which
holds the Judicial Conference's purse strings, does not take
up or examine individual circuit expenditures, he said.
But the conference a year ago asked circuits to evaluate
the necessity of retreats and their costs. ``There hasn't
been any area of court operations we have not looked at to
save a buck here and there,'' Gerry said. His own circuit,
the Third, has gone to biennial conferences.
a model circuit
Wallace said the work of the Ninth Circuit conference has
been recognized by other circuits. ``Some of us do a better
job than others in our efforts to improve the system,''
Wallace said. If efforts were not made to improve the
administration of justice, he added, costs of administering
the courts could be higher than they already are.
``The budgeting problem is very complicated,'' Wallace
said. ``By singling out one aspect, the overall picture can
be blurred. We have thrashed this out. We have been
responsible.''
But some circuit judges like Wiggins have complained that
the conference is not as productive as Wallace or others may
think. ``We don't talk about much of interest to any of us;
our discussions are so broad,'' Wiggins told his colleagues
in Santa Barbara.
At the Santa Barbara meeting, conferees discussed
cooperation with the executive and legislative branches and,
in addition to passing a resolution calling for a task force
to study bias, passed one supporting adequate funding for the
courts.
Savings in conference costs would not have offset lack of
funds for jury trials or public defender programs because
those costs come out of different budget lines than the line
used to pay for conferences, said Wallace and court spokesman
Sellers.
This year's conference schedule, like those in the past,
included such diversions as tennis and golf tournaments, a
spouse sightseeing and winery tour and cooking and flower
arranging classes.
Wallace confirmed that the Ninth Circuit conference next
August will be held at the Loews Coronado Bay Resort on the
beach south of San Diego. The resorts offers bayside suites
and has three heated pools and a marina. The Taxpayer's Tab
Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference--Santa Barbara--August 16-19
Travel:
300 travelers at average airfare of $550.......................$165,000
50 travelers (L.A. area) by car at $50............................2,500
__________
Total travel:.................................................167,500
Lodging:
350 travelers at $250 per day for 4 days........................350,000
350 travelers for $34 for last day...............................11,900
__________
Total lodging:................................................361,900
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Grand Total Travel/Lodging..................................529,400
Direct Conference Expenses:
Spakers' travel, printing, audiovisual...........................27,000
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Grant Total for Santa Barbara Conference:...................556,400
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I shall be brief. I assume that
this amendment will be adopted on a voice vote, but I do think it is
important to just reiterate a couple of points.
I am very pleased to join Senator Grassley, the chairman of the
courts subcommittee, in introducing the amendment.
What it does is to require that all circuit court judicial conference
meetings must be held within the circuit and that they keep the cost of
each of those conferences not to exceed $100,000.
[[Page S 14651]]
Additionally, the amendment would remove the requirement that a
judicial conference be held every 2 years. A circuit may hold a
conference but is not required to hold a conference under our
amendment.
And the reason is, as was pointed out by Senator Grassley, at a time
when judicial resources are precious, money should not be used to fund
trips to such faraway places as Maui, Santa Barbara and Sun Valley. The
conferences should be held in areas that are easily accessible and
within the geographic bounds of the district.
According to a report released last week by the General Accounting
Office, the total cost for the circuit judicial conference meetings in
1993 was more than $1 million, and in 1994 it was once again almost $1
million. In both 1993 and 1994, the ninth circuit, which encompasses my
State of Arizona, ran up the largest tab, costing the taxpayers more
than a quarter of a million dollars each year according to this GAO
report.
The estimated cost for this year's ninth circuit conference in Hawaii
is more than a half million dollars, according to the Legal Times.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, this comes at a time when we have to
start counting our pennies here at the Federal Government level, and I
am sure that the public is fed up with such waste.
In fact, about a week ago, I received a letter from one of my
constituents about the subject. He wrote about what he called, and I am
quoting now, ``The extravagant conference charges incurred by United
States taxpayers to send about 350 Federal judges to Maui, Hawaii this
year.''
He continued, and I am quoting, ``I am outraged by such extravagance.
Is it no wonder that the every-day citizens of this Nation are cynical,
disappointed and feel totally helpless as this kind of abuse rages in
all levels of Government?''
Mr. President, I think he is right. These conferences are an abuse of
taxpayers' funds and of the public trust. The ninth circuit usually
holds its conferences at a resort in either San Diego, Santa Barbara,
Maui or Sun Valley, ID. They are all beautiful places, but the public
should not be paying about $1 million each year to fund conferences in
such places.
According to an article in the Legal Times, many judges believe that
reform is needed. As one ninth circuit judge, Charles Wiggins, noted:
``It's an excessive expenditure of public funds.'' Another judge--Judge
Rubin of Cincinnati--commented: ``There are a lot of other things I'd
rather see the taxpayers' money spent on.''
``[The 1993] conference schedule, like those in the past, included
such diversions as tennis, golf tournaments, a spouse sightseeing and
winery tour and cooking and flower arranging classes,'' according to an
article in the Recorder, a San Francisco-based newspaper affiliated
with the Legal Times.
What is particularly galling about the excessive amount spent on
these conferences is that the spending comes at a time when the
judiciary is so strapped for funds.
For example, the ninth circuit's 1993 conference came just 8 months
after the U.S. Judicial Conference, the governing body of the Federal
courts, imposed a hiring freeze and postponed some pay increases for
Federal court employees in the ninth circuit and around the country.
At the same time, the judicial conference's executive committee
trimmed court operating expenses as well as probation and pretrial
services funding, citing a $100 million operating shortfall.
Additionally, in June 1993, citing a lack of funds to pay jurors,
Federal trial courts around the country briefly suspended some civil
jury trials. In July, Congress had to pass a $100 million bailout for
the courts.
In addition to running up large bills by traveling to out-of-the-way
places such as Maui and Sun Valley that are within the geographical
boundaries of the circuit, many conferences are held outside of the
circuit. For example, in 1993, the sixth circuit, which includes
Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky, held its conference at the
seaside resort of Hilton Head in South Carolina.
As the chief judge of the sixth circuit said at the time, ``It's not
a matter of choice. It's a requirement of the Congress to hold the
meeting. They just don't say where.''
Well, not anymore, Mr. President. With this amendment, Congress will
say where. It is simply limited to some place within the circuit, and
certainly in my own case in the ninth circuit there are plenty of nice
places such as the seat of the circuit, San Francisco, to hold these
conferences. So this will certainly be no imposition on judges.
I support what Senator Grassley has said, and I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment and help to put an end to this wasteful
spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2844) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know that this amendment was accepted by
voice vote, but I just want to note for the Record that I oppose it.
This is not the type of micromanagement that the Senate should be
engaged in.
The Judiciary is an independent branch of Government and it should be
permitted to make reasonable decisions about how to spend the money
that Congress appropriates to it without undue interference.
Amendment No. 2845
(Purpose: To delete funding for the National Endowment for Democracy)
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is there a pending committee amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the present
pending amendment be laid aside so I may call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr.
Brown, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2845.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At page 116, strike lines 3 through 7.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wish to tell my colleagues, No. 1, this
will be very short and sweet, and it will not require a rollcall.
I am saying this to the distinguished floor managers on the
assumption that the President is going to veto the bill and that the
bill is going to come back here at some point in the future, in October
or November, and I will have an opportunity to offer this amendment and
get a rollcall vote on it.
Now, this amendment deals with the National Endowment for Democracy.
A lot of the new Members are not familiar with the National Endowment
for Democracy.
Mr. President, Dante Fascell was a beloved House Member. Everybody
knew him. He always wanted to do something to enhance democracy when
the Communists were riding roughshod on everybody around the world. And
when Ronald Reagan came to power, Dante Fascell presented this idea of
a privately funded National Endowment for Democracy to President
Reagan. President Reagan said he liked the idea of something that would
counter communism with democracy.
And here is what Dante Fascell said, ``We had found ourselves a
powerful ally, the President of the United States. We had a horse and
so we rode that horse. Changed the bill around and rammed it through.''
And then he said they gave money to the Democratic and Republican
parties, to the labor unions, and to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
``Hell yeah. They were on board,'' Fascell recalled. ``They got a piece
of the pie. They got paid off. Democrats and Republicans, the Chamber
of Commerce, along with labor.'' They got paid off.
That was in 1982. It was passed in 1984. It was designed to be
matched with private money. Here is what happened. Just like all other
Federal programs, look how it started off here in 1983. $18 million.
And it was to be matched within a short period of time with private
money.
[[Page S 14652]]
Now, you talk about growing like Topsy--Topsy would blush at the way
this program has grown. It started out at $18 million, $18 million,
down to $15 million, went to $35 million, and $30 million in this year
1995.
Now, how much would you guess of that budget is private money?
We ought to have a little game show here and let everybody guess. The
Senator from New Mexico is indicating he thinks it is 3 percent?
Mr. DOMENICI. Zero.
Mr. BUMPERS. Zero. You are wrong, Senator. It is less than 2 percent.
Here is a program that was going to be matched 50-50 with private
money and ultimately be all private money from foundations and
individuals. And there you have it, $30 million of the taxpayers'
money, and less than 2 percent of it is private. And who gets it? And I
do not mind telling you, this is the most offensive part of it to me,
just as it would be the most offensive part to any citizen in America
if they knew about it. Now, you see most people know about the Agency
for International Development because that costs almost a half billion
dollars. They know about the U.S. Information Agency because that costs
almost a half billion dollars. They know about foreign aid because that
is 12 to 15 billion dollars. All of those programs are designed to
foment and enhance democracy around the world.
And then we come in with a little piddly amount here. How did we get
this thing passed in the first place? It is exactly like Dante Fascell
said. ``We bought them off.'' Who did they buy off? You see this CIPE?
FTUI? NDI? IRI? You see this ``R'' right here in IRI. You know what the
``R'' stands for? Republican. The Republican party gets 11.1 percent of
that $30 million I just showed you. And what do you think this big
``D'' is in NDI? Democrat. That is right. The Democrats get 11.1
percent.
The Democrats used to get quite a bit more. And now they have got us
down equal to the Republicans. We both get 11.1 percent.
And who is CIPE? That is a fancy name for the Chamber of Commerce.
What is FTUI? Why that is the free trade unions, and who is that? AFL-
CIO. Everybody got bought off. And the poor old taxpayers, they was not
even consulted.
Now, I want to ask you, in this year 1995, when we are cutting
everything under the shining sun, dramatically, we are not just
cutting, we are cutting big dollars out of big programs. And programs
like this have a way of being ignored. Nobody even looks at them. Out
of the $30 billion, only 30.8 percent is discretionary.
I will tell you what I am going to do. I am going to send a July 1995
article from Harper's Magazine to each one of you, and I hope your
staffs will insist you read it. It talks about a meeting of
nongovernmental organizations. Where? Zagreb, Croatia. They come to
Croatia, to Zagreb. They stay in a fancy hotel. The best was in Zagreb.
They watch C-SPAN2. They watch CNN. They watch MTV. They have a nice
big opulent dinner.
And then the President of the National Endowment for Democracy gets
up and they are all thinking he has a big checkbook in his pocket. He
is going to pull that sucker out and he is going to start writing
checks to each one of them. What does he do? He gets up and he tells
them they have all kinds of data, all kinds of information about the
joys of democracy and they are going to put it on the Internet. This
guy who wrote the story said you could see their shoulders go slack.
People could not believe they had come all that distance to hear
somebody say they were going to put a lot of information about
democracy on the Internet.
And who do you think is paying for the hotel bill and the opulent
dinner? That is right, old Uncle Sucker. I am just saying if you cannot
kill this program--if you cannot kill this program--I am not optimistic
about balancing the budget in 7 years.
Now, I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senators Brown and
Dorgan. There are all kinds of things I would like to talk about. I
know everybody wants to get away, so I am not going to belabor it. But
I want to reemphasize the point that I will be back on the floor after
the President vetoes this bill for a rollcall vote on this amendment or
something similar to it. But anybody who votes to continue this program
cannot be serious about deficit reduction.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this will be the ninth time that the
Senate--and before that the other body--has taken up this amendment and
debated it. I always enjoy and appreciate the eloquent presentation of
the Senator from Arkansas. I will not take much time since the Senator
from Arkansas has just stated we will revisit this issue again.
So I would only note, Mr. President, and ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record the following letter.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
September 29, 1995.
Hon. Robert Dole,
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Hon. Richard Gephardt,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
As former Secretaries of State representing both Democratic
and Republican Administrations, we support the continued
funding of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This
viewpoint is based upon the NED's strong track record in
assisting Solidarty in Poland and other significant
democratic movements over the past decade. It is also based
upon the NED's important ongoing efforts in helping those
engaged in the development of institutions of democracy
around the world.
During this period of international change and uncertainty,
the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan
but non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and
freedom. We consider the non-governmental character of the
NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding
twelve years ago.
Sincerely,
James Baker.
Lawrence S. Eagleburger.
Alexander M. Haig, Jr.
Henry A. Kissinger.
Edmund S. Muskie.
George P. Shultz.
Cyrus R. Vance.
Mr. McCAIN. It is from former Secretaries of State representing both
Democratic and Republican administrations.
. . .we support the continued funding of the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED). This viewpoint is based upon
the NED's strong track record in assisting Solidarity in
Poland and other significant democratic movements over the
past decade. It is also based upon NED's important ongoing
efforts in helping those engaged in the development of
institutions of democracy around the world.
During this period of international change and uncertainty,
the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan
but non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and
freedom. We consider the non-governmental character of the
NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding
twelve years ago.
Sincerely, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander
Hague, Henry Kissinger, Edmund Muskie, George Schultz, and
Cyrus Vance.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to note with interest the
view of seven previous Secretaries of State, both Republican and
Democrat, who have taken the time and effort to sign this letter in
support of this very important effort to further the cause of freedom
and democracy throughout the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be mercifully brief. I understand
the hour, and people want to leave. We will revisit this and have an
aggressive debate at some point.
But I am struck--I am always, of course, respectful of the Senator
from Arizona and I respect his opinion--I am struck by the letter put
on our desks signed by former Secretaries of State that talk about the
nongovernmental character of NED, how relevant the nongovernmental
character of NED is.
The governmental character of NED is this is all Government money, it
is all the taxpayers' money, divided up four ways: Give some to the
Republicans, some to the Democrats, some to the Chamber of Commerce,
some to the AFL-CIO and say, ``Go do some nice things in support of
democracy.'' The problem is it duplicates what we are doing in half a
dozen other programs in the State Department.
[[Page S 14653]]
In the last election, Republicans won, and I applaud them for that.
The score was 20 percent of the American people voted Republican;
roughly 19 percent of the American people voted Democrat; and 51
percent of the American people said, ``Count me out, it doesn't matter,
I'm not going to vote at all.'' It may be that we ought to talk about
promoting a little democracy in this country.
This is not all that much money, but it is enough, and it is one of
those programs that simply will not quit. It does not matter that it
cannot be justified. It does not matter that it cannot be justified at
this point. What matters is that it is a program that is ongoing, it
continues, and it is governmental money that they call nongovernmental
in character.
I support the Senator from Arkansas. I hope we will have a long
debate on this, and I hope one of these days we are going to knock this
out. If you care about reducing the deficit, the devil is in the
details. The detail here is $32 million that we ought not spend. We
ought not spend it. It is waste, in my judgment.
Let us reduce the deficit. Let us zero this out and do the taxpayers
of this country a favor.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is excellent debate, great points have
been made, as in all these things. But consider the fact this bill is
not going anywhere. What we are doing tonight is like training to fight
the Spanish Armada. We ought to put all these speeches in the Record.
Of course, we will all spend the weekend reading each other's speech
with due diligence, but then everybody could go home.
I just remind my colleagues of one thing, maybe the thing that will
move us away from these Dracula hours of legislation more than anything
else around here if--if--we do not lose our nerve and do apply the laws
of this country to the Congress as applied to everywhere else: Starting
January 1, paying time and a half for all the staff who have to stay
around here when we go through this useless exercise. Instead of
costing the taxpayers $15,000 or $20,000 an hour for this, it will
start costing $40,000 or $50,000 an hour. Maybe--maybe--we will pass
legislation, have debates during the daytime and not do the Dracula
hours.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from
Arizona for his statement and also for printing in the Record this
joint letter by seven former Secretaries of State.
I say to my colleague that the reason the NED will not go away is
because it does good work. That is plain and simple the reason it will
not go away. It has done some extremely effective work around the world
in strengthening and developing democratic institutions and protecting
individual rights and freedoms.
We have had any number of people come through the Halls of the
Congress recognized as fighters for human rights, fighters for freedom,
fighters for democracy who have manifested their support for NED and
the support which gave them and made them possible in their own
countries to lead this effort.
So I know a longer debate is coming, and I am prepared and look
forward to that debate, but these Secretaries are right when they say
``the strong track record in assisting significant democratic
movements.'' It does have a strong track record, and it serves an
important role, because it can operate as a nongovernmental entity and
support nongovernmental entities which provide opportunities that would
not otherwise be available if these activities were undertaken by a
governmental agency.
So I strongly support the NED, and I hope when we actually get to the
real amendment, the Members of this body will support it as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying the very
organization, the National Endowment for Democracy, dooms it. It is
self-contradiction to give money to the Republican Party and to the
Democratic Party whose views on democracy are quite different.
We all champion democracy, but can you imagine this group in Zagreb
allowing me on my side to describe democracy for them, and we will say
the Senator from Arizona on his side. We have strong philosophical
differences. They would be so confused when we got through, they would
not know what democracy is all about. And labor and the Chamber of
Commerce, like two hornets in a jug. We give each one of them, look at
that, the Chamber of Commerce, 13.6 percent and labor, AFL-CIO 29.4
percent. Do you want the people from the Chamber of Commerce and labor
to sit around the same table explaining democracy?
Mr. President, let me repeat, we spend an awful lot of money on
foreign aid. Frankly, this year I do not think we spent enough. What is
it designed to do? It is designed to help people feed and clothe
themselves and to promote democracy. We have the Agency for
International Development. I saw their work in Siberia about 2 months
ago. Some of the things they are doing are very impressive.
What is the Agency for International Development designed to do? To
make them think well of the United States and help them create and
maintain democracies. And then the United States Information Agency, a
half-billion dollars. What do they do? Why, they broadcast all over the
world the joys of democracy.
When you add it all up, it comes to between $13 billion and $15
billion. What is this $30 million doing? I want you to read that
Harper's article. When the president, Mr. Gershman, president of the
National Endowment for Democracy, gets up, and these people have come
from all over thinking that they were going to get a little largess for
some of their own programs. They needed computers; they needed
printers. And so the president gets up and he says to this crowd in
this thick-carpeted ballroom in Zagreb:
The National Endowment for Democracy is an independent,
nongovernmental foundation which receives a grant from the
Congress every year for the purpose of strengthening
democracy around the world.
First of all, it seems almost an oxymoron to say this is a non-
Government foundation operating on a Government grant. But he goes
ahead to say:
We have a journal in which we publish essays and articles on
democracy, and we organize research conferences on democracy. We're
compiling a database which will soon be available over the Internet. We
will hold our fifth World Conference on Democracy in Washington on May
1. We do work in 92 countries around the world. In China, Uzbekistan
and, yes, the countries of this region.
The author of this article goes on to say:
Among the more experienced of the participants, the change
in manner is immediately evident. They've stopped taking
notes. The 92 countries, the broad friendly smiles, the
global visions of building democracy, you can see them adding
it all up to conclude there will be no computers, no printing
presses, no radio transmitters, no money for paper, no
hands-on assistance of the kind the participants are quick
to inform you is given to them by the representatives of
George Soros, the American financier.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. It was my understanding that the Senator from Arkansas
said this debate was going to be brief. The Senator is making a lot of
charges that I will feel compelled to respond to. The Senator from
Arkansas said we are going to revisit this issue again.
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. If he will----
Mr. McCAIN. If I could finish the question. If the Senator from
Arkansas is going to continue to belabor these organizations, then I
will feel compelled to respond, and we will be here for a long period
of time.
So I ask the Senator how much longer we are going to debate this
particular issue, in light of the fact that the Senator from Arkansas
said we are going to do it again some time in the near future?
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator makes a very good point. I withdraw the
amendment.
[[Page S 14654]]
So the amendment (No. 2845) was withdrawn.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no
longer than 2 minutes as in morning business for the purpose of
introducing a bill and an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Smith and Mr. Chafee pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1285 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Smith pertaining to the introduction of S. 1286
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe that the Presidential candidates
are involved in a conflict of interest in New Hampshire, since that
State has retroactively asked for same day election day registration.
We have an amendment in this bill that would allow them to do that and
break the word of what the leadership on the other side said the
conference report calls an election day escape hatch. This would
encourage States to adopt same day registration procedures as a means
of escaping the bill's requirements. That came from the bill's manager
on the other side.
Mr. President, what is a Presidential candidate to do if he is on the
record opposing an election provision that turns out to be supported by
the State where the first primary is held? By the looks of the
Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill, you hope like the dickens
that nobody notices.
But, Mr. President, I noticed.
This appropriations bill includes a committee amendment to the
National Voter Registration Act Of 1993--better known as motor-voter.
This committee amendment benefits two States--New Hampshire and Idaho--
by changing the effective date of the exemption in the Act of States
that had already enacted election day registration or had no
registration requirement. That specific date--March 11, 1993--was
included to prohibit any other State from avoiding the law. The
committee amendment would undo that prohibition for these two States.
New Hampshire and Idaho enacted legislation with retroactive
effective dates in an attempt to take advantage of the limited
exemption in the act. Because of a court challenge to the New Hampshire
retroactive law, we are being asked to adopt an amendment to
retroactively change the motor-voter exemption deadline.
So, in the case of these two States we are enacting a retroactive
provision to a Federal law that will validate a retroactive provision
in a State law that was enacted to avoid that very Federal law. This a
curious amendment with a ridiculous result.
It is important to note that this specific date was not only proposed
by the Republican floor manager, but both he and the Republican leader
and Presidential candidate actively promoted it. In fact, they both
cited inclusion of that deadline in the exemption provision as an
improvement to the bill.
So while the committee amendment appears to be merely a technical or
insignificant change affecting only two States--it is clearly an attack
by opponents to weaken the motor-voter law by permitting more States to
avoid its implementation. But even worse, it creates an incredible
conflict of interest for every one of our many Republican Presidential
candidates, because it would directly affect voter registration for the
New Hampshire primary.
A similar exemption provision in the bill vetoed by President Bush in
the 103d Congress was singled out for criticism in his veto message.
President Bush attacked the exemption as an inducement to States to
adopt same-day registration laws. I responded to that charge, when it
was made by the Republican floor manager during debate on the veto
over-ride, by pointing out that the exemption was intended to
grandfather only those States that had already adopted such laws. It
was not intended as an inducement to other States to adopt election day
registration.
To overcome an impasse during our consideration of the motor voter
bill, the Republican floor manager submitted nine amendments to me that
the opponents considered to be necessary changes to the bill. The first
``must do'' change was an amendment to set a date certain, March 11,
1993, as the deadline by which a State must have enacted the required
legislation in order to be exempt from the requirements of motor-voter.
Because it was consistent with, and reinforced, the original intent of
the exemption provision, I included it in the amendment I offered at
the conclusion of bill negotiations.
The House bill, H.R. 2, included an exemption without a specific date
that was intended as an option to the States. The two Houses were
clearly not in agreement regarding the exemption provisions of the two
bills. The conference resolved this disagreement by including the
Senate date certain deadline version in its report.
When the conference report was taken up in the Senate, the Republican
floor manager stated, with regard to the exemption:
Republicans slammed the escape-hatch shut. No longer is
this bill a backdoor means of forcing States into adopting
election day registration or no registration whatsoever. . .
. Republicans succeeded in grandfathering in the five States
that would have qualified for the exemption prior to March
11, 1993.
He then related that officials from Michigan, Illinois, and South
Dakota had contacted him to urge that the escape hatch be left open so
they could opt out from the law. The Republican floor manager then
commented, with regard to these States,
. . . their constituents are better served by the closing of
the escape hatch than if it had been left open.
In remarks regarding the conference report, the Republican leader
commented that the conference report was an improvement over the
original bill because among other Republican amendments, it included
the exemption provision. He stated,
the conference report closes the so-called election day
escape hatch. This loophole would have encouraged States to
adopt same-day registration procedures as a means of escaping
the bill's requirements.
It was clear that both the Republican floor manager and the
Republican leader considered this exemption provision with its date
certain deadline to be an important provision because it closed off the
exemption for all but the five States that had enacted legislation as
of the deadline of March 11, 1993.
The legislative history in the House reflects this as well. A House
conferee who supported an open exemption as ``a strong incentive for
States to move toward . . .'' same day registration stated that:
some Members in the other body voiced strong concerns over
this language, and the conference agreed to grandfather this
provision, making the exemption apply only to States that had
same day registration as of March 11, 1993.
This committee amendment is not only contrary to the law and our
intent, it is also bad policy and reeks of Presidential politics. It
will undo a clear policy decision of the Congress and invite other
States to avoid Federal legislation by revising exemptions. Is it the
purpose of the proponents of this amendment to encourage election day
registration or the elimination of registration altogether?
I would remind the junior Senator from Kentucky of his comment
regarding the requests of officials from Michigan, Illinois and South
Dakota to keep the exemption open for future State compliance. If he
supports this amendment, may we expect him to extend an invitation to
those officials from Michigan, Illinois, and South Dakota to request
additional extensions so their States may also be exempted? Or is this
amendment only an attempt to accommodate the State election officials
of the first Presidential primary State?
The underlying assumption of this amendment appears to be that
Congress considered election day registration to be on a par with the
requirements of the motor-voter law. Again, a review of the legislative
record shows that this is just not the case. Those supporting the
closed exemption were opposed to election day registration. The
Republican leader attacked it with the comment that:
[[Page S 14655]]
In many areas same-day registration is a prescription for
fraud and corruption.
House conferees argued for an open exemption that would encourage
States to adopt election day registration or no registration. Their
position reflects a policy that such provisions are equal to or better
than the provisions of the motor-voter law. I would argue that the
conference, in refusing to accept that position and in agreeing to the
Senate's closed exemption, did not agree.
I am equally concerned that the effect of this amendment is to make
moot ongoing litigation. In the case of New Hampshire, the State
enacted legislation with a retroactive effective date in an attempt to
slip in under the exemption. That action is being appropriately
challenged in the courts by State organizations and voters who seek
compliance with motor voter. I do not think it is appropriate or good
policy for the Senate to directly interfere with ongoing litigation.
It is interesting to note that when the motor voter bill was under
consideration in the Senate, the Republican leader praised the floor
manager for closing the election day registration escape hatch. Now,
just 2 years later, Republicans propose to open that hatch for two more
States and permit those two States to avoid implementing the motor
voter law.
One might reasonably ask, what has happened in the past 2 years to
account for this change? Do Republicans now favor election day
registration? Or, do Republicans wish to avoid compliance with the
motor voter law in as many States as possible by whatever means
possible?
Recent events support the latter position. Rather than comply, some
states led by Republican governors have initiated court challenges to
this law. So far none have succeeded. The courts have upheld this law
and have ordered the States to comply. As I have already noted, New
Hampshire would directly benefit by this amendment. New Hampshire is
involved in litigation to compel its compliance--and we are asked to
intervene by changing the law to render that litigation moot.
This should be seen for what is clearly is, another attack on the
implementation of the motor voter law and an attempt to curry favor
with election officials in the all-important primary State of New
Hampshire. My Republican colleagues appear willing to take this route
even though it represents a complete about-face from the position they
fought for just 2 years ago.
I think it is clear why implementation of the motor voter law is
under such attack. The law is working. And it is working well. Since
the law became effective January 1, States that are implementing it are
experiencing extraordinary registration activity. The National
Association of Secretaries of State recently adopted a resolution that
includes the finding:
Preliminary statistics show the voter registration programs
mandated by the Act to be successful at providing citizens
access to the voter rolls. In the first six months, over 4
million new voters have been added to voter lists nationwide
. . . .
A recent New York Times article noted that more than 5 million
Americans have been added to the rolls so far this year. It notes that
political experts characterize this registration activity as ``the
greatest expansion of voter rolls in the Nation's history.'' The
article also states that ``Estimates are that by the turn of the
century, if the surge generated by the new law continues, at least four
of every five adult Americans will be registered to vote, compared with
about three of every five now.''
The figures cited in the Times article are truly amazing. It states
that this year Georgia registered 303,000 new voters between January
and June, compared with only 85,000 for all of last year; Alabama
registered about 43,000 in the first quarter and only 23,000 during
that same period last year; Kentucky added 77,000 the first quarter
this year compared with 23,000 in all of 1994 and Indiana added 64,000
new registrations the first quarter this year and only 5,400 during
that period last year.
These registration figures for this year show that the law is
working, and that it is working very well. I guess that some view the
increased voting rolls produced by the States under this act to be a
threat. A threat that must be attacked in the States, in the courts and
in the Senate. What are they afraid of? More people voting? That is
what democracy should be about. I welcome its success. I welcome a
registration system that reaches out to all eligible citizens to assure
that they are able to cast ballots on election day.
With a veto likely on this bill, now is not the right time to propose
an amendment to strike this provision. But in closing, I want to make
one thing clear to the proponents of this provision, I will continue to
resist this and any other attempt to undo or weaken a law that has
directly encouraged 5 million more Americans to become involved in our
democratic process.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it has been a long process in putting this
bill together. It represents a dramatic change in public policy. The
President has said he is going to veto the bill.
The American Government is about choices. What we have provided here
is a bill which dramatically reduces spending below the level proposed
by the President. We have provided a bill, despite some modest
adjustments that we have made in the amendment process, some of which I
have supported, some of which I have not supported, which dramatically
changes the way government does its business.
We have sent forward the strongest crime provisions in an
appropriations act in my Senate career. We have a bill that
substantially reduces funding in the Department of Commerce. It still
remains to be decided by the Senate whether or not we will eliminate
that Department.
We have a very tight budget for the State Department, and, under the
circumstances, a fair budget. It is clear that there are changes that
I, as a Member of the Senate, and others would like to make that cannot
be made.
It is clear that the U.S. Senate supports quotas, supports set-
asides, and even though the American people in overwhelming numbers
reject them, it is clear that there is not support in the U.S. Senate
to have a merit-based program for hiring, for promotions and for
contracts.
I am confident that some day there will be a majority which will
support merit-based selection. That majority, however, does not exist
today, we have proven this on many occasions and I do not think we
would benefit ourselves by proving it again today.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. GRAMM. I have a unanimous-consent request that I believe will
complete the bill. I would like to read that unanimous-consent request
now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following committee
amendments be withdrawn--Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me begin again on the unanimous-consent
request.
I ask unanimous consent that the following committee amendments be
withdrawn: the amendment beginning on page 143, line 13 through page
145, line 18; and the amendment beginning on page 151, line 16, through
page 159, line 6; and all remaining committee amendments be agreed to
en bloc; that there be one amendment to be offered by each manager
which will contain the cleared amendments by both sides of the aisle.
The bill will be advanced to third reading and final passage occur
without any intervening action or debate.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S 14656]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request? The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. No objection.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could we have it restated again? I am
not sure what we are being asked to consent to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
committee amendments be withdrawn. The amendment beginning on page 143,
line 13 through page 145, line 18, and the amendment beginning on page
151, line 16 through page 156, line 6, and that all remaining committee
amendments be agreed to en bloc, that there be one amendment to be
offered by each manager which will contain amendments cleared on both
sides of the aisle, that the bill be advanced to third reading and
final passage occur without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, you said without any
intervening debate? You just got done telling me I was going to have
time to debate it.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I amend the unanimous consent request to
drop the words ``or debate.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Hallelujah.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement just
adopted, the committee amendment adding the text of the Equal
Opportunity Act to the underlying bill has been withdrawn.
After a lengthy process of consultation and drafting, I introduced
the Equal Opportunity Act earlier this year. The act has been referred
to the Labor Committee. This past June, the Labor Committee held
hearings on Executive Order 11246, one of the Federal Government's
major affirmative action policies. And I expect the committee to hold
hearings on my bill sometime later this year.
The Small Business Committee, at my request, has also held hearings
on the SBA's section 8(A) set-aside program. And the Subcommittee on
the Constitution, under the leadership of Senator Hank Brown, intends
to convene a general series of hearings on affirmative action as it
operates in both the public and private sectors. One hearing has
already occurred. The next hearing will probably take place sometime in
October.
In my view, inserting the Equal Opportunity Act into this
appropriations bill would have short-circuited the hearing process and,
in fact, would have harmed the bill's chances for passage in the
Senate.
Of course, I strongly support the Equal Opportunity Act because I
believe the Federal Government should be in the business of uniting all
Americans, not dividing us through the use of quotas, set-asides, and
other preferences. In fact I view the Equal Opportunity Act not only as
a piece of legislation, But as an opportunity to bring Americans
together in a thoughtful, rational discussion about race in America.
This discussion is long overdue.
So, Mr. President, I look forward to continued hearings on this
important issue. And I fully expect the Senate to consider the Equal
Opportunity Act at an appropriate time in the near future.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will
please come to order.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, In the managers' amendment there is a
whole new program for a subsidy for the maritime industry. At 5 minutes
to 9 on a Friday night, when we are not normally in session, before we
are going to take a week's vacation, it does not seem to me that we
should be passing a whole new program without some mention to the
taxpayers of this country.
Since January or February the whole approach to this new program has
been a very careful one-man show behind the scenes to, in a stealthy
way, get this program out of the authorization committee with as little
attention as possible, promising as much as you could to keep people
quiet.
So, I rise to first of all tell the people of this country about this
new program that has operating subsidies and a shipbuilding loan
guarantee for the maritime industry. I oppose it because virtually
every truly independent analysis of the maritime subsidies and
protectionist programs have concluded that they have little or nothing
to do with our defense needs. Remember, these programs of subsidies
were started in the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, to provide ships
for our defense needs. When these programs started we had 1,100, 1,200
ships. Today we have between 250 and 300 ships. So you know the old
saying, you subsidize something you get more of it? In this particular
case it does not work.
This ends up being a waste of the hard-earned money of America's
taxpayers and consumers. In all my years in Congress I fought hard to
uncover and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse within the Federal
Government. I fought waste in a wide range of programs. This week we
won a victory for the taxpayers by eliminating AmeriCorps. And I fought
hard against $1,800 toilet seats and $400 hammers, money squandered by
the Pentagon in the name of national defense.
Maritime subsidies are, as well, supposedly for the national defense.
Yet, during the last war we were involved in, the Persian Gulf war, 86
percent of the materiel that went by ship was not shipped on commercial
American flagged ships. We do not have the capacity for doing that
because we have had a program that was supposed to work for the
national defense and it has not worked.
So, maritime subsidies, in the false name of national defense, I
think, after 4 decades, we ought to conclude, squander taxpayers' money
as well.
Historically, anyone who has scrutinized maritime programs has come
under fierce public attack by the maritime industry's Washington lobby.
My motives have been criticized because I come from an agricultural
State.
Let me admit, initially my interest in the maritime programs was
limited to its impact on agriculture, because our maritime, through its
back-door, hidden cargo preference subsidy, not only undercuts our
ability to develop and expand overseas agriculture markets but also,
and more tragically, cargo preference literally takes food out of the
mouths of hungry people and starving people around the world. Simply,
the money that otherwise could have gone to send more food to the
starving is eaten up by the outrageous rates charged by U.S. flag
maritime companies, sometimes three to four times the world rate.
But it soon became apparent to me that most of the burden of our
maritime subsidies and programs is shouldered by the Defense Department
in terms of cargo preference and by the American consumers, laborers
and businesses, in terms of the Jones Act.
But one of the fascinating things about my long journey in trying to
expose and stop this maritime waste is the type of attack directed at
me. It surprises me that the Defense Department and the defense
industry has not used this attack--in short, why has not the defense
community argued that they are entitled to spend $1,800 on toilet
seats? After all, farmers get subsidies. Probably, the fact that this
is such a ridiculous argument is the reason that the Defense Department
has not used it. But that certainly has not stopped the maritime
industry.
[[Page S 14657]]
Of course there is a big difference. Farm programs are scrutinized
publicly and intensely every few years, if not every year during the
budget process.
When is the last time we have had full-scale hearings, bringing in
supporters and opponents to the maritime programs?
The Commerce Committee held one hearing in July of this year to
discuss the so-called Merchant Marine Security Act. Only supporters
were invited. Not only were maritime program critics not invited, but
their requests to testify were denied as well. Talk about a one-sided
story promoted by a committee of the Congress. Then, before the
Commerce Committee, written questions were even answered by those
testifying, the bill was rushed through by a voice vote.
Yesterday, there was considerable discussion about recommitting to a
committee a nomination because new information was provided subsequent
to committee action. Well, today, I am submitting for the Record
information directly related to the Merchant Marine Security Act and
directly related to the pending amendment that is in the managers'
amendment from the other side. I am convinced that my colleagues on the
Commerce Committee did not have this information. If they had it, there
is no way they could support S. 1139, the Merchant Marine Security Act.
I want my colleagues to know that what I am about to read is not this
Senator's opinion. Instead, this information is the culmination of
months of work by maritime experts from 16 different Government
agencies, executive branch agencies--not a congressional study, not a
GAO study, not a private think-tank study, but a study by 16 Government
agencies of the executive branch.
This memo I think is explosive and sets a lot straight. This memo is
entitled ``Memorandum for the President''--meaning memorandum for
President Clinton. It is from Robert Rubin. Robert Rubin is now the
Secretary of the Treasury, as you know. The subject: Decision
memorandum on maritime issues.
It is dated, the White House, Washington, June 30, 1993. Purpose of
the memo: This memorandum asks you to decide--meaning asking the
President to decide, from the Robert Rubin who is now Secretary of the
Treasury--asks you to decide on the level and form of subsidies to be
given to various U.S. maritime industries.
So this decision is asked to be played at the highest level of our
Government, the President of the United States.
Now, for background, because there are paragraphs here on background.
The U.S.-Flag Fleet. The U.S.-flag fleet is engaged in both
domestic and international trade. Ships in domestic trades
are permanently protected from foreign-flag competition by
the Jones Act. This memorandum describes options to subsidize
ships that are employed in international trade and therefore
subject to competition. The international trade fleet
consists of 95 liners (ships designed principally to carry
goods in containers) and 60 bulkers (ships that carry loose
cargo such as liquids and ore).
The principal issue in this memorandum is whether expiring
direct subsidies should be replaced with new subsidies for
U.S.-flag liners. (No agency supports direct subsidies for
bulkers). If no new program is announced, most U.S. liners
are likely to reflag their vessels. The reflagged ships would
still be owned and controlled by U.S. firms; their U.S. crews
(about 10,000 seafarers) would be replaced by foreign
mariners. A related issue is whether the plethora of indirect
subsidies that now support a wide range of maritime interests
should be expanded., maintained or phased-out.
Budgetary Context. Option 1 would require DOD to shift
defense outlays; it would be deficit neutral. Options 2 and 3
would increase mandatory spending. Under the Budget
Resolution, offsets would have to be identified to make the
proposals deficit neutral. Options 2 and 3 would also result
in savings on the discretionary side of the budget from the
phase-out of existing subsidy programs. While these savings
could be used for new discretionary outlays, they could not
be used as offsets for any new mandatory spending.
Then it goes on in more detail from the Secretary of the Treasury to
President Clinton.
Option 1. Require DOD to Support U.S.-Flag Ships Needed for
Defense:
Rationale. Subsidies for the U.S. flag fleet have always
been justified by their role in providing a sealift capacity
for use in military emergencies. With the end of the Cold War
DOD's sealift requirements have declined. Although DOD's
bottom-up review is not complete, the Secretary of Defense,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commander
of the Transportation Command have already concluded that
future requirements will not exceed 20-30 liner vessels. DOD
will have no need for bulk vessels. All agencies therefore
oppose renewal of direct subsidies for bulkers. This option
would meet DOD's maximum military requirements.
Description. DOD would be directed to spend $60 million
annually on contracts with ship operators to provide DOD with
the services of up to 30 U.S.-flag liners in times of
military need. New contracts would be phased-in as current
subsidies expire or are terminated. If U.S.-flag ships are
subsidized through other means, such as Option 2 or Option 3,
DOD would be allowed to spend its limited resources meeting
more pressing defense requirements.
Under this option, the Administration would oppose the
expansion of indirect maritime subsidies. [Alternatively, the
Administration could, as many agencies recommend, seek the
phase-out of any indirect subsidies not required to meet a
specific military need.]
Budget Cost. This option would subsidize U.S.-flag liner
ships by reprogramming money already in the DOD budget (DOD
plans to obtain the funds by retiring 29 breakbulk ships from
the Ready Reserve Fleet). The option would be deficit
neutral.
Arguments in favor: These subsidies would provide for
genuine defense needs, and therefore would enjoy broad
support. By subsidizing 30 of the 52 liners now under
contract, this option would sustain 1,500 seafaring jobs and
about 750 landside jobs. Indirect subsidies come at the
expense of other U.S. industries and hinder the missions of
other Executive Branch agencies.
There is one argument that Secretary Rubin gave to the President to
be against this.
Provides less support than is sought by the industry and its
supporters.
I ask unanimous consent that the rest of the Rubin memo be included
in the Record.
There being no objection, the memo was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Option 2. Increase Direct and Indirect Subsidies to
Maritime Interests:
Rationale. This option is designed to keep most of the
existing U.S.-flag liners in foreign trade sailing under the
U.S. flag, regardless of defense needs.
Description. The option has four main elements:
(1) Increase to 79 from 52 the number of liner ships
receiving direct payments. DOT would be authorized to sign
10-year contracts at $2.5 million per ship per year in the
first four years, and $2.0 million per ship per year in the
last six years. In the first two years, new contracts would
be limited by savings made available from the existing
program.
(2) Allow non-subsidized, foreign-built vessels to receive
subsidies.
(3) Provide $200 million in FY94-96 for Title XI loan
guarantees to U.S. shipyards.
(4) Do not Oppose Congressional efforts to expand indirect
maritime subsidies.
Budget cost: Over 10 years, this option would increase
mandatory outlays by $1.7 billion, while decreasing domestic
discretionary outlays by $567 million.
Arguments in favor:
This option contains subsidies for liners, bulkers, and
shipyards in order to win support for the proposal from the
widest range of maritime interests.
Subsidizing 79 ships would sustain 4,000 seafaring jobs and
about 2,000 landside jobs.
Since foreign-built vessels may be less expensive, this
option could reduce carriers' costs.
Arguments against:
Subsidizing 79 vessels is unnecessary. This would be two to
three times the maximum number of ships DOD estimates are
needed to meet its sealift requirements.
The NEC Principals found no evidence that this segment of
the maritime industry was of strategic importance to the
economy. The U.S. has no competitive advantage in the
industry; the industry neither protects nor enhances U.S.
exports. Subsidizing carriers simply to preserve jobs would
leave the Administration hard pressed to explain why it
should not also subsidize every other industry that suffers
job losses.
Immediate funding for Title XI loan guarantees is
premature. All agencies, including DOT, support the efforts
of the congressionally-mandated Working Group on the U.S.
Shipbuilding Industry. The Working Group will present options
to assist shipyards to the relevant Cabinet members later
this summer (see TAB B).
Greater indirect subsidies would come at the expense of
other U.S. industries and hinder the missions of other
Executive Branch agencies.
Option 3. Provide Direct Subsidies to a Limited Number of
U.S.-Flag Liner Ships:
Rationale. This compromise option is designed to subsidize
a U.S.-flag fleet that will meet defense needs and, if
desired, keep additional U.S.-flag vessels employed in the
international trades. The option would limit the number of
liners receiving subsidies to a range that could be more
readily justified to critics--between 30 ships (DOD's current
estimate of its maximum need) and 52 ships (the number of
liners currently under contract).
[[Page S 14658]]
Description. Provide direct payments to between 30 and 52
liner ships. DOT would be authorized to sign 10-year
contingency contracts providing $2.5 million per ship per
year in the first four years, and $2.0 million per ship per
year in the last six years. New contracts in the first two
years would be limited to savings made available from the
existing program.
Under this option, the Administration would oppose the
expansion of any indirect maritime subsidies. [Alternatively,
the Administration could, as many agencies recommend, seek
the phase-out of any indirect subsidies not required to meet
a specific military need.]
The Administration would oppose--as premature--funding for
loan guarantees until NEC Principals consider options
developed by the Working Group on U.S. Shipbuilding.
Budget Cost. Over ten years, direct subsidies for 30 ships
would increase mandatory outlays by $500 million, while
reducing domestic discretionary outlays by $358 million.
Direct subsidies for 52 ships would increase mandatory
outlays by $975 million and reduce domestic discretionary
outlays by $358 million.
Arguments in favor:
Would provide the industry with more money and longer
contracts than Option 1.
This option would sustain 1,500-2,500 seafaring jobs and
about 750-1,250 landside jobs.
Restricts or eliminates indirect subsidies that come at the
expense of other industries or hinder the missions of other
Departments.
Arguments against:
Provides less support than sought by industry and its
supporters.
recommendations
Fifteen Executive Branch Agencies support Option 1. The
Department of Transportation supports Option 2. A compromise
proposal is provided by Option 3. In addition to the
strengths and weaknesses of each option, these
recommendations reflect different views about the economic
and strategic importance of liner ships engaged in
international trade, as well as the extent of Congressional
support for maritime subsidies. These views are noted in TAB
C.
decision
________ Approve Option 1.
________ Approve Option 1 as amended.
________ Approve Option 2.
________ Approve Option 2 as amended.
________ Approve Option 3.
________ Approve Option 3 as amended.
________ Take No Action.
________ Discuss Further.
Tab A: Background on Current Maritime Subsidies
The federal government now subsidizes ship operators
through a variety of programs, including:
(1) Operating Differential Subsidies. Under the ODS
program, the federal government entered 20 year contracts
with U.S.-flag operators. These contracts provided that the
federal government would pay the difference between wages on
U.S.-flag ships and wages on their principal competitor's
foreign-flag ships; in some cases, the government also
undertook to pay the differential on other costs such as
maintenance and repair. ODS contracts now cover 52 liner
ships and 28 bulk ships. ODS payments in 1993 are expected to
total $244 million, for an average per ship subsidy of about
$3.0 million.
To qualify for ODS payments, vessels must meet a number of
restrictions. ODS liners must: be U.S.-built, U.S.-flag, and
at least 51 percent owned by U.S. citizens; provide service
on ``essential trade routes''; receive approval from the
Maritime Administration before: altering trade routes;
affiliating with foreign-flag service; or operating in
domestic trades.
(2) Ocean Freight Differential (cargo preference) program.
Cargo preference laws require certain federal programs to
ship between 50 and 100 percent of their cargo on U.S.-flag
ships. OMB estimates that in 1993, cargo preference
requirements will increase government shipping costs by about
$590 million over shipping rates. These costs will be borne
by the Department of Defense, Agriculture, Transportation,
State, the Agency for International Development, and the
Export-Import Bank.
(3) Capital Construction Funds (CCFs). Owners of U.S.-flag,
U.S.-built ships may shelter income by placing it in a CCF.
Taxes on both the income placed in a CCF and the interest
earned by the CCF are deferred indefinitely. CCF balances are
now approximately $1.2 billion.
(4) Title XI. Under this program, the federal government
guarantees private loans made to the purchasers of U.S.-built
ships. Loans were last guaranteed under this program in 1992.
In 1993, $48 million was appropriated for the program, but no
loans were guaranteed. No funds were requested for this
program in the President's FY 1994 Budget. The government's
outstanding contingent liability under this program now
stands at about $2 billion.
(5) Jones Act. Like most other seafaring nations, the U.S.
provides cabotage for its ship operators--all domestic
waterborne trade must be carried on U.S.-flag, U.S.-built
ships. The Jones Act fleet accounts for about 50 percent of
the privately-owned oceangoing U.S.-flag fleet.
(6) The Shipping Act of 1984. Since 1916, the U.S. has
allowed U.S. and foreign carriers serving U.S. trades to
participate in international shipping cartels known as
conferences. The Council of Economic Advisors and the
Department of Justice estimate that the Act raises shipping
prices at least 10 to 15 percent, providing U.S. and foreign
carriers with a subsidy valued at $2-3 billion per year
(because of their low market share, U.S. carriers receive
only 20 percent of this subsidy). The Federal Maritime
Commission disputes these results, and asserts that
Conferences have little effect on long-term shipping prices.
Shippers continue to press for relief from strictures
imposed by the Act, and are likely to try and block any new
subsidies for carriers without some action to address their
concerns. The law regulating conferences was last amended in
1984. In 1990, the Advisory Commission on Conferences in
Ocean Shipping brought together carriers shippers to seek
consensus on further changes to the Act. No agreement was
reached.
Tab B: U.S. Shipbuilding and Current Administration Efforts
to Assist the Industry
Large U.S. shipyards are now almost completely dependent on
the Navy. Of the 87 ships currently on order or under
construction, 86 are for the Navy. With the drawdown in
defense spending, naval orders are expected to decline
substantially. The problems faced by U.S. shipyards are thus
similar to those faced by other defense contractors--namely,
how to shift from military to civilian production.
The U.S. industry is currently not competitive in the
global market. It is less efficient than its foreign
competitors and has had little experience in the commercial
market since the early 1980s when the U.S. ended construction
differential subsidies and increased naval orders. U.S. yards
are also disadvantaged by the subsidies granted by foreign
governments to their own shipyards. As a result, U.S.--built
ships are more expensive than foreign-built ships. According
to the ITC, price differentials have reached 100 percent.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that U.S.
shipyards employed 123,900 workers in 1992 (down from 171,600
in 1982). The shipbuilding industry estimates that, absent
government assistance, 70,000 more shipbuilding jobs could be
lost. Even with government assistance, however, shipbuilders
estimate that the transition from military to civilian
production will lead to a loss of 20 percent of current
employees as some skills will no loner be needed.
Actions Currently Underway by the Administration
All agencies support the following Administration efforts
now underway:
1. Seek to Reinvigorate Negotiations to Eliminate Foreign
Shipbuilding Subsidies. U.S. negotiators are currently
engaged in efforts to restart negotiations on the elimination
of foreign subsidies. The elimination of such subsidies has
been one of the key objectives of the U.S. shipbuilding
industry.
2. Explore the Possibility of Working with Congress on
Legislation to Support this Effort. In the last Congress,
bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate
providing the means to retaliate against ship carriers who
purchased subsidized foreign-built vessels. These measures
are intended to speed multinational agreement on the
elimination of foreign shipbuilding subsidies. Agencies are
exploring the possibility of working with Congress on
legislation this year.
3. Prepare Congressionally-Mandated Plan for the U.S.
Shipbuilding Industry. The FY 1993 National Defense
Authorization Act required the Administration to establish a
working group charged with preparing a plan to help U.S.
shipbuilding industry become competitive in international
commercial markets. The working group is considering a series
of measures, including the use of Title XI loan guarantees
for ship construction, defense conversion funds, ARPA R&D
projects, and Export-Import financing. The group will present
its proposals to the relevant Cabinet members this summer, so
that the Administration can submit a plan to the Congress by
the statutory deadline of October 1, 1993.
Tab C: Differing Views on U.S.-Flag Ships Engaged in Foreign
Trade
Political Concerns
(1) Strength of Congressional Support: Secretary Pena
believes there to be broad, bipartisan Congressional support
for maritime subsidies. The Secretary believes that maritime
supporters have enough votes to pass a maximalist package
without support from the Administration. If you do not
announce such a package now, the Secretary fears that you
will lose an opportunity to demonstrate leadership.
The Director of OMB disagrees with this assessment. In the
current budget environment, he believes that there will be
far less support for direct and indirect maritime subsidies.
He argues that Congress might even reduce the level of
subsidies, including those indirect subsidies that come at
the expense of other industries, such as agriculture and
manufacturing.
(2) The Political Cost of Delay: A number of maritime bills
have been introduced in Congress. To date, the Administration
has delayed taking a position on these bills pending the
completion of its review of maritime policies. Secretary Pena
believes that further delay will generate ill feelings on the
Hill.
(3) Congress will Support Subsidies to Ship Operators Only
If Immediate Subsidies Are Provided to Shipyards: Secretary
Pena believes that no new direct subsidy program
[[Page S 14659]]
can pass in Congress without including immediate new funding for
shipyards.
Economic Concerns
(1) DOT: Without a U.S.-flag fleet engaged in foreign
trade, U.S. exporters would be held hostage to the fleet of
nations with which we might have trade disputes.
Other Agencies: The worldwide carrier industry is highly
competitive, making the possibility of being held hostage
highly remote. Moreover, U.S. exporters will always be able
to ship cargo on U.S.-owned, foreign-flagged ships (although
these ships have foreign crews, they are owned and controlled
by U.S. interests).
The Alliance for Competitive Transport, the coalition of
major American exporters and importers, has made clear that
it does not believe that its interests would be harmed by the
reflagging of the Merchant Marine, as long as the ships
remained U.S. owned and controlled.
(2) DOT: A new ten-year program will lead to increased
efficiencies in the Merchant Marine that will make further
subsidies unnecessary.
Other Agencies: Subsidies are needed principally to offset
the higher wages of U.S. mariners. DOT has presented no
evidence that this program would eliminate the wage
differential between U.S. carriers and their foreign
competitors.
(3) DOT: The government must subsidize more ships than it
needs for defense purposes or risk crippling the commercial
shipping industry in times of military emergency.
Other Agencies: U.S. ship operators will enter contingency
contracts only if they believe that yielding their ships to
the government in times of emergency will not cripple their
commercial operations. If their ships were used during
emergencies, ship operators would continue operations through
their U.S. owned, foreign-flag affiliates, and by contracting
out to foreign owned companies.
(4) Department of Transportation: Some maritime supporters
will argue that DOD is not meeting its defense needs in the
most cost-effective manner. Critics will claim that DOD plans
to spend $6-7 billion over the next few years to purchase
``roll-on, roll-off'' (RORO) ships with a sealift capacity
that could be purchased more cheaply through subsidies to
maintain a large U.S.-flag Merchant Marine.
Department of Defense: DOD will spend $4.5 billion between
now and the year 2000 to acquire RORO ships. However, these
ROROs are not available in the current commercial fleet, nor
would these ships become available under any new liner
subsidy program. ROROs are specialized ships that allow rapid
loading/unloading of vehicles and can achieve high speed on
the open ocean. Reliance on the Merchant Marine to serve the
specialized function of ROROs would seriously compromise
DOD's ability to deploy U.S. forces in time to meet
anticipated threats overseas.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, after reading that memo, I want to tell
my colleagues that this option was the overwhelming pick among these
agencies. Fifteen executive branch agencies supported the option that I
just read from Secretary Rubin to President Clinton. Only one agency
objected, and that lone agency was the Department of Transportation.
Now, the Defense Department was willing to pay for this option. Yet,
the Transportation Department opposed. Why? Why would the Department of
Transportation oppose the Defense Department paying for these maritime
subsidies, but subsidies limited to meeting our true defense needs, not
one ship more than what the Secretary of Defense said we needed?
Now, of course, we all know that the President of the United States
is a busy man. And so, in preparing a decision memo, you want to make
certain that you put your absolute most important arguments front and
center.
The 15 agencies had a number of important arguments in favor of this
option. First and foremost in importance is the fact that the Secretary
of Defense, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander of
the Transportation Command said the real defense needs could be met
with as few as 20 U.S.-flag ships.
Second, it was argued by these 15 agencies that ``Option one'' would
sustain 1,500 seafaring jobs and 750 landside jobs.
And third, they argued against indirect subsidies such as cargo
preference by pointing out that ``indirect subsidies come at the
expense of other U.S. industries and hinder the missions of other
executive branch agencies.''
Mr. President, surely the Department of Transportation had a number
of powerful and persuasive arguments against this cost-effective option
supported by 15 agencies. Transportation must have been able to argue
to the President important meritorious points that our Defense experts
are wrong, that we need to subsidize more U.S.-flag vessels to meet our
real defense needs.
But what was Transportation's best arguments? Well, first, it must
have been good, because Transportation only offered one argument
against it.
And since the lone Transportation Department prevailed over 15 other
agencies, it must have been a very good argument, you would surmise.
After all, President Clinton was convinced, and he is pushing a
Merchant Marine Security Act that funds 52 vessels recommended by the
Department of Transportation, not the 20 recommended by the Department
of Defense. And it must have been good because a House committee and a
Senate committee have both approved these new subsidies for 47 to 52
vessels.
So what then was this powerful argument by the Department of
Transportation? And here I wish to read again for my colleagues.
Arguments against. Provides less support than is sought by
industry and its supporters.
Mr. President, did my colleagues hear the reason that the President
decided to go along with the Department of Transportation as the only
one of 16 Government agencies that thought we ought to subsidize 20
ships, and instead the President went along with the agency that wanted
to subsidize 52 ships?
The only argument against our top defense officials and 14 other
agencies is that the maritime industry--get this--that the maritime
industry and its supporters want more!
I will read again from the memo from the Secretary of the Treasury to
the President of the United States what these other 15 departments
wanted. It says right here, ``Provides less support than is sought by
the industry and its supporters.''
And for no more than these flimsy reasons, Congress within just a few
minutes is about to give maritime what it wants. So much then for the
revolution that was ushered in in the 1994 elections!
This memo to the President is chock full of amazing arguments. Get
this. Transportation Secretary Pena strongly argued for the President
to squander tax dollars by subsidizing 79 vessels, two to three times
what the Defense Department said it needed for sealift requirements.
If President Clinton did not advocate subsidizing 79 vessels,
Secretary Pena ``fears that you will lose an opportunity to demonstrate
leadership.'' Pena also argued, ``Further delay will generate ill
feeling on the Hill.''
Now, Secretary Pena is saying to his own President that you better do
what I say and recommend, because if you do not, I fear that you are
going to lose an opportunity to demonstrate leadership.
I hope the Secretary is listening and watching because I have a
message. Forget about generating ill feelings on the Hill. Voters took
care of many of those last November, and you can bet your bottom dollar
that your idea of ``losing an opportunity to demonstrate leadership,''
is 180 degrees opposite what the voters and overburdened taxpayers
expressed in the last election.
So, Mr. President, the military or national defense arguments in
favor of this amendment as well as for the so-called Merchant Marine
Security Act are simply bogus. This memo that I have been reading from
is absolutely clear evidence that the national defense arguments for
merchant marine subsidies are a sham.
That is not just the opinion of the military experts who participated
in this 16-agency effort, for during the Bush administration these
agencies participated in a similar maritime review. The point person
for this effort, representing the Defense Department, was former
Defense Assistant Secretary Colin McMillan.
I have a copy of his memo to other task force members. In short, he
said back during the Bush administration, ``The issue of U.S. flag
companies reflagging if we don't give them more subsidies is not''--I
wish to emphasize is not--``a defense issue.''
Assistant Secretary McMillan concluded, ``The issue of two U.S.-flag
container ship operators disposing of the U.S.-flag fleets is primarily
an economic one and should be treated accordingly.''
Citizens Against Government Waste--we are all familiar with that
organization--recently contacted Colin McMillan and included his
comments in their May 24, 1995 report entitled
[[Page S 14660]]
``Disaster at Sea. It's Time to Deep Six the Maritime Subsidy
Programs.''
That is the name of their publication.
For my colleagues, if you are interested in this, this publication is
an excellent, well-researched report which I am submitting for the
record, but let me share with my colleagues what the former defense
Assistant Secretary had to say now that he can speak candidly outside
of the Bush administration.
McMillan called the subsidy program in the name of national security
``a big waste of taxpayers' money. These programs should be clear
targets for elimination. Here we are talking about cutting programs for
children and we're funding so-called defense programs that add
nothing''--I wish to emphasize that add nothing--``to the defense of
our country.''
Keep in mind that these candid remarks come from the former Defense
Department expert on maritime subsidies and sealift needs. He is no
longer part of the Defense Department and he is no longer working for
an administration. He is not being paid by the maritime lobby, nor is
he part of any organization that is being funded by the maritime lobby.
So no one can question his motives.
Again, this maritime defense expert concluded that maritime subsidies
in the name of national security is a big waste of the taxpayers'
money.
He is not the only expert opposing maritime subsidies. I would like
to share the ``Quote to Note'' from the August 3, 1995 Journal of
Commerce:
Nearly 50 years of subsidies have not prevented the demise
of the U.S. merchant marine . . . Subsidies do nothing more
than cause inefficiency, mediocrity, lack of incentive and a
dependence upon Uncle Sam.
Mr. President, that statement was made by Harold E. Shear, who not
only served our Nation as a U.S. Navy admiral but also as a Maritime
Administrator.
As a memo to President Clinton points out, ``Subsidies for the U.S.
flag fleet have always been justified by their role in providing sea
lift capacity for us in military emergencies. With the end of the cold
war DOD's sealift requirements have declined.''
So you see, Mr. President, no matter what the U.S.-flag merchant
marine fleet may have meant to our Nation in the past to help with our
defense, the subsidies have not only been unjustified, they have not
worked in providing a strong merchant marine to meet our needs in
wartime. I argue that subsidies have even been harmful to our maritime
and if they have been harmful to our maritime, they have been harmful
to our national security.
Well, then, maritime supporters turn the debate away from the issue
of defense to that of economic security. This, too, is nonsense,
according to Secretary Rubin's memo to the President. The memo reads as
follows.
The NEC principals found no evidence that this segment of
the maritime industry was of strategic importance to the
economy. The U.S. has no competitive advantage in the
industry. The industry neither protects nor enhances U.S.
exports. Subsidizing carriers simply to preserve jobs would
leave the administration hard pressed to explain why it
should not also subsidize every other industry that suffers
job losses.
This is amazing. Why have not the House and the Senate committees
been able to pry this truth out of those testifying at their hearings
on the maritime?
Not only is it no longer based upon the testimony of military experts
that have a military need, but the argument, when that wears out, has
turned to economic rationale for our own maritime ships. And even the
administration principals argue that there is no economic justification
for this program.
Well, I think we all know the answer to why this argument was not
able to be made at the committees of the Congress this spring. Those
testifying are expected to be team players. They are expected to be
team players for the President who decided to throw away taxpayers'
dollars for unnecessary subsidies for maritime companies and their
high-priced executives and their labor unions.
And let us not kid ourselves. The real reason that we need to
subsidize U.S.-flag vessels by the tune of $2 to $2.5 million per year
is to cover the high costs of their labor unions.
Again, from the memo to President Clinton. Again, this is Secretary
Rubin writing to President Clinton.
He says:
Subsidies are needed principally to offset the higher wages
of U.S. mariners. DOT [the Department of Transportation] has
presented no evidence that this program will eliminate the
wage differential between U.S. carriers and their foreign
competition.
Mr. President, I have been arguing this truth for years. Most of my
colleagues except the new Members have heard it on the floor of this
Congress almost every year. And now we have proof that the maritime
experts in 15 executive branch agencies in a Democratic administration
agree with my position wholeheartedly.
But I surely was not the first who recognized this. A dozen years
ago, Mr. President, the U.S. Navy Military Sealift Commander, V. Adm.
Kent Carroll reported why our merchant marine was sinking.
He said 12 years ago:
Why are we in such a mess? . . . one of the reasons is that
U.S. crew costs continue to be the highest in the world.
Monthly crew costs of U.S. flag ships are as much as three
times higher than those of countries with comparable
standards of living, such as Norway.
He did not say three times higher than poor, Third World seafarers.
He said, three times higher than seafarers from countries with
comparable standards of living such as Norway.
Now, let me be fair to the unions. In a Journal of Commerce article
about an MIT study exposing the high cost of America's subsidized
seafarers, union officials fought back.
I want to share what they said.
Unions representing officers and seafarers on modern
containerships have criticized many of the underlying
assumptions in the report, saying the authors ignored non-
vessel costs such as high management salaries, and corporate
overhead.
That is coming from our unions.
Does anyone from the Commerce Committee know how much of this $2.5
million per ship annual subsidy is needed to cover these high
management salaries? Because I think that everybody in this body ought
to know.
Did the committee study the MIT report entitled ``Competitive Manning
of U.S.-Flag Vessels'' before passing out a $2.5 million per vessel
subsidy?
This report shows how these U.S.-flag vessels can get by with as
little as $1.1 million in Government subsidies. Let us go over that.
MIT says that our U.S.-flagged vessels can get by with as little as
$1.1 million subsidies. But our committee votes out a bill that gives
$2.5 million per vessel subsidies.
This means, Mr. President, since the Defense Department needs as few
as 20 vessels, and since by making some reasonable reforms such as
eliminating abusive featherbedding and overtime practices, Government
subsidies can be cut to $1.1 million per vessel, the Merchant Marine
Security Act of 1995 should authorize then only $22 million per year.
What is currently required? Five times that amount every year for 10
years.
My colleagues need to understand then that the cat is out of the bag.
No longer are maritime subsidies and programs hidden in the dark of
night.
Perhaps you saw last week's front page article in the Washington
Post. Other major publications such as the Wall Street Journal have
editorialized against these wasteful maritime subsidies. And I submit
both of these for the Record.
Numerous groups have come out this year in opposition to maritime
subsidies. The list is long but my colleagues need to know who they
are.
The National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group formed by consumer activist Ralph
Nader called Essential Information, the Progressive Policy Institute
sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Conference, the Cato Institute,
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. And
that is just a partial list.
The point, Mr. President, is simple. Too much information exposing
the waste and abuse of maritime programs is out in the public. And the
public is demanding the elimination of all this waste.
In fact, a top Transportation Department official, Inspector General
Mary Schiavo, has testified that the entire Maritime Administration,
together with its programs, including operating
[[Page S 14661]]
subsidies can be eliminated. The Inspector General, Department of
Transportation, working for Secretary Pena, who recommended that the
President come on board for this fat subsidy, recommends that we can do
away with these program operating subsidies entirely.
She is a top transportation official, an expert on all their
programs. But she is also an independent voice. And that independent
voice does not have to march lockstep with the Clinton administration
party line on maritime subsidies.
She has no self-serving motives. She does not have to care about
generating ill feelings on the Hill, or about the question of failing
to demonstrate leadership that Secretary Rubin said in the memo to the
President of the United States if the maritime industry would somehow
get less support than sought.
In other words, Mr. President, I think the Inspector General is a
credible person. And so is the memo that I have read, supposedly a
confidential memo from Secretary Rubin to the President of the United
States.
Mr. President, the public knows that maritime subsidies are a waste.
There have also been some public reports that show how desperate the
merchant marine unions and lobbyists have become. These articles point
to the dramatic shift of maritime campaign contributions shifting away
from Democrats in the last couple decades to Republicans this year.
And I have seen the reports compiled by some of these public interest
groups following closely this shift in campaign spending. I would urge
my colleagues to get a copy of an article printed on pages 536 and 537
of the 1977 Congressional Quarterly Almanac. History may very well
repeat itself.
Mr. President, it is clear that the amendment offered in this
managers' amendment should be defeated. It should not have been sneaked
through in this way. I regret that this amendment has been included in
the managers' amendment. It should have been withdrawn.
I do not know what sort of deal makings go on to bring this about,
but at least I have had an opportunity to tell the public and to tell
my colleagues that when this was a debate in the Clinton
administration, there were 16 Departments that were asked their
opinion. Fifteen of the sixteen said this was a waste of the taxpayers'
money, including the Department of Defense. But the Secretary of
Transportation, through a memo of Secretary Rubin to the President,
said that you better do this because you have to exercise leadership,
you have to exercise leadership, not because of the Department of
Defense needs, not because of the economic needs, but because the
maritime industry and the maritime unions want it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report and articles
to which I referred earlier be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Disaster at Sea!--It's Time to Deep Six the Maritime Subsidy Programs--
May 24, 1995
Congress has set caps on future spending and put the
country on a glide path toward a balanced budget in seven
years. In doing so, members have set sail into stormy waters.
Working out the details will surely be one of the most
controversial debates in recent history: a clash over exactly
which programs and policies should go, which should stay, and
what to do with savings. As congressional observers,
political pundits, and arm-chair budgeteers (taxpayers, most
of all) observe the debate over the particulars of what
should be included, it will be just as important to take note
of what they're not arguing about.
Even though there have been calls for the elimination of a
variety of corporate subsidy programs--everything from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Market Promotion
Program to targeted tax credits for corporations with friends
in high places--Congress will be missing the boat if it
doesn't move to scuttle wasteful maritime subsidy programs,
cargo preference laws and operating differential subsidies
(ODS), in particular.
Cargo preference laws go way back to the turn of the
century and the 1930's. The Jones Act, which governs only
domestic waterborne commerce, was enacted in 1920. It
mandates that all commercial cargo moving between American
ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships.
International cargo preference laws (the subject of this
report) dictate that all federal agencies--particularly the
Department of Defense (DOD), the USDA, the Department of
Energy, the Agency for International Development (AID), and
the Export-Import Bank--transport 50 to 100 percent of their
international cargo aboard U.S.-flag vessels. In practical
terms, these laws force taxpayers to underwrite monopoly
shipping rates and protect carrier owners from market
competition.
U.S.-flag vessels are those vessels regulated under the
laws of the United States. They must be American-built,
American-owned, and American-crewed.
According to a November, 1994, General Accounting Office
(GAO) report, the DOD alone, which is required by law to ship
100 percent of its goods under the U.S. flag, anted up $350
million a year in additional costs between 1989 and 1993 for
the privilege of transporting equipment and materials to
points abroad on U.S.-flag vessels. The USDA and AID must
transport 75 percent of their international food aid under
the U.S. flag, at an additional yearly cost of $200 million
and $23 million, respectively. About 120 shipping companies
shipped goods under the cargo preference laws in 1993, but
the bulk of the subsidies went to a handful of companies.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that
international cargo preference laws will cost federal
government agencies an additional $600 million in fiscal year
(FY) 1996. The November, 1994, GAO report said that cargo
preference policies support at most 6,000 of the 21,000
mariners in the U.S. merchant marine industry. That
translates into an annual cost of $100,000 per seafarer.
As far back as the 1960's the OMB, the GAO, and the Joint
Economic Committee of the Congress tried to do away with
these subsidies. In 1984, the Grace Commission also
recommended elimination of maritime subsidies.
Historically, proponents of cargo preference laws and other
maritime subsidy programs quickly evoke the national security
argument when defending the industry's right to continued
taxpayer largesse. They claim that a healthy U.S.-flag
merchant marine fleet is an essential logistical component
during a war. This argument has powerful resonance with
members of Congress, who harbor nostalgic memories of the
industry's titanic contributions during World War II,
orchestrating massive troop movements and dispatching
millions of tons of U.S. military equipment and supplies to
distant war zones.
The other rationale is that maritime subsidy programs pump
desperately needed revenue into an industry which cannot (or
hasn't been permitted to, depending upon who you talk to)
compete on the global market.
Unfortunately, today's merchant marine bears little
resemblance to its romantic image. Though the amount of
international ocean borne cargo has risen dramatically since
World War II, U.S.-flag vessels carry only four percent of
America's international cargo. Most of the increased cargo
has been picked up by privately owned foreign-flag carriers,
which are not subject to our restrictive ``flag'' laws and
are therefore far more cost-effective. The U.S.-flag fleet
has dwindled from a post-W.W.II peak of 2,000 to 371 ships
today. Of those 371, only 165 are currently engaged in
international trade and, therefore, eligible for either cargo
preference or operating subsidies.
Though those 165 vessels benefit from a billion dollars
annually in direct and indirect federal government subsidies,
the industry continues to sink under the unsustainable weight
of government regulation, outdated and protectionist labor
and management policies which safeguard the well-being of a
small clan of special interest groups, and the fierce
onslaught of global competition in the international shipping
industry. In characterizing U.S. maritime policies,
former U.S. Maritime Commissioner (and outspoken critic of
maritime subsidies) Rob Quartel called them ``a scam, a
taxpayer fraud.''
Cargo preference laws provide one kind of indirect subsidy.
A separate group of 20 to 30 privately owned shipping
companies also get cash subsidies through the Maritime
Administration (MARAD). These subsidies, so-called operating
differential subsidies (ODS), are meant to compensate private
shipping companies for retaining a certain number of their
vessels under a U.S.-flag, a decision which effectively
prices them right out of the world market.
In fact, keeping a ship under the U.S. flag is an
enormously expensive operation. In exchange for ODS, a
company must promise to keep certain international shipping
lines open, and--like companies with cargo preference
contracts--they must make their vessels available to the DoD
in times of national emergency. They must also submit to a
suffocating array of government regulations. Their ships must
be built in U.S. shipyards where construction costs are two
to four times those of foreign shipyards. They must comply
with a laundry list of safety codes and detailed technical
specifications which far exceed the internationally
recognized standards required for comparable foreign-flag
vessels. Most importantly, from the taxpayers' point of view,
they must also be U.S.-manned, with nearly twice the crew
size of comparable foreign vessels.
Ironically, the industry's most stultifying encumbrance,
the one most damaging to its competitive edge is a self-
imposed one: artificially inflated crew costs. But crew costs
are a matter of concern not just for the companies that must
pay seafarers' salaries and benefits. These costs are also of
paramount
[[Page S 14662]]
importance to taxpayers because the cost of labor is one of the factors
which determines the level of the subsidy!
In 1994, MARAD quietly released a long-delayed study by
researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) on the subject of manning costs abroad U.S.-flag
vessels. The report's conclusions were stunning. The
industry's labor practices amounted to nothing less than good
old-fashioned featherbedding at the taxpayers' expenses.
The report contained billet cost breakdowns for a variety
of U.S-flag vessels. A captain's billet cost was $34,000 per
month, most of which is covered by taxpayers. (In the U.S.
maritime industry, mariners are at sea for six months, and
then go on a six-month hiatus). Therefore, for six month's
work, a captain's billet costs can be about $204,000. U.S.
seafarers are also entitled to and often collect unemployment
benefits during their six-month hiatus, which leads to higher
unemployment taxes for both American carriers and taxpayers.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), outraged at the
exorbitant taxpayer-subsidized crew costs, unsuccessfully
offered an amendment to the FY 1994 DoD appropriations bill
aimed at reducing those costs. In a letter to his Senate
colleagues, Grassley wrote:
``Currently taxpayers are forced to support U.S.-flag
merchant marine seamen billets at a far higher level of pay
and benefits than those provided by billets for the men and
women who serve our nation in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps.''
Grassley noted that a Navy captain's billet costs $8,422
per month. ``In fact,'' he wrote, ``a U.S.-flag cook's billet
costs more than that of a Navy captain!''
The November, 1994, GAO report bears out this trend when
U.S. crew costs are compared with their European
counterparts. In 1993, for example, the daily cost for a 34-
person crew were between $12,000 and $13,000 a day. The cost
for a 21-person European crew was $2,500 to $4,000 per day.
According to the MIT study, subsidies for U.S.-flag
vessels, should they be of importance to the DoD, could be
reduced from the current $2.5 million per ship to about $1.1
million per ship by reducing crew sizes and salaries and by
allowing crew members to perform duties outside their job
classifications.
Shipping company managers have no incentive to negotiate
lower labor costs with the powerful mariners' unions because
the taxpayers will end up reimbursing them in the end anyway.
This arrangement has resulted in an unusually cozy
relationship between maritime industry labor and management,
who even share a bevy of lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
By brandishing the national security argument, proponents
of cargo preference laws and ODS have been very effective at
keeping the tide of maritime subsidies flowing in spite of
overwhelming evidence that they are a bad deal for taxpayers.
Recently, however, that argument has begun to fray.
The Gulf War may be remembered as the catalyst which caused
the national security argument to unravel in earnest. It
exposed the myth that our current national maritime policy
has any real national security rationale.
The Gulf War was the largest movement of military personnel
and equipment since World War II. But of the hundreds of
ships that delivered supplies and equipment to the theater,
only a handful U.S.-flag vessels actually entered the war
zone to deliver their freight to American troops. There were
about 50 other U.S.-flag merchant ships moving cargo during
the war, but most of them delivered their freight to foreign
ports where it was transferred to foreign-flag vessels with
foreign crews to make the rest of the journey.
In an August, 1991, commentary in Defense News, director of
MIT's Defense and Arms Control Studies Institute Harvey
Sapolsky characterized the U.S.-Flag merchant marine fleet's
Gulf War participation this way:
``Although more three-quarters of the ships chartered
during the Gulf War flew foreign flats, only 20 percent of
the U.S. military cargo actually rode on these ships. Most of
the amount hauled in a crisis is done by government-owned
standby and reserve ships. Moreover, there is a ready charter
market for commercial cargo vessel when more ships are
needed. The price required for their services in a crisis is
cheaper than the cost of maintaining a large subsidized
commercial fleet for a mobilization that may not happen again
for years. Despite any accompanying rhetoric about national
security, subsidies for the Merchant Marine fulfill the
commonplace desire for obtaining a livelihood without the
burden of having to compete to earn a living'' (emphasis
added).
Use of U.S.-flag ships actually hampered the Pentagon
during the critical surge stage of the Gulf War. When the
Pentagon had to transport cargo quickly, U.S.-flag ships,
which were scattered around the world, had to be called back
for service.
And, though the Pentagon has the option of commandeering
the ships for the war effort, American merchant marine crews
are not compelled by law to serve and must be asked to
volunteer their services. What's more, taxpayers pay once
again because these crews are entitled to hazard pay if they
enter a war zone.
In 1992, Colin McMillan, then-assistant secretary of
defense for production and logistics, was asked to report to
an interagency working group on the impact on military
readiness of two major U.S. container companies reflagging
under foreign flags. McMillian's memorandum, dated December
10, 1992, stated that ``the National Security Sealift Policy
does not support a fleet sized to meet military requirements
while maintaining its essential commercial operations/
commercial viability. Therefore, the issue of two major U.S.-
flag container ship operators disposing of their U.S.-flag
fleets is primarily an economic one and should be treated
accordingly (emphasis added).'' Contacted recently about the
issue, McMillian called the subsidy programs in the name of
national security ``a big waste of taxpayer money. These
programs should be clear targets for elimination. Here we are
talking about cutting programs for children, and we're
funding so-called defense programs that add nothing to the
defense of the country.''
There have been a number of opportunities to sink these
profligate maritime subsidy programs. The most recent was
Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR).
There were indications that some members of the NPR's
transportation task force, charged with rooting out
inefficiency in that area, wanted to deep-six these programs.
However, intense political pressure was brought to bear, and
the promise of a commission to look into maritime issues was
the most that emerged from that effort. Yet, even that has
not come to fruition.
Congressional support for maritime subsidies comes from a
variety of different, but apparently complementary, political
interests. Republicans like Rep. Herb Bateman (R-VA) and
Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS), who both hail from
coastal states, must contend with powerful maritime and
shipbuilding constituencies. On the Democratic side of the
aisle, Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) also has a strong maritime
constituency. Much of the political support from the
Democratic members is a natural outgrowth of the party's
traditional relationship with labor unions.
The Clinton administration's support for continued maritime
subsidies seems to be based upon political concerns rather
than sound fiscal policy. In a June 30, 1993, memorandum to
the President obtained by Citizens Against Government Waste
(CAGW), then-Secretary to the President for Economic Policy
Robert Rubin laid out the administration's options on
maritime issues. The memo stated that:
The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and the Commander of the Transportation Command
have already concluded that future requirement will not
exceed 20-30 liner vessels. DoD will have no need for bulk
vessels. All agencies therefore oppose renewal of direct
subsidies for bulkers (emphasis added).
Further on, Mr. Rubin once again delineated for the
President the arguments against maintaining or increasing
direct or indirect subsidies to maritime interest:
There is no evidence that this segment of the maritime
industry was of strategic importance to the economy . . . and
subsidizing carriers simply to preserve jobs would leave the
administration hard pressed to explain why it should not also
subsidize every other industry that suffers job losses.
Under the heading ``Political Concerns,'' Mr. Rubin
discussed the political climate in Congress and the chances
for getting rid of maritime subsidies:
``Secretary Pena believes there to be broad, bipartisan
Congressional support for maritime subsidies. The Secretary
believes that maritime supporters have enough votes to pass a
maximalist package without support from the Administration.
If you do not announce such a package now, the Secretary
believes that you will lose an opportunity to demonstrate
leadership (emphasis added).
In other words, if you can't beat them, join them. In the
final analysis, and in spite of the well-documented negative
impact these policies have on taxpayers and the long-term
competitive health of the maritime industry itself, not to
mention the federal budget deficit, the Clinton
administration chose to renew the operating differential
subsidies under a new title, the Maritime Security Act. While
practically every federal government program is coming under
congressional scrutiny, very little attention is being paid
to this ongoing waste of taxpayer money. This new bill, which
is similar to its predecessor, appears to be a politically
motivated stop-gap measure designed purely to pacify
congressional interests.
It is undeniable that the American merchant marine
industry, owing to a complex range of problems, is
floundering. In fact, simply scratching the surface of U.S.
maritime policies reveals a diabolically complicated system,
apparently designed to promote and enrich a handful of
privately owned shipping companies, the seafarers unions, the
shipbuilding companies, some powerful members of Congress,
and the Washington lobbyists who are paid handsomely to keep
all these balls in the air. Everyone, that is, except the
American taxpayers.
There are some voices of reason on Capitol Hill, and the
time may be right to make a serious move to eliminate these
costly leviathans. Sen. Grassley, a veteran critic of
maritime subsidy programs, collected 23 signatures on a
letter to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-
N. Mex.) calling for the elimination of ``wasteful maritime
programs, particularly cargo preference subsidies.''
Signatories included Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS),
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD),
chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
[[Page S 14663]]
Senator Hank Brown (R-CO) has decried the elitist nature of
the program, saying: ``What we accomplish with cargo
preference is to line the pockets of some very wealthy
people, but we do not accomplish the goal of expanding the
number of U.S.-flag vessels. It has dropped. We do not
accomplish the goal of making U.S. ships more competitive.''
Sen. Brown's office asked the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) to score the potential savings if maritime subsidies
were eliminated. The CBO estimated that the elimination of
maritime subsidies would save more than $2.8 billion over
five years.
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) has also crafted some preliminary
legislative language which would effectively eliminate cargo
preference laws in relation to foreign aid food shipments.
Several long-term maritime industry observers interviewed
for this report have come to a common conclusion. It is no
longer a matter of whether the U.S.-flag maritime fleet will
implode under its own weight, it's just a matter of when and
how much more money the taxpayers will surrender
involuntarily in a fruitless endeavor to prop up a failing
industry. Members of Congress should move now to stop this
maritime madness. It's time to scuttle the maritime subsidy
programs.
____
Subsidies Ahoy!
Was there really a revolution in American politics last
November? If so, somebody had better notify Congressman Herb
Bateman--fast. The Virginia Republican has already persuaded
the National Security Committee to approve a new $1 billion
subsidy for the U.S. Merchant Marine, and now he's trying to
get the rest of the House to go along. If he gets his way,
it'll be a strong indication that the Republican tide is
breaking up on the special-interest rocks of Washington.
There is no clearer case than shipping of the harm that
government ``help'' can do. During the past 50 years, the
government has sunk tens of billions of dollars into
protecting commercial shipping. The result? Just in the past
25 years, the U.S. Merchant Marine's share of the U.S.
shipping market has declined from 25% to less than 4%.
Federal interference starts with Coast Guard-enforced
regulations on staffing and work rules. U.S. mariners earn an
average of $125,000 for six months duty, but aren't allowed
to do as much work as lower-paid foreign counterparts. No
wonder it costs several times more to operate a U.S. ship
than a foreign vessel.
To ``compensate'' for these costly rules, U.S. shipping
lines get an annual direct payout of $240 million: this
program will expire soon unless it's renewed. Another handout
comes from the Defense Department, the Agency for
International Development and other government outfits that
have to ship goods on costly U.S. vessels. These ``cargo
preferences'' cost $592 million last year--enough money for
private charities to feed half a million starving children in
Africa for a year.
Throw in millions more for maritime academies that turn out
sailors the U.S. fleet can't employ, and what do you get?
Roughly $1 billion annually in direct government subsidies to
the U.S. Merchant Marine. But that's only part of the
maritime boondoggle. Even bigger costs lurk just beneath the
surface.
Under the 1920 Jones Act, only U.S.-built, -crewed and -
flagged ships can operate between U.S. ports. But since these
vessels are so costly, not a single coastal freighter bigger
than 1,000 tons runs along the East Coast. One result: Many
turkey farmers in North Carolina buy costlier Canadian grain
rather than cheaper U.S. varieties. In all, the International
Trade Commission estimates, the Jones Act costs consumers up
to $10.4 billion a year.
Then there's price fixing. The 1984 Shipping Act gave
shipowners complete anti-trust immunity and allows the
Federal Maritime Commission to enforce international shipping
cartels. The excessive charges of these cartels raise prices
on most imported and exported goods, costing consumers up to
$15 billion annually. Worst of all, 80% of the benefits go to
foreign shipping lines.
Rob Quartel, a former FMC member, figures that all maritime
subsidies together cost at least $375,000 per seagoing
worker. It would be a lot cheaper to pay the sailors not to
work. Eliminating these subsidies would not only force the
maritime industry to become competitive, but also would
contribute to the balanced budget effort. Mr. Quartel
figures, based on dynamic scoring, that eliminating subsidies
would save $7 billion between 1996 and 2002, and generate new
economic activity that would raise an extra $28 billion in
tax revenue. Even in Washington terms, $35 billion is real
money.
The House budget charts a course toward this destination;
it calls for eliminating direct maritime subsidies. But some
Republicans haven't gotten the message yet. Majority Whip
Trent Lott, who has also blocked complete telecom
deregulation, helped keep the Senate Budget Committee from
torpedoing maritime handouts as a favor to his maritime
industry constituents. And when the Senate recently allowed
the export of Alaskan oil, the legislation stipulated that
only costly U.S. ships can carry the crude.
In the House, Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster
is frustrating deregulation efforts, while Congressman
Bateman sails full steam ahead with his subsidies, which he
calls ``The Maritime Security Act of 1995.'' (We guess that
sounds better than the ``Pork Barrel Act of 1995''.) The
congressman dusts off the hoary old argument that the U.S.
needs subsidies to preserve a flag fleet that can carry
Pentagon supplies in wartime as his excuse.
But this claim doesn't hold water. The Defense Department
already spends billions on transport vessels that are on
permanent standby. It doesn't need, and can't use, most of
the merchant ships that Mr. Bateman proposes to subsidize.
During the Gulf War, only 8% of supplies delivered directly
to the Persian Gulf came on U.S. commercial vessels. That's
why the Pentagon has consistently opposed paying for maritime
subsidies.
Stripped of their military justification, Republican
shipping subsidies begin to look a lot like what the
Democrats used to hand out: Favors for one set of campaign
contributors (shipping companies and sailors' unions) at the
expense of the national interest. Mr. Quartel rightly calls
this ``a fraud and a scam.'' Unless the GOP quickly deep
sixes this outrageous proposal, voters will have cause to
wonder whether the Ship of State is being run by the same old
crew that was in charge before Nov. 8.
____
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 1995]
End of Merchant Marine May Be on the Horizon
(By Bill McAllister)
Portsmouth, Va.--It is 9 a.m. on a Sunday, and sweat is
trickling down Michael P. Ryan's chest.
The temperature has hit 90 degrees in the mint green engine
room of the Sea-Land Performance where Ryan, the 37-year-old
first assistant engineer, has been running last-minute
maintenance checks since before dawn. Later in the day, the
giant commercial ocean liner, three football fields in
length, will maneuver out of port on its way to deliver 1,700
containers of chemicals, auto parts, chocolates and other
merchandise across the Atlantic.
For the six months at sea he will spend tending the ship's
clattering diesel engine, Ryan will earn about $90,000, more
than his counterparts on any commercial ocean liner without a
U.S. flag on its stern. American ship captains and chief
engineers on ships like Ryan's earn even more--as much as
$132,000 to $151,000 for a half-year's work. In the months
off, crew members of the Performance do everything from
collect unemployment to work at a ski resort.
``I'm not going to say that the money's not good, but I
earn it,'' said Ryan, waving a dirty hand in the sultry air.
``It's not the life of Riley.''
Whether it's a life that taxpayers should subsidize is
another question--one the Senate may address as early as
today.
Since a fledgling Congress first penalized imports on
foreign ships in 1789, the federal government has protected
shipping interests on the theory that the military needs
American-built, American-manned ships on hand in case of war.
It has proven a costly premise that critics claim no longer
is valid.
In the name of a strong merchant marine, the government
today pays some $214.4 million a year to underwrite the pay
of about 9,000 jobs on 75 private ships and cover the cost of
abiding by U.S. regulations. Those payments have totaled $10
billion since the first checks went out in 1936.
It pays an additional $578 million a year more than it
needs to, by one estimate, to ship millions of tons of
military goods and other government cargo solely on U.S.-
flagged ships like the Performance, even though foreign
vessels are considerably cheaper. Farm state legislators
argue that the government loses millions more each year in
sales of farm commodities to foreign governments because of
higher transportation costs.
And consumers pay a good deal more money--$10 billion a
year, critics charge--for goods that federal law requires be
transported on more expensive American-flagged ships. That
law, called the Jones Act, bars foreign ships from carrying
any cargo shipped between domestic ports.
a shrinking flotilla
Whether all this is necessary--indeed, whether it is even
good for the industry--has been argued for decades. The raft
of subsidies has not saved the U.S. shipping industry from a
titanic plunge from the top ranks of world shippers. The
number of merchant ships flying the U.S. flag has dropped
from 3,644 in 1948 to 351 this year. Their share of the
world's ocean-shipping trade has plummeted from 42.6 percent
in 1950 to approximately 4 percent today.
Even the industry's military value has vastly diminished.
In recent years, the Pentagon acquired its own fleet of fast
cargo ships, built specially to transport military equipment
and moored more or less permanently in strategic harbors
around the globe.
What's left of the American-flagged ships, according to
critics, is a tiny and costly flotilla of ``welfare queens''
that epitomizes the waste that laces the federal budget.
The very obscurity of the subsidies to shipowners is part
of the secret of their survival. Many legislators see little
percentage in fighting to strike $1 billion or so from a $1.5
trillion federal budget, especially when it might mean
forgoing the political contributions of maritime unions and
shipowners that comprise one of the most politically active
industries in the country.
``This is a big mess, basically $1 billion a year . . .
going to less than 10,000 people,''
[[Page S 14664]]
said Rob Quartel, who served as a member of the Federal Maritime
Commission under President George Bush and has emerged as one
of the chief critics of the subsidies. ``The problem with
this industry is that it has been subsidized and regulated to
death.''
To the industry, however, the question is not whether
Congress wants to give the shipping industry a break, but
whether it wants a merchant marine at all. Executives of the
few remaining U.S. shipping lines blame their industry's
decline on foreign competitors who copied American technology
and then undercut American firms with cheaper labor and fewer
regulations.
Unless ``Uncle Sugar'' makes up the difference in costs, as
one shipper puts it, shipping companies will demand that the
government let them re-register their vessels in foreign
countries to take advantage of lower foreign operating costs.
``We're fighting for our life,'' said Mike Sacco, president
of the Seafarers International Union.
``America's future as a maritime nation is at stake,''
Albert J. Herberger, President Clinton's maritime
commissioner, recently told Congress. ``This year will make
or break what remains of our U.S.-flag presence on the high
seas.''
The issue before Congress is a simple one, said Christopher
L. Koch, a senior vice president of Sea-Land: ``Give us the
dough or let us go.''
More and more, letting them go seems a viable option.
Groups as diverse as the conservative National Taxpayers
Union and Ralph Nader's Essential Information Group are
pressing the Republican Congress to untie the shipping
industry and see how it floats on its own.
Their champion is a farm-state senator, Charles E. Grassley
(R-Iowa), who foresees savings for the Agriculture Department
in sales and shipments of surplus food overseas if maritime
programs are eliminated. ``We're seeing more light at the end
of the tunnel, but I don't see victory,'' he said in a recent
interview.
Some of the maritime industry's supporters, sensing trouble
at hand, are proposing cutting some of the expense. A
coalition of senators from maritime states may ask for a
floor vote as early as today on a measure that would extract
about $100 million from Radio Free Europe to continue
subsidizing the operating costs of a smaller number of U.S.
ships and provide some other benefits to the dwindling number
of private U.S. shipyards.
``Yes, it is going to cost a little more to ship on an
American ship,'' said Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), one of the
measure's supporters, at a recent Senate hearing. But, he
said, ``it is all a part of being an American.''
a call for elimination
Early on, it appeared that the Clinton administration might
try to toss out maritime subsidies in its drive to streamline
government. A task force advising Vice President Gore
described the subsidies as ``a cancer eating away--
unnecessarily--at the general revenues of the U.S.
Treasury.''
A draft of Gore's report on ``reinventing government''
called for eliminating the benefits, according to the task
force members, but that recommendation was deleted after
leaders of the politically powerful maritime unions protested
to Clinton. In a 1993 memo to the president, Robert E. Rubin,
then the director of Clinton's National Economic Council,
noted that maritime benefits already had ``broad bipartisan
support'' on the Hill.
But the support from the Pentagon, which long has provided
the rationale for the expenditures, has faded. In the 1980s
the military decided it was no longer content with the
shipowners' pledges to haul supplies in their vessels in
wartime in exchange for ongoing subsidies. Military planners
concluded it would take too long to commandeer the civilian
ships in a crisis. Besides, most commercial U.S. ships
sailing with U.S. flags were designed to carry standardized-
sized boxes of food and goods, not helicopters.
So the Pentagon invested in so-called roll-on, roll-off
ships--essentially floating garages that can be filled with
tanks and military trucks. Since the Persian Gulf War, the
military has continued to expand its fleet of ``row-rows,''
as the ships are called, with a $6 billion program. Today it
has a reserve fleet of 89 Navy-gray ships, many of them fully
loaded and docked around the world.
Should it need more in a time of crisis, the Pentagon would
``prefer American ships with American crews,'' said Margaret
B. Holt, a spokeswoman for the Military Sealift Command, the
Washington-based Navy command that charters ships for the
Pentagon. But that's only if another agency pays the
shipowners, said Gen. Robert L. Rutherford, head of the U.S.
Transportation Command, in recent testimony before a Senate
subcommittee.
During the Gulf War, the military found it could rely on
foreign ships to supplement its own fleet. The U.S. Maritime
Administration, part of the Transportation Department,
estimates that about 20 percent of goods arriving in the war
zone came on foreign ships; a Navy estimate places the level
closer to 50 percent, noting many military goods were
transferred from U.S.-flagged ships to smaller feeder ships
at European and Asian ports.
According to Holt, the Sealift command spokeswoman, the
lesson is: ``If there is money to be made, there are ships to
be had.''
The maritime programs are a patchwork of direct and
indirect subsidies and protections that date back largely to
the period between 1904 and 1936.
There are three ways the government subsidizes U.S.-flag
vessels: It pays direct subsidies to vessels engaged in
international trade to help them compete with foreign-flag
vessels. It pays higher rates on shipment of government
goods. It also requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to
be carried by U.S. vessels.
The requirement that government goods be transported in
U.S.-flagged vessels adds $578 million a year to the
government's transportation bills, most of it paid by the
Pentagon, the government's largest shipper, according to the
General Accounting Office. The rule that surplus food be
shipped under U.S. flag has cut the amount of farm
commodities that foreign governments could buy by $131
million in the past three years, according to a March report
by the Agriculture Department's inspector general.
Consumers also pay to protect the industry, according to
critics like Quartel, the former Bush administration
official. Quartel heads a group backed by farm and minerals
interests that hopes to repeal the 1920 Jones Act, the law
that restricts domestic cargo to American-flagged ships. He
cites a U.S. International Trade Commission study that
estimates the law may add as much as $10.4 billion a year to
transportation costs, which are then passed along to
wholesalers and consumers.
The most obvious cost--and perhaps the most vulnerable to
cuts--is the $214.4 million a year the government pays out to
the owners of the 75 U.S.-flagged vessels to cover the cost
of sailing with a U.S. crew, under U.S. regulations.
Unless Congress acts, these so-called ``operating
differential'' payments will cease when the government's 20-
year contracts with the shipowners expire in 1997. Rep.
Herbert H. Bateman (R-Va), a strong maritime advocate who
chairs a subcommittee of the House National Security
Committee, has teamed up with Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to
propose somewhat reduced benefits: an average of about $2.3
million a year each to about 50 ships, rather than the
roughly $3 million now paid to 75 vessels. The Clinton
administration supports their proposal.
Maritime industry officials say critics exaggerate the
indirect costs and underrate the benefits to the country in
jobs and national security. Although fewer than 10,000 jobs
depend on the direct subsidies, the Jones Act helps protect
as many as 200,000 workers, industry supporters say.
They deride foreign ships as unreliable in wartime, citing
a half-dozen or more vessels that refused to sail or delayed
voyages into the Persian Gulf during the conflict there.
If U.S.-flagged ships are not militarily important, then
their crews certainly are, supporters say. ``You can always
commandeer ships. You can't commandeer people,'' said Thomas
L. Mills, a Washington maritime lawyer and lobbyist.
Sea-Land has been one of the primary beneficiaries of the
maritime programs and, in the company's view, a victim as
well. The company benefits handsomely by flying the U.S.
flag; in fact, its Pentagon contracts make it the country's
largest ocean shipper of military goods.
But the American flag raises its operating costs because it
must pay its crews the higher U.S. union salaries. The firm
is not reimbursed directly for those added costs because it
is barred from drawing operating subsidies at the same time
it holds government shipping contracts.
flying a new flag
As military shipping declines, Sea-Land wants the option to
switch to operating subsidies. Unless Congress continues the
subsidies, Sea-Land president John P. Clancey has warned, his
company will ask permission to register its remaining 37
U.S.-flagged ships under foreign flags.
It already dropped the Stars and Stripes off five ships in
the past year and registered them with the Republic of
Marshall Islands. The firm has offered American captains jobs
on those ships at a salary of $72,760 for eight months a
year. That's roughly 41 percent of what some of them would
earn as skippers of U.S.-flag ships.
Offers like that are quite disheartening to seamen like
Lawrence R. Swink, of Lake Tahoe, Nev., captain of the
Performance. ``For those kind of wages they're talking about,
I can run a little tour boat and be home with my family every
night and watch my children grow up,'' he said.
From Swink down to the ship's tattooed cook, the 21 crew
members of the Performance know their jobs are on the line.
``I can't argue that the Filipinos won't do it cheaper than
me, but I'll tell you one thing,'' Ryan said. ``They won't do
it better than me.''
``I can't imagine the U.S. not having a merchant marine,''
said Baden L. Fitzsimmons, the junior engineer, shaking his
head.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have to respond to some of this, because
I think if someone listens to this debate, they get a total
misimpression of what we have done in this bill. Let me begin by saying
I take a back seat to no one on this planet and nobody in the U.S.
Senate in opposing cargo preference. I have fought it from the first
day I
[[Page S 14665]]
came here. I am going to fight it from here or elsewhere until it is
ultimately eliminated.
Let me review the facts. The facts are as follows:
President Clinton, despite all this wonderful advice, proposed $175
million for operating subsidies for the maritime industry. Our
subcommittee and our full committee provided not one red cent. We had
an amendment about which we talked to Members on both sides of the
aisle. Some 14 Republicans were ready to vote for the amendment. It was
obvious to a blind man that we were going to lose on the amendment and,
at a late hour, instead of holding the Senate here, we agreed to
providing $46 million.
Here is the point: As far as I am aware, that is the lowest level of
subsidies for the maritime industry since the Second World War. We have
never had an appropriations bill in the U.S. Senate since 1946 that cut
maritime subsidies as much as this bill cut maritime subsidies.
I wanted it to be zero. I oppose these subsidies. But, basically, the
point I want people to understand is, the President asked for $175
million. While the accounts are not comparable, there was $214 million
provided last year. Even with the adoption of this amendment, which I
do not support, we are only providing $46 million in new subsidies. So
we have cut maritime subsidies more than any appropriations bill since
World War II. We have dramatically reduced those subsidies.
I share my colleague's righteous indignation. The problem is I have
sat here all day and fought amendments. I wanted to fight this
amendment, but not only did I have no votes on my side giving me any
chance of a majority, but many of our colleagues were elsewhere in
committee. I was here on the floor basically making a decision that we
were going to lose, and so this amendment was included.
To conclude, being repetitive one final time, if somebody wants good
news about maritime subsidies, the President proposed $175 million of
operating subsidies. This final bill provides $46 million, which is a
dramatic cut and which, as far as I am aware, is the largest cut in
operating subsidies for the maritime industry since the Second World
War.
In terms of loan guarantees, the President asked for $52 million, our
committee provided $2 million. This amendment that has been adopted
adds $25 million to that, providing $27 million. So in an overall
request of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars by President Clinton
and his administration, after all is said and done, we are providing
$73 million. If we do this well next year, there will be no maritime
subsidy program. That is my point.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas for providing
this clarification. It should be pointed out that the Commerce
Committee of the U.S. Senate and the National Security Committee of the
House of Representatives, in response to taxpayers' concerns about the
high cost of the operation differential subsidy, came forth with the
Maritime Security Act. In the Senate, it is S. 1139; in the House, H.R.
1350.
This year, by a unanimous vote in the Senate committee and a
unanimous vote in the House committee, this act was passed--unanimous
vote. It is a bipartisan measure. In the U.S. Senate, the chairman of
the subcommittee is the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. I have the
great privilege of serving as the senior Democrat on that committee.
As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice and State just noted, the amounts we are requesting are much,
much less than what has been requested by the President of the United
States or what it has cost the taxpayers in the past. It has been
suggested that all we would need is 20 vessels, and in so doing, cite
Desert Storm as an example.
We, together with our allies, were exceedingly fortunate because the
man in charge of Iraq did not have the good sense to do what any
military commander would have done. He gave us over 6 months to prepare
ourselves, and that is why we were able to ship goods in a rather
leisurely manner to the Persian Gulf. We were lucky.
I think at this juncture I should just briefly point out the history
of our merchant marine industry.
At the end of World War II, we controlled the seven seas. The Russian
fleet was in the bottom of the ocean. The British fleet did not exist.
The German fleet was gone. The Japanese had none. The Chinese had none.
No one had ships. We controlled the ocean. If the Japanese wanted to
ship anything, it had to be on an American ship. If the British wanted
to ship anything, it had to be on an American ship. We controlled the
seas. But because of our belief in free trade, because of the massive
program we instituted, the Marshall Plan and other programs, we helped
to build the economies of other lands, including our former enemies. As
a result, at this moment, the U.S. fleet carries less than 4 percent of
our foreign cargo. We carried over 90 percent and now we carry less
than 4 percent. And if you think that 20 would be enough, may I remind
my colleagues about the Yom Kippur war. During the Yom Kippur war, the
Egyptians nearly overran the Israeli forces. They were pushed back to
their borders across the Sinai. And in 30 days, they used up the
ammunition that they had stored for 6 months. We had an agreement with
the State of Israel to provide ammunition and supplies. And so we
looked around for our ships. Our ships were busy. So we looked to
American citizens. There were hundreds of American citizens who owned
ships registered in foreign lands, like Liberia and Panama. Most of the
ships registered in Liberia and Panama belong to Americans, hundreds of
them. So we called upon them to say that we have an emergency and we
must supply the Israeli forces, please provide your ships, make them
available to our Defense Department.
Mr. President, do you know how many ships responded? Do you know how
many loyal American citizens responded? Zero. Zero. As a result, we had
to use our C-5 tankers, the new C-5, and flew cargo into Israel. This
is not classified now, but two of those C-5s were nearly shot down.
Imagine what would have happened if they were shot down.
What I am trying to suggest is that Desert Storm was a good war for
us, if you want to put it in ``good and bad.'' It was easily discerned
as to who was bad and who was good. All the allies were with us. Even
the Arabs were with us. They made their ships available very happily.
Even the Japanese came down to the Persian Gulf to help us. But we may
get involved in something that is not popular, that may not be
considered a good war. And then what would happen?
Finally, may I say that every country with a fleet would insist that
their mail--postage--be carried by their ships. The British carry their
mail to the United States. The Germans carry their mail to the United
States. The Russians carry their mail to the United States on their
fleet. The Japanese insist on that. Even the Arabs insist on carrying
their mail on their ships.
We believe in free trade. We put our mail carriage on auction, on
bid. Who do you think carries our mail across the Atlantic ocean? The
American fleet? The Polish Steamship Company. I hope we are proud of
that. One would think that we would be proud enough to insist that our
mail with our postage stamps be carried by our fleet. But because we
insist upon slowly but surely tearing down our merchant fleet, the day
will come when this great and powerful Nation will be blackmailed by
all these other countries. The day will come and they will say, sorry,
folks, we do not want to get involved in this conflict. See, what
happened during the Yom Kippur war, Saudi Arabia sent word to Liberia
and Panama and told the Liberian and Panamanian government, ``If ships
in your register are used to carry cargo to Israel, we will consider
this an unfriendly act.'' That is why zero.
That could happen to us again, Mr. President. This is a small
investment.
One part of this is the title I one loan guarantee program. A $25
million investment will generate $500 million in ship building. It is
about time we revived our ship building industry.
Mr. President, this is a bargain. This has bipartisan support. That
is why the chairman of this committee, Mr.
[[Page S 14666]]
Gramm, wisely counted the votes, because it is a popular program. It is
an American program, Mr. President.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Amendment No. 2848 through 2878
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments to the desk,
en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes amendments, en
bloc, numbered 2848 through 2878.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2847
(Purpose: To disapprove of amendments to the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines relating to lowering of crack sentences and sentences for
money laundering and transactions in property derived from unlawful
activity.
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LOWERING OF
CRACK SENTENCES FOR MONEY LAUNDERING AND
TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED FROM UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY.
In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United
States Code, amendments numbered 5 and 18 of the ``Amendments
to the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy Statements, and Official
Commentary'', submitted by the United States Sentencing
Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, are hereby disapproved
and shall not take effect.
____
amendment no. 2848
On the Committee amendment on page 28, line 8, after
``for'' delete ``State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Block Grants pursuant to Title I of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (as amended by Section 114 of
this Act);'' and insert ``Public Safety Partnership and
Community Policing pursuant to Title I of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994;''.
On the Committee amendment on page 38, line 3, delete all
after ``SEC. 114.'' through to ``local sources.'' on page 43,
line 20.
____
amendment no. 2849
(Purpose: To reduce the energy costs of Federal facilities for which
funds are made available under this Act)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . ENERGY SAVINGS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Reduction in Facilities Energy Costs.--
(1) In general.--The head of each agency for which funds
are made available under this Act shall--
(A) take all actions necessary to achieve during fiscal
year 1996 a 5 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1995
levels, in the energy costs of the facilities used by the
agency; or
(B) enter into a sufficient number of energy savings
performance contracts with private sector energy service
companies under title VIII of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.) to achieve
during fiscal year 1996 at least a 5 percent reduction, from
fiscal year 1995 levels, in the energy use of the facilities
used by the agency.
(2) Goal.--The activities described in paragraph (1) should
be a key component of agency programs that will by the year
2000 result in a 20 percent reduction, from fiscal year 1985
levels, in the energy use of the facilities used by the
agency, as required by section 543 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8353).
(b) Use of Cost Savings.--An amount equal to the amount of
cost savings realized by an agency under subsection (a) shall
remain available for obligation through the end of fiscal
year 2000, without further authorization or appropriation, as
follows:
(1) Conservation measures.--Fifty percent of the amount
shall remain available for the implementation of additional
energy conservation measures and for water conservation
measures at such facilities used by the agency as are
designated by the head of the agency.
(2) Other purposes.--Fifty percent of the amount shall
remain available for use by the agency for such purposes as
are designated by the head of the agency, consistent with
applicable law.
(c) Reports.--
(1) By agency heads.--The head of each agency for which
funds are made available under this Act shall include in each
report of the agency to the Secretary of Energy under section
548(a) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 8258(a)) a description of the results of the
activities carried out under subsection (a) and
recommendations concerning how to further reduce energy costs
and energy consumption in the future.
(2) By secretary of energy.--The reports required under
paragraph (1) shall be included in the annual reports
required to be submitted to Congress by the Secretary of
Energy under section 548(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8258(b)).
(3) Contents.--With respect to the period since the date of
the preceding report, a report under paragraph (1) or (2)
shall--
(A) specify the total energy costs of the facilities used
by the agency;
(B) identify the reductions achieved;
(C) specify the actions that resulted in the reductions;
(D) with respect to the procurement procedures of the
agency, specify what actions have been taken to--
(i) implement the procurement authorities provided by
subsections (a) and (c) of section 546 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8256); and
(ii) incorporate directly, or by reference, the
requirements of the regulations issued by the Secretary of
Energy under title VIII of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.);
and
(E) specify--
(i) the actions taken by the agency to achieve the goal
specified in subsection (a)(2);
(ii) the procurement procedures and methods used by the
agency under section 546(a)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
8256(a)(2)); and
(iii) the number of energy savings performance contracts
entered into by the agency under title VIII of the Act (42
U.S.C. 8287 et seq.).
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the bill
agreeing to accept this amendment.
The Competitiveness Policy Council [CPC], for which I am recommending
just $100,000 of support in fiscal year 1996, has just published
several reports which provide thoughtful commentary on our Nation's
economy. These reports include three just recently released and titled
``Lifting All Boats: Increasing the Payoff From Private Investment in
the American Economy'' by Harvard Business School professor, Michael
Porter, and Salomon Inc. chairman, Robert E. Denham; ``U.S. Technology
Policy: The Federal Government's Role'' by former Bush administration
Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Robert White; and ``Saving
More and Investing Better,'' which concentrates on raising national
savings and improving the way saving is allocated, or invested, in the
private sector.
During a time when we are struggling with important decisions about
the role of Government in the economy--about what programs should be
cut back, which should be nurtured--it seems to me that a bipartisan
Council such as CPC, which produces the sorts of high-intellectual
octane material that directly responds to choices we are making in our
national economic framework, should receive our support.
The Competitiveness Policy Council, which started operating in 1991,
was established as a bipartisan Federal advisory commission. Of the 12
members, of which 6 are Republicans and 6 are Democrats, 4 are
appointed by the joint leadership of the House, 4 by the joint leaders
of the Senate, and 4 by the President. Business, labor, and Government
as well as public interest groups are equally represented, each group
having three members representing their interests. And when this
commission was initiated, the founders had the wisdom to make it a
creature of both the legislative and executive branches.
The CPC's mission is to develop recommendations to Congress and the
President to improve the productivity and international competitiveness
of the American economy. And importantly, the Commission provides
dispassionate analysis of the state of the U.S. international economic
competitiveness, providing a report to the President and Congress on an
annual basis.
At this time, when CPC is issuing important policy reports and has
others in the pipeline, it would not be judicious of this body to force
a premature end to the good work and initiatives of this valuable
commission. Its capital allocation report, ``Lifting all Boats,'' is
ripe with important recommendations for which the American business
community will cheer; these recommendations, CPC argues will help
businesses truly organize for the long term, which is also very much in
the national economic interest. The CPC may also reconstitute its Trade
Policy Subcouncil to focus on regional trade agreements within the
Western Hemisphere and the Asia Pacific region and the impact of these
on both the multilateral trading system and American
[[Page S 14667]]
living standards. The need for trade negotiating authority would make
this effort timely.
Furthermore, the Council has begun work in two other areas:
regulation and the relationship between Federal and state governments
and U.S. competitiveness and living standards. I do not need to tell
any of my colleagues here that $100,000 is modest; but this amount will
allow the CPC to conclude the important work it has only recently begun
to release and distribute. I think that many of my colleagues across
the aisle can also attest to the quality and lucidity of CPC policy
analysis and recommendations.
As part of this amendment, I suggest that we pare back, just a bit,
the increase that the committee bill proposes for the Drug Enforcement
Administration [DEA]. The bill provides the DEA with a 12.4 percent
increase, $93 million, above the current year; an amount that surpasses
the President's request by $40 million. Specifically, the committee
bill provides an increase of $10.5 million for Permanent Change of
Station moves. Last week, $4 million of fiscal year 1995 funds was
reprogrammed for this very same purpose.
Thus, I propose that the $100,000 appropriation for the
Competitiveness Policy Council be drawn from the account for Permanent
Change of Station Moves in the DEA fiscal year 1996 appropriation.
Support of the Competitiveness Policy Council at this level of
funding should be an easy decision to make. I think that the positive
contribution of CPC's work will be returned in many multiples as the
overall health of our economy benefits from CPC's wise counsel.
Thank you.
energy efficiency
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to
discuss an amendment I am offering on this appropriations bill. My
amendment encourages agencies funded under the bill to become more
energy efficient and directs them to reduce facility energy costs by 5
percent. The agencies will report to the Congress at the end of the
year on their efforts to conserve energy and will make recommendations
for further conservation efforts. I have offered this amendment to
every appropriations bill that has come before the Senate this year,
and it has been accepted to each one.
I believe this is a commonsense amendment: The Federal Government
spends nearly $4 billion annually to heat, cool, and power its 500,000
buildings. The Office of Technology Assistance and the Alliance to Save
Energy, a nonprofit group which I chair with Senator Jeffords, estimate
that Federal agencies could save $1 billion annually if they would make
an effort to become more energy efficient and conserve energy.
Mr. President, I hope this amendment will encourage agencies to use
new energy savings technologies when making building improvements in
insulation, building controls, lighting, heating, and air conditioning.
The Department of Energy has made available for government-wide agency
use streamlined ``energy saving performance contracts'' procedures,
modeled after private sector initiatives. Unfortunately, most agencies
have made little progress in this area. This amendment is an attempt to
get Federal agencies to devote more attention to energy efficiency,
with the goal of lowering overall costs and conserving energy.
As I mentioned, Mr. President, this amendment has been accepted to
every appropriations bill the Senate has passed this year. I ask that
my colleagues support it.
amendment no. 2850
(Purpose: To require State Department to report on cost savings
generated by extending foreign service officer tours of duty in nations
for which the State Department requires two-year language study
program, including China, Korea, Japan)
On page 93, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
And also provided, That by May 31, 1996, the State
Department will report to the President and to Congress on
potential cost savings generated by extending foreign service
officer tours of duty in nations for which the State
Department requires two year language study programs, but
specifically including China, Korea, and Japan. This study
should consider extending terms on the following basis:
junior officers from the current two year maximum term to a
three-year tour, and mid to senior foreign service officers
from the current three year minimum term to four year minimum
with a possible employee-initiated one year extension.
Potential costs savings from revised foreign tour of duty guidelines
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have spoken here in the past
expressing strong support for the initiative of this Congress to cut
our Government's Federal budget deficit. But I feel just as strongly
that this effort be undertaken in a sensible way that promotes economic
growth where it can, and at all costs, does not actually cause the
economic welfare of our citizens to worsen.
One of the steps that our Government can take to both cut spending
and promote economic growth would be to better leverage the investment
we make in our Foreign Service officers stationed in Embassies and
consulates abroad. Presently, all levels of Foreign Service officers
receive language training for non-English language speaking posts to
which they are sent. Our personnel assigned to nations that use
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Arabic languages receive, at Government
expense, 2 years of language training. All other language programs
offered are 1-year programs.
I strongly support the training of our foreign service personnel so
that we have a culturally literate team of American representatives
pursuing our interests abroad.
But it does seem to me that we could be doing more both to enhance
our ability to pursue American political and economic interests abroad
and give the taxpayer more return on his investment if we revised our
guidelines for the length of assignment for our foreign service
officers.
Presently, the State Department does not make a distinction between
the terms of duty in those nations for which we provide 2 years of
language training as opposed to 1 year. We also don't have a framework
that allows us to provide longer-term assignments in those nations,
particularly in Asia, that are relationship-based and are of
significant consequence to America's trade and economic agenda.
Junior foreign service officers--regardless of whether they had 1 or
2 years of language training--remain in their foreign assignment just 2
years. Mid- to senior-level foreign service officers are assigned for 3
years, and can, at their own initiative, extend their assignment for 1
additional year. I think that we can get more return on our investment
by extending the assignments for junior foreign service officers, who
are assigned to a country for which we require a 2-year program. These
countries would include China, Korea, and Japan which, of course, have
very high priority on our Nation's economic radar.
I also believe that mid- to senior-level foreign officers should have
their assignments lengthened from 3 to 4 years in these high-priority
nations, and continue to have the personal option of extending an extra
year.
I think that this framework makes good common sense and should not be
a controversial matter. I would like to request that the State
Department study this proposal that I have briefly outlined and report
back to the Congress and to the President by May 31, 1996 on the cost
savings that such a plan would generate. I also think that America
would further its own interests by allowing those who develop good
networks and cultural literacy in key nations to remain in place for
longer periods of time.
If there was a message that I heard from those staffing our overseas
posts it was that we pull our people out just when they were figuring
out the lay of the land. I think that the State Department may find
that revising their foreign assignment guidelines, particularly in
assignments in which our taxpayers have made considerable investments
in language training, would make good sense.
Amendment No. 2851
(Purpose: To require a report to the Congress on the Doppler weather
surveillance radar located on Sulphur Mountain in Ventura County,
California)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section.
SEC. . REPORT ON THE DOPPLER WEATHER SURVEILLANCE RADAR
(a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
conduct a study on the Doppler weather surveillance radar
(WSR-88D). The study shall include the following elements.:
[[Page S 14668]]
(1) An analysis of the property value lost by property
owners within 5 miles of the weather surveillance radar as a
result of the construction of the weather surveillance radar.
(2) A statement of the cost of relocating a weather
surveillance radar to another location in any case in which
the Dept. has been asked to investigate such a relocation.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on the study required under section (a) not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
____
amendment no. 2852
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate concerning book donation
programs)
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section--
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING BOOK DONATIONS.
It is the Sense of the Senate that the United States should
continue to provide logistic and warehouse support for non-
governmental, non-profit organizations undertaking donated
book programs abroad, including those organizations utilizing
on-line information technologies to complement the
traditional hard cover donation program.
____
amendment no. 2853
(Purpose: To prohibit funding of efforts to privatize federal prison
facilities at Yazoo City, Mississippi and Forrest City, Arkansas)
At page 22, add the following at the end of line 9:
Provided further, That no funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used to privatize any federal prison facilities
located in Forrest City, Arkansas and Yazoo City,
Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my amendment prohibits the authorization
of funds to privatize the Federal prison facilities located at Yazoo
City, MS, and Forrest City, AR.
Mr. President, recent administration proposals regarding the
privatization of Federal prison facilities has created a unique problem
for Federal prison facilities located in Yazoo City, MS, and Forrest
City, AR. I offer this amendment today as a fair and equitable solution
to allow the Federal Government to meet its obligations to two
communities while not impeding the policy objectives of the
administration.
Quite a few years ago, a small community in my home State, Yazoo
City, and a similar community in Arkansas, called Forrest City,
competed with many other communities in our region of the country to
site Federal prison facilities in their communities. Yazoo City and
Forrest City were successful in their efforts. Each community now has a
low and minimum security Federal prison facility ready to begin
operation in early 1996.
The two facilities are similar in other ways, also. Each site has
land and infrastructure in place to accommodate additional medium and
high security facilities which the Bureau of Prisons had indicated were
a very real possibility for the future. Both communities made
substantial financial investments to enhance their respective sites
with the understanding that doing so would increase their chances of
gaining additional facilities.
The Clinton administration's budget contained a directive that the
Bureau of Prisons privatize ``the majority of future pretrial
detention, minimum and low security Federal prisons.'' Low and minimum
security facilities built on the same site as medium and high security
facilities are exempt from this proposal.
Mr. President all of us understand and many of us support the policy
objectives of the privatization effort. However, I submit that the
facilities located at Yazoo City, MS and Forrest City, AR do not
qualify as future facilities and are thus not appropriate candidates
for privatization.
First, the administration directed the privatization of future
minimum and low security prisons. The facilities in Yazoo City and
Forrest City are by no means future facilities. The Federal Government
shook hands with the officials in these two communities many years ago.
Each of these communities made substantial financial investments and
entered contractual obligations based on the Government's agreement to
site a federally run facility on their sites. To privatize these
facilities at this point would be breaking a commitment to two
communities who welcomed and supported the Government's decision to
locate facilities among them. The terms of the agreement between the
Federal Government and the citizens of these two communities must not
be broken at this 11th hour.
Second, privatization of these facilities will preclude these
communities from being able to compete on an equal footing with other
communities for higher security Federal prison facilities. The policy
of the Bureau of Prisons and the administration prohibits the locating
of federally run and privately run facilities on the same site. It is
also the administration's policy not to allow the privatization of
medium and high security Federal prisons because of the concern of
maintaining security and safety of the facilities and surrounding
communities. The administration's own policy dictates that the
privatization of the Yazoo City and Forrest City minimum security
facilities will forever preclude the location of higher security
facilities on those sites. The environmental studies and improvements
necessary to accommodate higher facilities at these sites are already
complete. To deny these communities the opportunity to eventually
compete for higher facilities would be a disastrous waste of time and
money.
Mr. President, these two communities entered a contract with the
Federal Government in good faith and have made expenditures to uphold
their obligations under that contract. We only ask that the Federal
Government do the same. Privatization of these two facilities is a
breach of the faith of these communities and violation of a contractual
obligation.
I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment as a fair solution to a
unique situation.
amendment no. 2854
On page 74, 18, after ``Fund'', strike the period and
insert the following: ``, and of which $1,200,000 shall be
available for continuation of the program to integrate energy
efficient building technology with the use of structural
materials made from underutilized or waste products.''
____
amendment no. 2855
(Purpose: To clarify language for providing funding for the National
Maritime Heritage Act)
Page 117, line 5 is amended by inserting after
``academies'' and before the colon, the following: ``and may
be transferred to the Secretary of Interior for use as
provided in the National Maritime Heritage Act (P.L. 103-
451).''
____
amendment no. 2856
(Purpose: To make available funds for the Tenth Paralympiad games for
individuals with disabilities)
On page 110, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 405. FUNDS FOR THE TENTH PARALYMPIAD GAMES.
Of the aggregate amount appropriated under this title for
the United States Information Agency under the headings
``SALARIES AND EXPENSES'', ``EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS'', AND ``INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING
OPERATIONS'', $5,000,000 shall be available only for the
Tenth Paralympiad games for individuals with disabilities,
scheduled to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1996, consistent
with section 242 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 2452 note).
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished
managers for their assistance in the adoption of this very important
amendment. Next summer, the city of Atlanta will host the Tenth
Paralympiad. This event will draw 119 countries and 3,500 world-class
athletes with physical disabilities to the United States to complete in
the largest global summit on disability. Leaders from the international
disability community will observe the progress made in the country on
disability policy first hand.
This amendment will allow the Director of the United States
Information Agency (USIA) to direct $5 million of the funds
appropriated to USIA for the Tenth Paralympiad. Since 1994 USIA has
been encouraged to promote events and activities involving individuals
with disabilities. The passage of this bi-partisan amendment is in
keeping with the purpose of USIA.
With the adoption of this amendment, international awareness will be
increased, but more importantly it will be a chance to showcase
American leadership in opportunities for people with disabilities.
I strongly encourage the Senates conferees to retain this amendment
during the House Senate conference next month, and I thank the managers
once again.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, this amendment is important in many ways,
and I am proud to join my colleague from Georgia in bringing this
matter to the attention of the U.S.
[[Page S 14669]]
Senate. As many Americans know, the Centennial Olympic games will begin
in Atlanta on July 19, 1996, and conclude on August 4. Many people do
not know, however, that just 12 days after the conclusion of the 1996
Summer Olympics, another sporting event of great magnitude will begin.
The Paralympic opening ceremony will be held August 16 and over the
next 12 days more than 3,500 athletes from 119 nations will compete in
19 different sports. This will be the largest gathering of people with
disabilities ever assembled anywhere in the world.
The origins of the Paralympic movement goes back to 1946 when Sir
Ludwig Guttman organized the International Wheelchair Games to coincide
with the 1948 London Olympics. Since that time, the official Paralympic
organization has been established, and the Paralympic Games have been
held nine times in nine countries across the globe. The 1996 Atlanta
paralympics will mark the tenth and largest gathering with an expected
1.5 million spectators. Over the years, the Paralympics have expanded
from wheelchair athletes to include amputees, the blind, those with
cerebral palsy, dwarfs and those with a variety of other physical
limitations.
In 1994, Congress expanded the U.S. Information Agency's mission to
include direction to promote exchange and training activities on
disability matters. This American leadership has helped to create
international visibility and awareness of disability concerns and has
encouraged and reinforced the provision of opportunity for people with
disabilities around the world. The Paralympics gives people with
disabilities not only the right, but the opportunity to show what they
are able to do.
Consider, for example, Ajibola Adoye, a Nigerian runner who, despite
the amputation of one arm, ran faster than the fastest, able-bodied
runner in his country in the 1992 Olympic Games. The Paralympics lets
athletes like Ajibola Adoye represent their countries in international
competition at the Olympic level. While many events have been modified
in certain ways to accomodate the disabilities of the participants,
amazingly, many Paralympic athletes still remain competitive in
standard Olympic events.
In addition to celebrating the outstanding talents and achievements
of disabled athletes, next summer's Paralympiad also serves another
important function. It will serve as an international forum, bringing
leaders in the international disability community to Atlanta to address
issues vital to the disabled worldwide. Developments in disability-
related technology and public policy in the United States and
other nations will be highlighted. The Paralympiad is an unprecedented
chance to showcase American leadership in creating opportunities for
people With disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act is just
one example of such leadership.
The United State is a leader in the development of prosthetic
equipment and disability health care. U.S. Paralympic athletes will
make use of the most state-of-the-art prosthetic equipment when they
compete in the games. Regrettably, much of this equipment is
unavailable to the developing nations. The experience of many countries
torn by war and conflict, where many people, including children, have
lost limbs from land mines and other weapons of war, demonstrates the
pressing need for advanced prosthetic devices. The Paralympiad brings
representatives of those countries to the United States to see our
latest developments and fosters their export to the world.
A fundamental goal of U.S. disability-related public policy has been
to foster increased economic independence among the disabled. Sport is
an established pathway for the disabled to reach self-sufficiency,
helping to break the expectation of life-long dependence among the
disabled. It is also a powerful tool to change attitudes among the
general public. We know that changing attitudes is more effective than
mandating behavior. The impact of watching a sprinter run less than
two-seconds off Carl Lewis' pace on two prosthetic legs can change the
way the world perceives the abilities of people with disabilities.
By bringing many of the disabled from around the world to the United
States, this one event will do more to communicate our achievements and
commitment to ensuring opportunity than holding a number of smaller-
scale individual exchanges, which would be considerably more expensive.
I believe the types of exchange activities envisioned by the Paralympic
Organizing Committee are perfectly consistent with the USIA mandate.
Last year, the Congress saw fit to appropriate $1.5 million in USIA
funding for the Paralympics games. This amendment, if adopted, would
reserve $5 million from the USIA's general accounts for the Paralympic
Games. It is consistent with the report language adopted by both the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees which urged ``that support
be increased for this program to the maximum extent possible within the
resources provided, since this is the year the program will take
place.''
This funding would help support the international exchange events
centered around the competition, including the international forum on
disability, adaptive technology displays, as well as follow-through
dissemination of materials and information. In addition, every Federal
dollar is expected to attract at least $8 of private support. Let me
also add that funding is contingent upon satisfactory compliance with
financial oversight and reporting procedures just like any Federal
contract. If the Paralympic Organizing Committee does not comply, USIA
may exercise its discretion not to release any of this funding.
The 1996 Paralympiad presents an unparalleled opportunity for
cultural exchange and education. The Paralympics has never before been
hosted by a country with a comprehensive disability rights law, and
international expectations could not be higher. Leaders from around the
world will be drawn to witness the progress the United States has made
in the inclusion of those with physical disabilities. I am pleased to
support this measure.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge other Members to vote for this
amendment to provide $5 million for cultural and educational exchange
activities at the 1996 Paralympics in Georgia.
The Paralympics have grown significantly in size and popularity, yet
still do not have the liability to get corporate support that the
Olympics have--1996 will be one of the largest gatherings of disabled
athletes in history, and the money provided in this amendment will
allow for the full and open exchange of ideas and information by
disabled persons from around the world.
I believe that our country has been a leader in ensuring access and
equality for disabled individuals, and we should capitalize on this
important opportunity at the 1996 games to share what we have done and
to learn from others.
This appropriation has been authorized by legislation crafted by
Senator Dole, section 242 of the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act
(P.L. 103-236), which was passed last year
I strongly support the goals and spirit of the Paralympics and urge
my colleagues to do the same by voting for this amendment which I have
cosponsored with Senators Coverdell and Nunn.
amendment no. 2857
(Purpose: To provide that voter registration cards may not be used as
proof of citizenship. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the
following new section:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
Federal, State, or local government agency may not use a
voter registration card (or other related document) that
evidences registration for an election for Federal office as
evidence to prove United States citizenship.
____
amendment no. 2858
(Purpose: To provide funding for the Ounce of Prevention Council)
On page 29, line 7, strike ``$750,000,000'' and insert
$2,000,000 for the Ounce of Prevention Council pursuant to
subtitle A of title III of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act (Public Law 103-322); $748,000,000''.
On page 102, line 12, strike ``$5,550,000'' and insert
``$5,800,000''.
On page 102, line 18, strike ``$14,669,000'' and insert
``$15,119,000''.
At the appropriate place in title IV, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) the Department of State shall continue to carry out its
authority, function, duty,
[[Page S 14670]]
and responsibility in the conduct of foreign affairs of the United
States in connection with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
in the same manner as that Department has carried out that
function, duty, and responsibility since the Convention on
Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada
entered into force on October 11, 1955; and
(2) the authority, function, duty, and responsibility of
the Department of State referred to in paragraph (1) shall
not be transferred to any other Federal agency or terminated
during any fiscal year in which the Convention referred to in
paragraph (1) is in force.
____
amendment no. 2859
(Purpose: To make localities eligible for reimbursement of criminal
alien incarceration costs)
On page 28, lines 22 and 23, strike ``by section 501 of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986'' and insert ``by
section 242(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act''.
On page 64, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1996 under this Act to
carry out section 242(j) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act shall be allocated by the Attorney General in a manner
which ensures that each eligible State and political
subdivision of a State shall be reimbursed for their total
aggregate costs for the incarceration of undocumented
criminal aliens during fiscal years 1995 and 1996 at the same
pro rata rate.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical
correction to the bill's current language appropriating funds for the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, known in short as SCAAP.
I was very pleased last year to be part of a bipartisan group of
Senators who introduced legislation to establish SCAAP, which was
ultimately made part of the crime bill. SCAAP was established in
recognition of the burden placed on State and local governments by the
Federal Government's failure to control illegal immigration, when State
and local governments then find themselves faced with the high cost of
incarcerating persons who enter this country illegally and are later
convicted of felonies.
Unfortunately, a glitch in the appropriations language prevented
SCAAP from completely fulfilling its purpose--contrary to SCAAP, local
governments were excluded from reimbursement. Even more unfortunately,
this mistake has been replicated in the appropriations bill which we
now have before us.
Specifically, this appropriations bill, like last year's
appropriations bill, provides that the funds appropriated for SCAAP
shall be available as authorized by section 501 of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA], rather than as authorized by
SCAAP itself, which was enacted as section 242(j) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as part of the 1994 Crime Act.
Section 501 of IRCA only provides for reimbursement to States, not to
localities. The reference to IRCA, in effect, means that only States
and not localities would be reimbursed for their costs from not only
the $130 million in fiscal year 1995 SCAAP funds, but also the $300
million in fiscal year 1996 funds that would be appropriated under this
bill.
It is important to note that not only is the reference to IRCA
inconsistent with SCAAP itself, it is also inconsistent with the
committee's own report, which references the Crime Bill, not IRCA.
My amendment would correct this apparent error and eliminate this
inconsistency.
It also would ensure that all States and localities would be
equitably reimbursed for their combined fiscal years 1995 and 1996
costs at the same percentage rate.
Therefore, it corrects for any inequities in the allocation of fiscal
year 1995 SCAAP funds to States as well as to localities. It is
noteworthy that, because fiscal year 1995 was the first year of the
SCAAP program, there necessarily would be start-up delays in setting up
procedures to identify criminal alien inmates whose costs are
reimbursable. My amendment would ensure that States which could not
identify all, or most, of their allowable costs before fiscal year 1995
allotments were made, would not be penalized.
It is also important to note, Mr. President, that this amendment
neither increases nor reduces the amount of money appropriated for
SCAAP, but only affects who can access that money.
In expanding access to that money to local governments, we are:
First, furthering the goal of Senators who wish to send authority away
from the Federal Government, by allowing for direct grants to the level
of government closest to the people, local government: and second,
removing a level of bureaucracy by not making localities go through
State governments.
This amendment has important, real-world consequences. Many
localities, especially in California, have been hurt more by illegal
immigration than have many States.
In Los Angeles County, for example, based on the preliminary results
of a joint County-INS effort to identify deportable criminal aliens in
the county's jail system, the percentage of all county jail inmates who
are deportable criminal aliens has increased to 17 percent from 11
percent in May 1990.
The growing impact of criminal aliens on the county's criminal
justice system not only imposes a major financial burden on the county,
which must finance the costs, but also endangers the public's safety.
Because of the county's major budget problems, which have been
worsened by the impact of criminal aliens, the county had to close
three of its jail facilities earlier this year. As a result, many
criminals, who, otherwise, would be incarcerated, now are on the
streets of Los Angeles.
I am pleased to report that this amendment is supported by the
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, cities throughout the country, including New
York City and Chicago, and by local governments throughout the State of
California.
I therefore urge my fellow Senators to support their cities,
counties, and towns, and vote in favor of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
amendment no. 2860
On page 85, line 14 add the following new section:
Sec. 207. None of the funds appropriated under this Act or
any other law shall be used to implement subsections (a),
(b), (c), (e), (g), or (i) of section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, (16 U.S.C. 1533) until such time as
legislation reauthorizing the Act is enacted or until the end
of fiscal year 1996, whichever is earlier, except that monies
appropriated under this Act may be used to delist or
reclassify species pursuant to subsections 4(a)(2)(B),
4(c)(2)(B)(i), and 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is identical
to a provision included in the Senate's fiscal year 1996 Interior
appropriations bill. The Senate bill included language that prohibits
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing species, and
designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. Like the
Interior provision, the amendment I offer today allows the Secretary to
continue to implement recovery plans for listed species, implement 4(d)
rules, de-list, downlist, and remove species from the list altogether.
In other words, this amendment would place a time out on further
listings under the act until a reauthorization is enacted into law, or
until the end of fiscal year 1996.
The majority of the Senate voted earlier this year to support a
similar amendment to the Department of Defense Supplemental
Appropriations bill. The Senate voted 60-38 to adopt the Hutchison
amendment that effectively placed a moratorium on the listing of
species under the act by rescinding funds from the Fish and Wildlife
Service listing account.
The House Commerce, State, Justice bill zeroed out the ESA listing
account, but did not include bill language backing up its decision not
to fund the listing account. I believe that the amendment I offer
today, while some Senators may not support it, will give the
administration support to fend off potential lawsuits down the road,
possibly demanding that it list one species or another.
Unlike the House bill, my amendment does not reduce funds for any of
the ESA accounts funded within the Department of Commerce.
This amendment is not an attempt to put off forever the debate on
reauthorization of the ESA. To the contrary, this Senator desperately
wants to see the ESA reauthorized. Senator Johnston and I have
introduced legislation to amend and reauthorize the act, and we hope
that the Senate will take up legislation to reauthorize the act
sometime this Fall. As many of you know,
[[Page S 14671]]
Congressmen Young and Pombo recently introduced legislation in the
House of Representatives to reauthorize the act.
What this amendment does is to ensure that both the Secretary of
Interior and the Secretary of Commerce--both of whom have jurisdiction
over implementation of the ESA--are implementing the law consistently.
If the full committee adopts my amendment, both Secretaries will be
held to the same standard--to implement a time out on further listings
under the act.
The amendment places a prohibition on the use of funds for the
implementation of subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), or (i) of
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, until legislation
reauthorizing the act is enacted or until the end of fiscal year 1996,
whichever comes first. Essentially this provision prohibits the listing
of species and the designation of its critical habitat.
This amendment allows funds to be used to determine whether or not a
species should be removed from the list, delisted, or downlisted from
its current status. (Pursuant to subsections 4(a)(2)(B), 4(c)(B)(i),
and 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the act.)
These subsections specifically allow for the following actions:
Funds may be used to implement subsection 4(a)(2)(B) that allows the
Secretary to remove a species from the list pursuant to subsection (c)
(the provisions cited below), or to be changed in status from
endangered to threatened.
Funds may be used to implement subsection 4(c)(2)(B)(i) that would
allow the Secretary to remove a species from the list. In other words,
whether or not a species should be delisted.
Funds may also be used to implement subsection 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) that
would allow the Secretary to determine whether a species should be
changed in status from an endangered species to a threatened species.
In other words, whether or not the species should be down listed.
Funds may be used by the Secretary to implement subsection 4(d) that
would allow the Secretary to issue protective regulations for
threatened species. This is what is commonly known as a 4(d) rule,
which, as many of you may know, has been used by this administration in
an attempt to provide protection for threatened species, and a degree
of flexibility for landowners.
Funds may be used by the Secretary to implement subsection 4(f) that
would allow the Secretary to continue to implement recovery plans for
already listed threatened and endangered species.
Funds may be used by the Secretary to implement subsection 4(h) that
allows the Secretary to issue agency guidelines, and adhere to notice
and public comment requirements.
amendment no. 2861
(Purpose: To provide funds for the Community Relations Service)
On page 12, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Community Relations Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
$10,638,000: Provided, That such additional funds as may be
necessary for the resettlement of Cuban and Haitian entrants
shall be available to the Community Relations Service,
without fiscal year limitation, to be reimbursed from the
Immigration Examinations Fee Account: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the funds
made available pursuant to this Act under the heading
``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and Expenses,''
shall be reduced by $11,170,000.
____
amendment no. 2862
Page 19, strike line 7 through line 17 and insert the
following: Provided further, That the Office of Public
Affairs at the Immigration Naturalization Service shall
conduct its business in areas only relating to its central
mission, including: research, analysis, and dissemination of
information, through the media and other communications
outlets, relating to the activities of the Immigration
Naturalization Service: Provided further, That the Office of
Congressional Relations at the Immigration and Naturalization
Service shall conduct business in areas only relating to its
central mission, including: providing services to Members of
Congress relating to constituent inquiries and requests for
information; and working with the relevant Congressional
committees on proposed legislation affecting immigration
matters.
____
amendment no. 2863
(Purpose: To make available funds for the International Labor
Organization)
Before the period at the end of the paragraph under the
heading contributions to international organizations'',
insert the following: ``: Provided further, That funds
appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading
may be available for the International Labor Organization''.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would allow for continued participation by the United States in the
International Labor Organization, or the ILO.
The report language for this bill recommends prohibiting the use of
appropriated funds to pay for U.S. membership in the ILO. This was the
position stated in the State Department authorization bill introduced
earlier this year.
Mr. President, I cannot support U.S. withdrawal from what I believe
to be one of the more effective specialized agencies of the United
Nations, the ILO.
Our amendment is budget neutral--it simply allows that funds
appropriated under the international organizations account may be made
available for the ILO.
I am honored to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Senator
from New York, Senator Moynihan. Senator Moynihan probably knows more
of the history of the ILO than any individual in this body. My esteemed
colleague wrote his dissertation on the ILO 35 years ago. He was the
chairman of the hearings held on the five conventions passed since
1988, and was the floor manager for the ratification debates. I have
always been grateful that we could work together to strengthen our
nation's role in the ILO.
I am also pleased to have as cosponsors of this amendment Senators
Stevens, Jeffords, Pell, Harkin, Sarbanes.
Because the ILO represents one of the most solid collaborations to
address international human rights that has ever been
institutionalized, support for it has always been bipartisan.
But today some are reconsidering the utility of the ILO. Perhaps part
of the reason is because it is associated with the U.N., which has done
much to earn criticism in recent years.
I remind my colleagues, however, that the ILO--and U.S. participation
in it--precedes the creation of the United Nations. When the United
Nations was formed, the ILO had been around for a quarter of a century.
The ILO became the United Nations first specialized agency.
The ILO was founded as an organization that would represent
governments, labor, and employers in a mission to improve the working
conditions of people worldwide.
This exceptional international organization works to accomplish these
goals by, first, setting international standards in the form of
conventions and recommendations that it supervises; second, supporting
economic development, including employment creation, through technical
assistance programs; third, analyzing workplace problems and issues
through research; and fourth, highlighting workplace abuses through
public criticism.
The ILO is based on a system of compliance: with its conventions,
which are similar to treaties, and with its recommendations, which are
policy guidelines.
It uses persuasion, not confrontation, to effect the improvement of
labor standards worldwide. Where it challenges abuses of men, women, or
children in the workplace, it operates with what has been referred to
as ``the mobilization of shame.''
As such, the ILO is as much a human rights organization as it is an
organization to promote labor standards.
And this is an important point, Mr. President. It is worthwhile
noting that, because it combines technical assistance programs for
developing employment and maintaining labor standards with its annual
criticisms of abuses of workers, the ILO has been called the most
effective human rights organization in the world.
Some have questioned the relevance of the ILO in today's world,
questioning its structure and role.
But five former secretaries of labor--3 from Republican
administrations, 2 from Democratic administrations--
[[Page S 14672]]
have spoken out recently in favor of continuing support for the ILO.
Every secretary of labor has credited the ILO with defending and
improving labor conditions worldwide.
I believe that the on-going mission of the ILO is more important
today than ever before, and that its tripartite approach--involving
private sector business and labor representatives alongside
governments--is the strength that makes the ILO extremely relevant
around the world.
Throughout central Europe, for example, we are seeing a remarkable
transition from centrally planned economies to democratic marketplaces.
If the economic transition falters, we know that political stability
will be threatened.
But the shift has created an incredible challenge to those societies
in terms of accepting new norms of behavior and exchange. We cannot
ignore the suspicions that many in the region still hold about
capitalism--suspicions driven by old, socialist mentalities or new
insecurities as a result of economic dislocation.
The ILO's tripartite structure--demonstrating the compatibility and
progress that come when governments, labor, and employers work
together--provides the best credibility to societies who have
previously held antagonistic views toward such voluntary cooperation.
This credibility allows the ILO to participate in helping to
establish the labor standards in countries where governments may be
reluctant, businesses may be suspicious and labor may be exploited.
This credibility drawn from its tripartite approach helps secure the
economic institutions necessary for these countries to succeed as free-
market democracies.
In central Europe, the ILO was there during the dark days, and its
dedicated support of Solidarity under communism is perhaps its best
known case. The historic role the ILO played in supporting Solidarity
during its years underground is still credited by international
democrats as critical in the triumph of democracy in that country.
But its role continues now that these countries have come into the
light of freedom and the ILO works to institutionalize the values we
believe make the marketplace fair and benign. President Lech Walesa has
appealed to the leaders of the Senate to continue their support for the
ILO, which President Walesa says ``operates on behalf of all those who
have been fighting tyranny around the world.'' I completely agree with
President Walesa when he says that ``The future of the ILO without the
engagement of your country is difficult to imagine.''
The ILO addresses the most driving dynamic within and among nations
today: the relentless need for economic development.
Among developing countries in particular, the need for economic
development is the single factor that determines whether these
countries can maintain social stability and political evolution. And
the most important component in economic development is job creation.
When nations can't create jobs for their people, poverty and
instability result.
Over the past decades, nations around the world have recognized that
trade promotes growth and employment.
Mr. President, I am a strong believer in free trade. For developed
nations, trade with the less developed world is increasingly a factor
that drives our economies. But we know that amidst our debates on free
and open trade remains the concern of competing with low-wage
economies, where--and we must concur with the critics of free trade
here--the lack of labor standards can contribute to unfair advantages.
In this country, we have wrestled and debated over this issue
recently during the NAFTA and GATT debates. I am very sympathetic to
this criticism, Mr. President. I have always thought that we can take
two approaches to this question: We can either restrict our trade with
developing nations, which I believe would be extremely
counterproductive--both for us and for them. Or we can address the
issues of labor practices in a productive way.
In addressing the issue of unfair labor practices, we have two
approaches. We can seek to force labor standards on trading partners
through unilateral confrontation and linkages, which I believe can be
counterproductive and could lead to increases in protectionism.
Or we can work with these nations to raise their standards.
The ILO provides the multilateral forum where we can work with
nations to improve labor conditions. It is the only international
organization that can serve this critical challenge.
Since its inception in 1919, the ILO has set international standards
for labor conditions. These standards have been incorporated into
national legislation throughout the world, including, for example, our
Trade Act of 1974, which uses standards defined by the ILO.
I believe that by continuing to support the ILO we have the best
mechanism to promote labor standards in the developing world, thereby
supporting fair trade. The ILO works for us so that we do not suffer
the disadvantages of competing with nations who believe they can
continue to abuse their labor populations for profit.
Mr. President, I must stress that the ILO has strong labor and
business support in this country.
The U.S Council for International Business, which is an affiliate of
the International Chamber of Commerce and represents U.S. business in
the ILO, has been very outspoken about the need for our continued
support for the ILO: In a letter it has sent to Members of this body,
it has argued, and I quote:
``For American businesses, there are three critical reasons
why the United States should continue its participation in
the ILO:
To support its technical assistance and employment policy
activities, which promote job creation, enterprise
development, and flexible labor markets, thus reducing
protectionism encountered by American companies in developing
countries and newly emerging economies.
To ensure that American companies continue to have a voice
in setting international labor standards that have an impact
on their operations and profitability.
To promote the rights of workers and oversee adherence to
good labor practices, which we believe is an acceptable
alternative to using trade sanctions to promote these rights.
As the Business Roundtable said in a recent statement to Congress: .
. . the United States should upgrade its participation in the ILO . . .
rather than seek to address international labor standards in the World
Trade Organization.
The ILO plays a role in employment creation, institution building,
and the promotion of trade. With its research programs, the ILO
provides highly technical information on labor and employment trends
and issues. With its many programs of technical assistance, the ILO
provides on-the-ground programs to help advance labor law, design
social security schemes, establish employer associations, and provide
industrial retraining. And by promoting its labor standards, the ILO
works to ensure that the labor content of the goods and services
flowing within and among nations meets minimum standards.
Some have argued that such programs are just a taxpayer supported
means for imposing labor and social policies on other nations that do
not even serve low-skilled workers in the United States.
But the ILO does not impose. It offers flexibility in working with
other nations under the aim of promoting fully minimally international
labor standards. Its goal is to ensure that U.S. industry--and U.S.
workers--will not be displaced because other countries gain unfair
trade advantages through labor exploitation.
Mr. President, the ILO is the voice for freedom of association,
freedom from forced labor, equality of treatment in employment, and the
elimination of child labor.
We should speak with this voice, Mr. President, because the ILO
represents our values.
We believe in human rights, Mr. President, and we believe that we
must work to improve human rights around the world. In promoting human
rights, it has always been difficult to achieve the balance between
idealistic pronouncements and practical policies. The ILO achieves this
balance in practice.
[[Page S 14673]]
Every year, during its annual conference, the ILO levels its
criticism against nations that violate workers' rights. In this year's
conference, the governments of Nigeria and Burma were singled out. In
the past, Bangladesh, China, Cuba have been criticized for violations.
Mr. President, the abuses in these nations are our concerns.
The ILO estimates that as many as 200 million children worldwide are
working in jobs that are dangerous, unhealthy and inhumane. The ILO has
responded with its International Program on the Elimination of Child
Labor, for which Congress appropriated $2.1 million grant in 1994. This
program has initiated global research to develop a comprehensive
statistical rendering of the extent of this problem. But the ILO has
gone beyond research to work on implementing solutions: It set
standards on minimum age for employment in its Convention No. 138. And
it works with other international organizations to address these
critical problems.
For example:
In Pakistan, ILO involvement has contributed to that country
abolishing its bonded labor system and discharging all bonded labor
from any obligation. The ILO continues to monitor the situation of
child labor in that country.
In Bangladesh, the ILO recently played a key role in getting
government and producers to monitor new regulations limiting the use of
children in the carpet industries and providing alternate education
programs. This recent development resulted in the U.S. Child Labor
Coalition calling off a planned boycott.
Mr. President, the abuse of children in the workplace around the
world is a concern to most Americans. The ILO is working on solutions.
Through most of this country's association with the ILO, it has had
bipartisan support. It has had the support of all U.S. Secretaries of
Labor since our entry in 1934. It has the support of AFL-CIO. It has
the support of the U.S. Council for International Business. How much
more bipartisan can you get?
Finally, Mr. President, it is important, in this day, to mention
budgets. The administration requested $64 million to pay this year's
contribution to the ILO.
Every Member in this Congress has had to face unpleasant choices
about cutting budgets. I do not believe that our international
activities should be immune from such considerations. Our international
contributions are going to have to be subject to the same fiscal
restraints we will be applying to our domestic programs. Following on
last week's Foreign Operations bill, where we successfully scaled back
some of our international obligations, the figures in this bill clearly
represent this hard-headed approach.
I am very pleased to note that the ILO has recognized the realities
we must face and that, in their June conference, they began to discuss
further cost-saving measures to compensate for expected shortfalls.
One last assurance for those who are still reticent to support the
ILO. The United States is not bound by any of its conventions unless we
choose to ratify them. The U.S. cedes none of its sovereignty to the
ILO. We bow to no decision, pronouncement, or convention with which we
disagree or which are not in our country's interests.
But, in fact, the ILO can play a key role in facilitating American
values abroad; it is an organization for promoting our values.
Mr. President, infusing all our debates these days is how to
participate in a post-Cold War world. One of the questions we must face
is: how should we work with international organizations? This is an
especially critical question, considering the overreliance some hold
for multilateral approaches to everything from war-making to
peacekeeping.
Mr. President, when I think of which international organizations we
should support, the answer is simple: Those that promote our values and
our goals. The International Labor Organization is such an
organization.
It promotes our values of fairness and human rights in the work
place. It promotes our goals to improve the economic conditions of
nations around the world, because it promotes our belief that economic
growth is a positive-sum game, and when workers benefit in one part of
the world, we all benefit.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Hatch, in offering
this hugely important amendment. Senator Hatch and I have worked
together on matters related to the International Labor Organization for
a decade now, and we believe it would be a serious error for the United
States to withdraw from participation in the ILO at this time.
The Senator from Utah does not raise this issue lightly, nor does the
Senator from New York. Senator Hatch's concern grows in part from his
experience with the ILO during his tenure as chairman of the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources in the mid-1980's. In 1985, he held a
hearing to consider whether there was a link between the failure of the
United States to ratify ILO conventions and our influence within the
ILO.
The Senator from New York has also had an abiding interest in the ILO
for many years. In 1975, while serving as our Ambassador to the United
Nations under President Ford, it fell to me to draft the letter
announcing our intention to withdraw from the ILO after a mandatory 2-
year notice period. Later, on July 19, 1977, I rose on this floor to
announce our intention to do just that. And again on September 25,
1980, after the ILO had met the conditions we laid down, I informed the
Senate of our return to the organization.
I would also note that I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the
history of U.S. involvement in the ILO from 1889 to 1934.
The Senator from Utah and I have taken the floor to suggest, before
the Senate acts to abruptly terminate U.S. participation in the
International Labor Organization, that we carefully consider how and
why we came to participate in the first place. The history of the ILO
goes a long way back in our national life, before it finally came to
fruition at the end of the Great War. The premise of the ILO as stated
in the Preamble to the ILO Constitution is that:
[T]he failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of
labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which
desire to improve the conditions in their own countries.
If States fail to act together to improve labor practices, an imbalance
occurs and an unfair advantage is created. We ought to be taking steps
to strengthen our leadership in the ILO. Instead, by prohibiting
funding for the ILO, the current bill requires our withdrawal.
One of the primary concerns arising from the situation of workers
during World War I was that some attention be paid to the fact that
labor standards often fell victim to international trade. At war's end,
the opportunity arose to address this problem.
The Western nations, shaken by the revolution that swept Russia in
1917, were inclined to act. Samuel Gompers of the American Federation
of Labor was enthusiastically received as he traveled through Europe in
the fall of 1918 to speak out against the growing Bolshevik influence
in the European labor movement. Creation of an international labor
organization became imperative to prevent uprisings like the one in
Russia from spreading across Europe. So much so that as the terms of a
new international order were being drawn up at the peace conference, a
commission headed by Gompers created the ILO. It was much more a part
of the campaign for the League of Nations than we might remember.
In 1991, then-Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin testified before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the significance of the ILO.
It was Abraham Lincoln of Illinois who summed up democracy
when he said that ``working men and women are the basis of
all government.''
. . . As such, the political structure of the ILO itself
illustrates the truth of Lincoln's remarks and, hence,
reinforces the linkage between democracy and a free economy,
between democratic values, independent trade unions, and free
enterprise.
The League of Nations, which was the subject of such fierce debate on
the Senate floor in the fall and winter of 1919-20, came to life
somewhat furtively in the clock room of the Quai d'Orsay in Paris in
January 1920. In point of fact the League system had already begun to
work here in Washington in October and November of 1919
[[Page S 14674]]
when the first international labor conference was held pursuant to
article 424 of the ILO Constitution, which was signed as part of the
Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.
The Washington Conference, held at the Pan American Union Building,
turned out to be an almost complete success, despite all the prospects
of failure. Six major labor conventions, the first human rights
treaties in the history of the world, were adopted, including the 8-
hour day convention, and the minimum age convention.
Woodrow Wilson, on his great trip across the Nation campaigning for
the United States to join the League, spoke continuously of the
International Labor Organization. Indeed, almost the last words he
spoke before his stroke, before he collapsed in Pueblo, CO, were about
the ILO. He told the people in Colorado about the League covenant and
the ILO. But he collapsed, and was prostrate when the International
Labor Conference was organizing here in Washington.
His Secretary of Labor, William B. Wilson, did not know what to do.
The Senate was caught up in a protracted debate about whether to have
anything at all to do with the League. A very distinguished British
civil servant, Harold Butler--later Sir Harold Butler--arrived in New
York by ship and then came down here, assigned to put in place the new
international organization. He found the President prostrate and
silent, and the Secretary of Labor unable to take any action without
the President.
By sheer chance, Butler dined one evening with the then Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, a young, rising New York political figure,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his wife Eleanor. Butler recounted his
difficulties. ``Well, we have to do something about this,'' said
Roosevelt. ``I think I can find you some offices at any rate. Look in
at the Navy Building tomorrow morning and I will see about it in the
meanwhile.'' Roosevelt was devoted to Wilson. By the next day Roosevelt
had 40 rooms cleared of its admirals and captains to make room for the
conference.
Harold Butler later became the second director-general of the ILO,
serving from 1932 to 1938. Subsequently, he returned to Washington
during the second World War and his continued friendship with President
Roosevelt made him a hugely influential figure in the wartime alliance.
Just as Roosevelt helped get the ILO off the ground, when he came to
the Oval Office, his administration soon laid the groundwork for the
United States to join. In June of 1934, the House and Senate both
passed a resolution clearing the way for our participation. The ILO is
the part of the League system the United States was least likely to
join. The League system consisted of the League itself, the Permanent
Court of International Justice, and the ILO. In fact, the ILO was the
only one we did join and it was the only one to survive the next war. A
tribute to its enduring importance.
Last year, Congress approved U.S. participation in the World Trade
Organization. This was the culmination of a half century of
negotiations to break down trade restrictions. Yet continued progress
toward free trade brings with it a danger that labor standards will be
threatened. This was the primary motivation for forming the ILO three
quarters of a century ago. As trade barriers continue to be broken,
labor standards in our country will increasingly be linked to standards
in other countries. Maintaining humane, minimum labor standards was the
primary motivation for forming the ILO three quarters of a century ago.
The first priority of the ILO--which is closely related to encouraging
the democratic process--remains the defense of worker rights and the
application of international labor standards.
In a recent letter to all Senators, Abraham Katz, President of the
U.S. Council for International Business--which includes among its
members the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--lists as one of the three
critical reasons the United States should continue to participate in
the ILO:
To ensure that American companies continue to have a voice
in setting international labor standards that have an impact
on their operations and profitability.
He adds that participation is vital
to promote the rights of workers and oversee adherence to
good labor practices, which we believe is an acceptable
alternative to using trade sanctions to promote these rights.
As the Business Roundtable said in a recent statement to
Congress: ''. . . the United States should upgrade its
participation in the ILO . . .,'' rather than seek to address
international labor issues in the World Trade Organization.
The ILO is the place to address human rights as they relate to
employment. The ILO was the forum for the first human rights
conventions the world has known. Perhaps none is more important than
the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. I recall
then Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole's testimony before the Committee
on Foreign Relations on November 1, 1989:
[T]he International Labor Organization is the United Nations'
most effective advocate of human rights.
We are all aware, for example, of the ILO's courageous
support of Solidarity during the darkest days, and the
critical role it has played in Poland's historic journey to
democracy.
The efforts of the ILO on behalf of Solidarity were extraordinary.
Poland had ratified ILO Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organize, and Convention 98 on the Right to
Organize and Bargain Collectively. Ratification of these Conventions
was a fact Poland could not deny. In 1978, the International Federation
of Free Trade Unions charged Poland with violating Convention 87. After
repeated requests from the ILO to Poland to comply with Convention 87,
Poland's Minister of Labor wrote to the ILO Director General in 1980,
stating that Poland officially recognized Solidarity, the first
independent trade union to gain national recognition in a Communist
country--the first ever. Lech Walesa was allowed to attend the 67th
session of the International Labor Conference. A year later, Poland
tried to suspend trade unions, but the ILO would not relent. Poland
could not deny the basic fact that they were obliged by treaty to
recognize Solidarity, and domestic law, even martial law, could not
undo those treaty obligations. Repeated criticism from the ILO kept
pressure on the Polish government to allow the return of Solidarity.
Finally, in April 1989, the legal status of Solidarity was restored by
the Polish government and followed quickly by democratic elections. Now
President Walesa has written Senator Dole stating:
The ILO, thanks to the activism of its officials, played a
significant role in reminding the world of our existence and
our goals. It supported us in the most difficult times of our
underground existence. The Committee on Inquiry created by
the ILO after the imposition of martial law in my country
made significant contributions to the changes which brought
democracy to Poland.
Our relations with the ILO have at times been stormy. In the 1970s
the ILO came to apply a double standard to the conduct of nations in
the West as opposed to the totalitarian block and was being abused as a
forum to carry out political agendas unrelated to its legitimate
purposes, and thus we withdrew from the ILO in 1977. Our withdrawal had
the desired effect: the ILO responded to our concerns and in 1980 we
rejoined.
Since then we have increased our engagement with the ILO. For
instance, up until 1988, the United States had only ratified 7--6
maritime and 1 technical--of the 176 ILO conventions. However, in 1988
a new era commenced. The United States ratified its first convention in
35 years. At this point I must acknowledge the role in this turnabout
played by the sponsor of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from
Utah, Senator Obrin G. Hatch. In 1985, during his tenure as chairman of
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Hatch recognized
that the ILO had put into place a comprehensive set of conventions
which protected the human rights of workers around the world. He
clearly saw the failure of the United States to ratify these very same
conventions weakened our influence within the ILO and limited our
ability to use those conventions in pursuing reforms in other nations.
Senator Hatch proposed that we again begin ratifying ILO treaties, and
we have done.
In all, the Senate has now ratified five conventions since 1988. Most
notably in 1991 when the United States for the first time ratified an
ILO human rights convention: Convention 105 on the Abolition of Forced
Labor, an area
[[Page S 14675]]
where the ILO has made vital contributions.
ILO Convention 105, ratified by the Senate on May 14, 1991 by a vote
of 97 to 0 abolishes the use of forced labor in five specific
circumstances: First, as a means of political coercion, second, as a
method of mobilizing and using labor for purposes of economic
development, third, as a means of labor discipline, fourth, as a
punishment for having participated in strikes, and fifth, as a means of
racial, social, national or religious discrimination. This convention
addresses one of the great crimes against humanity that the 20th
century has known, the forced labor camps of the totalitarian states.
It builds on an earlier ILO Convention, 29 which calls on ratifying
nations to suppress forced labor in all its forms. Convention 29
defines forced labor as ``all work or service which is exacted from any
person under the menace of any penalty and for which that person has
not offered himself voluntarily.'' It goes to the very essence of what
civilized conduct is in our age.
The committee hearing on Convention 105 was hugely informative. In
particular, I believe that we helped expose some of the atrocious
conditions in the prisons of China and the goods for export that
prisoners are forced to produce. To this day I have a pair of socks,
the product of the Chinese gulag, which Representative Wolf brought
back for our hearing. I am proud that we were able to ratify Convention
105. It would not have been possible without the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms.
I would also point out that a current provision of this bill relies
on the standards set by the ILO. I speak of Section 611 which requires
the Secretary of the Treasury to certify that goods originating in
China were not made with forced labor. The definition of forced labor
is not random. Section 611(e)(1) defines forced labor as ``all work or
service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any
penalty and for which that person has not offered himself
voluntarily.'' The definition of forced labor in this bill is word-for-
word that of ILO Convention 29. As it should be. A primary function of
the ILO is to set such labor standards for the world.
That is the record. The ILO has accomplished much in its three-
quarters of a century. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these
facts and to not prevent us from participating in this hugely important
institution.
A final point I would like to raise is the simple fact that when the
United States joined the ILO in 1934 we made a commitment to give an
advance notice of two years before we withdrew from the organization.
If we are to prohibit funding for the ILO as the current version of
this bill does, we are essentially withdrawing from the ILO
unannounced, and thus in violation of international law. Such rampant
disregard for our legal commitments does not become this body, nor does
it serve the interests of this country.
amendment no. 2864
At the appropriate place, insert:
SECTION 1. FUNDS TO TRANSPORTATION OF ADMINSITRATOR OF THE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION.
Section 1344(b)(6) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(6) the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration;''.
____
amendment no. 2865
(Purpose: To Amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act)
Section 36(a)(1) of the State Department Authorities Act of
1956, as amended, (22 U.S.C. 2708), is amended to delete
``may pay a reward'' and insert in lieu thereof ``shall
establish and publicize a program under which rewards may be
paid''.
____
amendment no. 2866
(Purpose: To make certain changes within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration accounts)
On page 76, line 20 strike ``$55,500,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$62,000,000''
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment acknowledges that the
transfer that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will
receive from the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 1996 for the
Saltonstall-Kennedy Program will be $8,128,000 higher than originally
estimated. The amendment would adjust the amount used as an offset by
the Operations, Research, and Facilities Account within NOAA upward by
$6,500,000 to equal $62,000,000. This increase would be reflected
within the Operations accounts as follows: $2,202,000 for Marine
Services, to ensure that repair and maintenance can be conducted to
allow the existing fleet to operate, $558,000 to the Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory [GLERL] to freeze that account at
current year levels, $911,000 to freeze GLERL zebra mussel research at
current year levels, $550,000 to International Fisheries Commissions to
be used for the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission to address sea lamprey
problems in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, and $2,279,000 to
Central Administrative Support leaving that account with a significant
cut from current year levels. This amendment would leave $1,628,000 of
the increased transfer in the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program for a total
program level of $10,893,000 for fiscal year 1996. Because this
amendment involves changing only the amount used to offset
appropriations, it has no budgetary impact on the bill.
RESTORING GREAT LAKES PROGRAM FUNDS
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
Hollings amendment that restores certain Great Lakes program funding to
fiscal year 1995 levels. The Hollings amendment incorporates the major
components of an amendment that I and several of my Great Lakes
colleagues were prepared to offer. Though the amendment does not
address all of the items in my original proposal, the remaining matters
are addressed in a colloquy between me and Senator Hollings.
The amendment adds money for two very important Great Lakes programs,
$1.469 million for NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
[GLERL] restoring it to fiscal year 1995 levels, and $450,000 for the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission [GLFC] also restoring it to fiscal year
1995 levels. The distinguished Democratic manager of the bill and I
have also discussed the very likely probability that the conferees will
be able to recede to the House marks on the National Sea Grant program
for zebra mussel and non-indigenous species research--$2.8 million--and
for the International Joint Commission [IJC]--$3.160 million. And, the
ranking member has indicated that he will not support conference report
language that would transfer funding responsibility for the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission from the State Department to the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
This amendment does not provide special treatment for Michigan or the
Great Lakes region. The amendment merely seeks to address the
tremendous problems that face the Great Lakes and allow the
implementation of international agreements and treaties. The majority
of the restored funding is to be spent on aquatic nuisance species
research and control. And, not all of that will be necessarily spent in
the Great Lakes.
Non-indigenous species are entering the Great Lakes at a record rate.
The sea lamprey entered in force when the Welland Canal was completed.
The zebra mussel most likely arrived in the ballast water of a Russian
tanker in about 1986. The list goes on to include the gobi, the river
ruffe, the spiny water flea, et cetera. Other parts of the country have
experienced similar alien species invasions, but the Great Lakes Basin
is a particularly vulnerable ecosystem that does not adapt as well as
saltwater to such intrusions.
Non-indigenous species have caused and continue to cause major
economic havoc in the Great Lakes. Municipal water intake systems,
industrial water users, tourism, anglers, recreational boaters, and
other sectors of society have suffered tremendously. We need all the
available scientific and techncial expertise components in the region
working together to understand what needs to be done to manage our
precious water and wildlife resources most effectively. Adding this
money back to GLERL, and with the understanding that non-indigenous
species research supported by Sea Grant will likely continue, restores
those main
[[Page S 14676]]
components. It also recognizes the valuable part they play in
protecting and preserving the Great Lakes fisheries and the ecosystem.
Under the amendment, the Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory [GLERL] will receive $.558 million above the amount proposed
in the House and the Senate committee's bill. This brings GLERL back to
fiscal year 1995 levels simply for operations and basic research
activities. Also, GLERL will have an additional $.911 million to
continue more applied research on zebra mussels and other aquatic
nuisance species research.
Among other tasks, the add-back will allow GLERL to continue its
excellent work in trying to understand and address the aquatic weed
problems in Lake St. Clair. GLERL will be able to continue working to
implement its storm surge model, which is used by emergency planning
personnel to predict and warn riparians of storm-related high water
levels, across the Basin. And, retain highly-skilled and experienced
personnel to accomplish this goal. Similarly GLERL's research on
ecosystem impacts of the zebra mussel will continue, just when it has
become apparent that massive blue-green algal blooms sprouting around
the basine, particularly in Saginaw Bay and western Lake Erie, are
probably a result of the changes to the ecosystem caused by the zebra
mussel. These algal blooms are reminiscent of the mid-1960's when many
declared Lake Erie dead due to eutrophication. They deplete oxygen in
the bottom water, potentially leading to fish kills.
GLERL is a unique combination of scientific expertise in
biogeochemical, ecological, hydrological, and physical limnological and
oceanographic sciences that is not reproduced at any other Great Lakes
institution. It is the only research laboratory with the staff and the
equipment necessary to examine physical phenomena, such as currents,
ice cover, and water levels, in concert with biogeochemical/ecosystem
and water quality studies, in both freshwater and marine ecosystems.
As part of NOAA, GLERL helps the Federal Government meet its
scientific, ecosystem-understanding, and management responsibilities
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada, especially
under the Research Annex (17). GLERL works with and advises the
International Joint Commission [IJC].
GLERL measures and models the role of contaminants in sediments.
GLERL develops and improves hydrologic and water resources prediction
models that assist the IJC and the Army Corps of Engineers in their
lake-level regulation responsibilities.
GLERL has a 21 year history of important scientific contributions to
the understanding and management of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement [GLWQA] between the United States and Canada. The Lab's work
in the Great Lakes has been impeccable and highly useful. Here are some
examples of sound scientific information provided by GLERL that has
increased safety, protected property, and reduced or eliminated
inefficient and costly regulations:
GLERL developed wind-wave models so the National Weather Service
could make more accurate forecasts and warnings of weather conditions
on the Lakes. This advance helps protect the lives of recreational
boaters.
GLERL's scientific know-how transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard
helped save the U.S. shipping fleet millions of dollars in lost cargo
sweeping time and prevented the finalization of highly restrictive
proposed regulations.
GLERL produced a predictive model of the storm surges and wave
motion, or seiches, in the Great Lakes, so local emergency preparedness
officials could have advanced warning of shoreline flooding. Now, in
seiche conditions, shoreline property owners have time to protect their
property and their lives.
GLERL's research on nutrients, especially phosphorous, helped
convince USEPA that proposed requirements to further decrease
phosphorous levels in treated municipal sewage discharges would be
ineffective in lowering phosphorous amounts in the Lakes. This act
saved taxpayers in excess of $10 billion.
GLERL developed the PATHFINDER model for oil/chemical spill
trajectories, which is used by NOAA and the States for spill response
and by the Coast Guard to help guide search and rescue operations.
Also, GLERL has been very active in other parts of the country:
Vermont and New York--Scientists from GLERL worked with academic
scientists from the Lake Champlain basin to quantify the causes and
effects of high speed bottom currents in the lake. The currents cause
sediment resuspension, making toxic contaminants attached to sediment
particles repeatedly available in lake water. This is important
information for water quality restoration work. GLERL will complete
this work in fiscal year 1995.
Carolinas--Last year, a GLERL oceanographer was part of a NOAA and
academic scientific team studying the influence of circulation patterns
on fishery recruitment off the coasts of the Carolinas.
South Florida--GLERL scientists are part of a multi-agency team
conducting research and assessments of both the Everglades and Florida
Bay, both of which are experiencing declining ecosystem health. GLERL's
expertise on nutrients is being applied to the Bay, while GLERL's
sediment core experience is being used to document historical factors
affecting freshwater flows in the Everglades.
Louisiana and Texas--GLERL scientists have played a lead role in the
nearly-completed 5-year NOAA study of the effects of the Mississippi-
Atchafalya River system on the continental shelf waters off Louisiana
and Texas. The near-bottom waters there become hypoxic or anoxic--
little or no oxygen in the water--each year.
Wyoming--GLERL scientists are collaborating with academic scientists
and the National Park Service on an ecological and geochemical study of
Yellowstone Lake, the largest alpine lake in North America. The lake is
under stress from increasing visitors and the introduction of non-
indigenous species.
South Dakota--Lake Oahe is a large reservoir on the upper Missouri
River in south central South Dakota. GLERL carried out a joint research
project with the USGS to determine reservoir parameters using
geochemical tracers.
Iowa, Kansas, and Georgia--GLERL is helping USGS to evaluate where
and how much sediments contaminated with toxics, such as herbicides and
pesticides, were moved and redeposited during the extensive flooding of
the Midwest in 1993.
The amendment provides an additional $.450 million for the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission [GLFC], which brings that line item up to the
fiscal year 1995 level. The GLFC is a binational organization
established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada
and the United States of 1955. The Commission has two major
responsibilities; first, develop coordinated programs of research in
the Great Lakes and, on the basis of findings, recommend measures which
will permit the maximum sustained productivity of stocks of fish of
common concern; second, formulate and implement a program to eradicate
or minimize sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes.
The amount proposed in the Senate committee's bill for the GLFC is
insufficient because it does not recognize the need to match the
increased Canadian contribution to the binational Commission. Last
year, the Canadians offered to increase the amount they provide,
assuming the United States would maintain its share of payments in the
traditional 69:31 ratio. Canada has kept its promise and its payments
are on time.
Last year, several Great Lakes colleague joined me in increasing
GLFC's appropriations bill to bring the United States contribution up
to $8.773 million, reflecting the Canadian increase. I understand that
the State Department sought to include this amount in the budget
request but was denied by the Office of Management and Budget. I would
like to take this opportunity to remind my friends in the
administration that the price of the TFM, the only effective
lampricide, has continued to increase in price almost annually, while
GLFC appropriations have remained level or fallen. Price increases by
the world's sole TFM manufacturer, a foreign company, and inflation
have steadily eaten into the real money available for stopping the
lamprey. And the dollar's decline against
[[Page S 14677]]
the German mark further has further eaten away at the Commission's
reserves.
Despite GLFC's ever-increasing efficiency and effort, the sea lamprey
population in the Great Lakes continues to grow, particularly in the
St. Mary's River and Lake Huron, threatening the world's largest
freshwater ecosystem and a multi-billion dollar commercial and
recreational fishing industry. This parisitic fish's predation is
checked only by the Commission's efforts.
The bulk of the Commission's funds go directly to pay for the
lampricide, TFM, which is the only truly effective way to control sea
lamprey populations at this time. There is ongoing research into non-
chemical means, but the Commission has rarely received adequate funding
for such research and inadequate funding in the past has depleted
lampricide inventories.
The level of funding proposed in the committee's bill would have
forced the Commission to scale-back its lamprey control and assessment
efforts in the St. Marys River, where the populations are approaching
those of the 1940's. Those levels caused the populations of lake trout
and whitefish to collapse then. It would have slowed advances in
developing and implementing the sterile-male release program. The
Commission traps male sea lampreys, sterilizes them, and releases them
back into Great Lakes tributaries. The proposed cut would have reduced
the scope of the sea lamprey barrier program and slow research into
innovative barrier designs. These barriers are the main non-chemical
method to prevent lamprey spawning.
The Great Lakes' $2 to $4 billion sport and commercial fishery
creates jobs and fulfils treaty obligations. The Commission's sea
lamprey control program has led to the rehabilitation of lake trout in
Lake Superior and has helped facilitate a strong revitalization of lake
trout in Lake Ontario. Cutting the U.S. contribution below last year's
level would jeopardize this success.
Mr. President, once again, I would like to thank the manager of the
bill, the distinquished ranking member and the junior Senator from
Michigan for their assistance in gaining approval of this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
manager of the bill in a brief colloquy regarding several matters that
are important to the Great Lakes region and elsewhere.
As my colleagues from the Great Lakes know, there are several
treaties and agreements between the U.S. and Canada, and between the
U.S. and the Tribal nations, that require maintenance and adequate
support from the Congress for implementation. Not the least of these
are the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries of 1955, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and numerous
compacts with the Tribes. These agreements are designed to protect the
quality and quantity of our nation's largest supply of fresh water and
the abundant aquatic wildlife.
The committee's bill, as reported, would provide less than adequate
support for the functions of the American section of the International
Joint Commission [IJC], the binational body that implements the
Boundary Waters Treaty and oversees the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. In fact, both the House mark and the Senate Committee's bill
would provide less than the IJC received in fiscal year 1987. Adjusting
for inflation, that is a dramatic and painful cut.
Would the ranking member be able to tell me whether or not he could
help increase the IJC's fiscal year 1996 appropriation, at least to the
House level, during conference?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Though I cannot guarantee the outcome of the
conference, I will strongly urge the Senate conferees to recede to the
House position on this point.
Mr. LEVIN. On a related matter of great importance to the Great
Lakes, the Senate committee's bill appears to reduce the National Sea
Grant appropriations for research into zebra mussels and non-indigenous
species. The House bill provides $53.3 million for this program and
directs that $2.8 million be spent on this research. The Senate
committee's bill proposes $50.4 million and makes no mention of this
research.
My colleagues from other regions may not yet be able to appreciate
the necessity and benefits of this research into the life-cycle,
ecology and control methods of non-indigenous species. Those who live
in or have visited the Great Lakes region appreciate it. Zebra mussels,
sea lamprey, river ruffe, gobi, spiny water flea, are just a few of the
invading species that have caused ecological and economic havoc in the
Great Lakes. They are changing the way we live and use our waters. They
infest lake water system intakes and hurt the $4 billion Great Lakes
fishery. We need to understand how they work and how to stop them from
spreading. My friends from other regions should be particularly
supportive of our efforts to keep these species out of their areas.
I would ask the distinguished Senator from South Carolina if he would
be able to work in conference to get closer to the House mark for the
National Sea Grant program and to specify some level of funds be used
for zebra mussel and non-indigenous species research performed by
National Sea Grant affiliated colleges and universities and NOAA
laboratories?
Mr. HOLLINGS. As the Senator has indicated, the House mark for Sea
Grant is somewhat higher than has been recommended in the committee's
bill. The committee's report silence on non-indigenous species research
should not be construed as a lack of support for this important
research. I will certainly work in conference to provide adequate funds
for the Sea Grant program.
Mr. LEVIN. The distinguished ranking member's assistance in both of
these areas will be greatly appreciated. I would like to request his
attention to and consideration of one last item.
The committee's report language recommends that responsibility for
the fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission be transferred from the State Department to the Fish and
Wildlife Service at the Interior Department. I strongly disagree with
this suggestion and have opposed efforts to make this transfer in the
past.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is an effective, neutral,
binational forum for coordination of fish management and sea lamprey
eradication in the Great Lakes. Transferring the latter responsibility
to the Fish and Wildlife Service has been and will continue to be
opposed by the Great Lakes States and Tribal governments. Such a
transfer would interfere with the institutional structure and direct
State and Tribal participation in the Commission's activities, and
jeopardize existing delicate relationships among Great Lakes fishery
agencies.
I strongly encourage the conferees not to pursue the transfer any
further, because it will be met with strong resistance from the region,
and I hope, from the administration.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The committee's report language is advisory only to the
administration and does not have the force of law. Nonetheless, I will
seek a clarification in the conference report that reflects the
Senator's concerns.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Democratic manager of the bill for his
consideration and cooperation.
Amendment No. 2867
On page 74, 18, after ``Fund'', strike the period and
insert the following: ``, and of which $1,200,000 shall be
available for continuation of the program to integrate energy
efficient building technology with the use of structural
materials made from underutilized or waste products.''
____
Amendment No. 2868
(Purpose: To amend the bill with regard to the transfer of title to the
Rutland City Industrial Complex)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE RUTLAND CITY INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any
regulation and including the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965), the transfer of title to the
Rutland City Industrial Complex to Hilinex, Vermont (as
related to Economic Development Administration Project Number
01-11-01742) shall not require compensation to the Federal
Government for the fair share of the Federal Government of
that real property.
Amendment No. 2869
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the amount
for the East-West Center shall be $18,000,000.
On page 116 of the bill, on line 1, strike ``$1,000,000''
and insert $4,000,000''.
[[Page S 14678]]
Amendment No. 2870
(Purpose: To restrict the use of funds under this Act for the National
Fine Center)
At the appropriate place, insert the following, ``Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this Act or
any other Act, no funds shall be expended by the Director of
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to implement the
National Fine Center prior to March 1, 1996, except for the
funds necessary to maintain National Fine Center services at
their current level, to complete the conversion of existing
cases for the courts participating in the National Fine
Center as of the date of enactment of this Act, and to
complete the Linked Area Network pilot projects in progress
as of the date of enactment of this Act.''
____
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment, which is cosponsored by
Senator Dorgan, would prohibit the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts to spend additional money to develop the National Fine
Center Project prior to March 1, 1996.
The amendment includes three exceptions. The Administrative Office
would be permitted to maintain National Fine Center services at their
current level, to complete its work on cases for courts currently
participating in the project and to proceed with the pilot projects in
several judicial districts.
A freeze in funding will give Congress time to address serious
questions and problems relating to the status and direction of the
project which were highlighted in a July 19, 1995 Governmental Affairs
oversight hearing.
Congress tasked the Administrative Office 8 years ago to develop an
integrated database to better track and collect Federal criminal debt.
As of 2 months ago, the office had spent nearly $10 million on the
effort, including over $5 million on an aborted pilot project in
Raleigh, NC. today, the prospects of achieving a workable, cost-
efficient Fine Center that meets the needs of the Department of Justice
and the goals articulated by Congress remain very much in question.
The Department of Justice, the primary customer of the Fine Center,
is very concerned about the project, and does not believe that the
current system provides the integration needed by the Department to
improve debt collection--one of the system's primary goals. In fact,
Department of Justice officials believe that if the AO stays its
current course, the Department will be required to develop an
additional system to access information stored in the Fine Center's
database. This is, of course, absurd.
I am particularly troubled that according to the GAO, the
Administrative Office has very little documentation to justify its
development decisions to date and no detailed plan for completing the
project. Moreover, the AO cannot say with any certainty what the final
price tag for the project will be.
While I am sure the intentions of the Administrative Office are
honorable, the project has a troubled history and confidence that we
are on a cost-effective track is not what it should be.
It is important to note that the money being used by Administrative
Office for the project comes from the crime victim fund. This account
is normally used to finance vital victim assistance programs. We cannot
continue to dedicate valuable resources from this account without
absolute assurance that the public, and crime victims are receiving
value for their investment.
Freezing the funds will allow Congress the time to take appropriate
steps to ensure that this project is on track. In fact, I hope to
introduce, with Senator Dorgan, very soon legislation which will help
us to achieve that end.
amendment no. 2871
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding compliance of
the Russian Federation with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe)
On page 121, after line 24, add the following:
Sec. . It is the Sense of the Senate that the President
of the United States should insist on the full compliance of
the Russian Federation with the terms of the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and seek the advice and
consent of the Senate for any treaty modifications.
the cfe treaty
Mr. McCAIN. President Clinton and our NATO allies have agreed to a
major compromise on the CFE treaty in an effort to lay the ground work
for the planned October Summit between President Clinton and President
Yeltsin. The amendment I am offering today is attempt to put the
Administration on notice that the Senate will take a careful look at
the agreement recently reached before it is finalized in October.
In November of 1990, Russia agreed to significant limitations on
numbers and deployment of its heavy weaponry--battle tanks, artillery,
armored combat vehicles, attack helicopters and combat aircraft. There
is unanimous agreement that Russia is not currently in compliance with
the treaty and, at its current pace, it is not likely to meet the
deadline for full compliance.
The treaty changes proposed by NATO--under pressure from the
Administration--involve the number of weapons allowable in what is
known the flank zone. A compromise has been reached that expands the
flank zones to allow an amount of equipment halfway between the treaty
requirements and the amount currently in the zone. The treaty sets
limits of 1,300 tanks, 1,380 armored combat vehicles, and 1,680 heavy
artillery pieces. There are currently 3,000 tanks, 5,500 armored combat
vehicles and 3,000 heavy artillery pieces in the flank zone.
The limits in the flank zone are important because it involves
Russia's Southwest and Northwest border. It has implications for the
situation in Chechnya, Russia's involvement in what it terms its ``near
abroad'' in the Caucuses and the Baltics, and our allies in Turkey.
As with many issues, what causes me the most concern isn't that a
compromise on treaty compliance has been reached. If the compromise is
consistent with the treaty, I am pleased we were able to avoid a rift
with Russia. What concerns me the most is the twist and turns that the
Administration has taken to get to this point. The changes in the
policy makes one skeptical that treaty compliance is really the
administration's aim. Too often in the Administration's Russia policy
the aim has been to avoid and paper over disputes. This was the case
early on with NATO expansion. It was the case with Chechnya. It is the
case with the Russia-Iran nuclear deal.
President Clinton indicated at the Moscow summit in May that
``modifications are in order'' to the CFE treaty and that he would
support modifications at the CFE review conference next year. The
President later attempted to clarify the issue by stressing that he
would press for Russian compliance with the agreement by the November
1995 deadline. Now that the President has reconsidered his earlier
statements and determined that changes are in order to assist the
Russians in meeting this year's November 17th deadline, I think it is
important that the Senate be heard on the issue prior to the
President's meeting next month with President Yeltsin.
The CFE treaty will hopefully become a central element of stability
in Europe. It is important that its integrity be preserved and that no
party be able to subvert its purposes. I encourage the administration
to keep the Senate fully apprised of its attempts to negotiate changes.
amendment no. 2872
(Purpose: To provide for a land transfer in Tuscaloosa, Alabama)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . LAND TRANSFER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through
the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of the
Department of Commerce, shall--
(1) not later than January 1, 1996, commence the demolition
of the structures on, and the cleanup and environmental
remediation on, the parcel of land described in subsection
(b):
(2) not later than March 31, 1996, complete the demolition,
cleanup, and environmental remediation under paragraph (1);
and
(3) not later than April 1, 1996, convey the parcel of land
described in subsection (b), in accordance with the
requirements of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), to the Tuscaloosa County Industrial
Development Authority, on receipt of payment of the fair
market value for the parcel by the Authority, as agreed on by
the Secretary and the Authority.
(b) Land Parcel.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the parcel of land consisting of
approximately 41 acres in Holt, Alabama (in Tuscaloosa
County), that is generally known as the ``Central Foundry
[[Page S 14679]]
Property'', as depicted on a map, and as described in a legal
description, that the Secretary, acting through the Assistant
Secretary for Economic Development, determines to be
satisfactory.
____
amendment no. 2873
(Purpose: To provide funds for maritime security services)
On page 113, line 24, strike ``$330,191,000,'' and insert
``$284,191,000,''.
On page 114, line 3, after ``exceed'' insert ``$29,000,000
may be used for necessary expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, of which not more than''.
On page 99, line 26, strike $250,000,000 and insert
$225,000,000.
On page 116, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
martitime security
For necessary expenses for maritime security services
authorized by law, $46,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
On page 117, line 5, strike ``academies:'' and insert
``academies and may be transferred to the Secretary of the
Interior for use in the National Maritime Heritage Grant
Program:''.
On page 117, strike lines 12 through 24 and insert the
following:
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, $25,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $500,000,000.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment which is
critical to our efforts to reform U.S. maritime policy, maintain a
U.S.-flag fleet and merchant marine and serve our national security
interests.
Maritime reform is vital to our national and economic security. From
our beginning history, America has been a maritime nation reliant on
secure ocean passage and transport for commerce and military strength.
From the sea battles of the American Revolution through the Persian
Gulf, our seafarers and merchant marine courageously supplied and
sustained our troops in combat and conflict.
The U.S.-flag fleet and merchant marine carried our troops and cargo
through World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf.
In World War II, more than 6,000 merchant mariners were killed and
thousands more were wounded. After World War II, the Supreme Allied
Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, declared:
The officers and men of the merchant marine by their
devotion to duty in the face of enemy action, as well as the
material dangers of the sea, have brought to us the tools to
finish the job. Their contribution to final victory will long
be remembered.
Following the Persian Gulf, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Colin Powell, stated:
Since I became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I
have come to appreciate first-hand why our merchant marine
has long been called the Nation's fourth arm of defense. The
American seafarer provides an essential service to the well-
being of the Nation, as was demonstrated so clearly during
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
In relation to our Nation's economic security, Rear Adm. (ret.) Tom
Patterson recently wrote in the Journal of Commerce:
Throughout history, the Nation that ruled the seas
controlled the world's economy. In their time, Egypt, Greece,
Phoenicia, Carthage, and Rome, then Spain, Portugal, and
Great Britain, came and went as the leading naval and
commercial powers. When they lost their maritime dominance,
they quickly became second-rate in terms of economic success
and political influence.
The United States is in grave danger of going down that
same road if it has not done so already. Our perceived
economic decline in recent years has been accompanied by an
almost suicidal approach to our maritime policy--and
specifically to the future of merchant shipping under the
American flag . . .
Over the last 20 years, Congress has failed to pass an effective
maritime policy. As a result, we have seen a dangerous decline of the
U.S.-flag fleet, merchant marine, and shipbuilding.
Now, we face a situation where if we fail to act in this Congress,
our national security and international competitiveness will be
seriously and irreversibly harmed.
We could easily lose our U.S. flag fleet and with it our
merchant marine.
If that occurs, only military readiness and our sealift
capacity will be dealt a blow.
Numerous jobs would be lost related to the maritime
industry and our balance of payments and international
competitiveness will suffer.
In times of international crisis or war, our historical and
successful reliance on the U.S. flag fleet and merchant
marine would come to an end.
Personally, I do not want to be a part of that. This
Congress has a sobering opportunity to do something about it.
Secretary Pena, on behalf of the administration, along with
General Rutherford and Admiral Herberger strongly support the
funding for the Maritime Security Program.
The House National Security Committee and the Senate
Commerce Committee have reported out the reform legislation
that serves as the basis for the proposed funding contained
in this amendment.
I would like to state as simply as possible the objective
of this amendment.
It is to maintain and promote a U.S. flag fleet, built in
U.S. shipyards and manned by U.S. crews in the most cost
effective and flexible manner possible.
When I go home to Pascagoula, I want to see the greatest
amount possible of Mississippi agricultural products--rice,
cotton, soybeans, catfish, chicken and forest products and
other exports moving on U.S. flagged ships build in America.
In times of national emergency or war, I want to know that
we will continue the finest tradition of the U.S. flag fleet
and merchant marine--secure in the knowledge that our sealift
capability is assured and confident that our troops will be
supplied.
The maritime reform legislation and proposed funding will
help achieve these objectives by establishing a new maritime
security program. The bill terminates the previous program,
reducing costs by 50%. In its place, a more efficient and
flexible program will continue the successful private
commercial partnership with the Departments of Transportation
and Defense.
A partnership which will help promote and preserve a modern
U.S. flag fleet and merchant marine and one that will serve
our national security in time of war or emergency.
To promote our Nation's underlying shipbuilding
infrastructure and capacity, this amendment funds and reforms
the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program. A program which
effectively stimulates U.S. shipbuilding, competitiveness and
jobs.
Again, this amendment is vital to our national and economic
security. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this
amendment and our effort to reform our maritime policy.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to
fund two strategically and economically important maritime programs;
the title XI loan guarantee program and the new maritime security
fleet.
The title XI program provides loan guarantees for vessels built in
American shipyards and for the modernization of those same yards. The
maritime security program provides payments to participating vessel
operators in exchange for their promising the availability of
militarily useful U.S.-flag vessels and trained, loyal American crews.
I believe a viable, active, private-sector U.S. maritime industry is
in our national interest. We need a U.S. merchant fleet and U.S.
shipyards for military purposes in times of national emergency.
We need a U.S. merchant fleet to preserve our historic presence as a
global economic power moving goods on the high seas. We need American
men and women to build and run those ships. This amendment is the most
cost-effective way to make sure that our merchant marine is there when
we need it.
Throughout our Nation's history, it has always made strategic sense
to have a strong maritime industry. Policymakers who have come before
us have had the sense to realize that we need U.S.-flag ships with
American crews to supply our armed forces overseas.
Let me make the significance of this vote perfectly clear: in the
absence of a U.S. merchant marine, the Defense Department will have no
other option but to subcontract foreign ships and seamen for
practically all its sealift needs.
A number of times during the Gulf war foreign-flag ships refused to
sail into the war zone. That never happened with a U.S.-flag ship. Our
civilian merchant mariners have always been there for us in times of
national crisis. They have been true patriots--reliable, consistent,
and faithful. Without Americans manning those supply ships, we can't
guarantee that the U.S. military will be able to do its job.
I believe in public/private cooperation to encourage government
savings. This maritime package does just that. It provides a rainy-day
maritime infrastructure for U.S. defense needs while, at the same time,
stimulating private sector enterprise. The sealift capability that a
U.S. merchant marine provides the Defense Department costs a fraction
of what it would cost if they did it ``in house''.
[[Page S 14680]]
It also guarantees that loyal American merchant mariners will be
available to serve when needed. They won't be there if we betray the
U.S. maritime industry.
This amendment is smart, it's strategic, and it makes sense. Our
merchant mariners and shipyard laborers when called to serve, never
gave up the ship. I hope the U.S. Senate doesn't give up the ship
today. Let's stand by these heroes in dungarees and adopt the pending
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment,
and to join Senators Lott, Inouye, Breaux, and others as a cosponsor,
to fund the maritime security program [MSP].
The MSP will replace the existing operating differential subsidy
[ODS] program over the next 3 years, and will ensure the continuation
of a viable U.S.-flag fleet in our trade with foreign countries.
Statistics show an alarming decline in the size of our domestic
commercial fleet, and this amendment will ensure that U.S. defense and
economic security needs continue to be met.
The amendment provides $46 million for operating subsidies under the
MSP in fiscal year 1996.
When the MSP fully replaces the ODS in 1998, it will cost $100
million per year through the year 2005, providing subsidies to roughly
50 ships at around $2 million per ship.
This annual cost is 50 percent lower than the cost of the existing
ODS subsidy program, on which we spent $214 million in fiscal year 1995
alone.
We feel this leaner program is sufficient to sustain a viable U.S.-
flag fleet as it competes against carriers from countries with lower
labor standards and heavy subsidies.
The amendment also provides $25 million for title XI loan guarantees
to build new U.S. vessels.
U.S. shipyards, even more than U.S. carriers, compete against
shipyards in other countries that receive subsidies as large as any
industry in the world receives.
The $25 million provided in this amendment will allow the Maritime
Administration to guarantee loans totaling $250 million in fiscal year
1996.
The Secretary of Transportation has informed the Appropriations
Committee that loan guarantee applications totaling $2.8 billion are
currently pending before the Maritime Administration.
There is no question that the demand for loan guarantees will meet
the supply we provide.
The Secretary additionally tells us that world shipbuilding demand
will exceed $350 billion in the next 10 years.
This loan guarantee money will ensure that U.S. shipyards can meet
some of that demand for new ships.
The amendment provides $71 million total by reducing the amount
provided for Radio Free Europe by $71 million.
While the decision to make this reduction has been difficult, I
believe this amendment provides funding that is critical to the United
States and U.S.-flag commercial fleet.
In addition to the carrier and shipbuilding provisions, the amendment
would also add important bill language to allow proceeds from the sales
of National Reserve Defense Fleet vessels to be transferred to the
Secretary of the Interior to use for the National maritime Heritage
Grants program.
This program was created as part of the National Maritime Heritage
Act, passed into law last November. That act authorizes the change we
are making now to the appropriations bill.
This grants program will allow entities such as the Fairbanks
Historical Preservation Foundation in Fairbanks, AK restore vessels
that are important relics of our maritime heritage.
The Fairbanks Historical Preservation Foundation has just begun to
restore the NENANA, an important riverboat in Alaska's history, and
would be eligible to apply for grants under this program.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
amendment no. 2874
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress urging the President to
provide for unified command and control of Department of Defense
counterdrug activities)
On page 110, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
Sec. ____. It is the sense of Congress that, in order to
facilitate enhanced command and control of Department of
Defense counter-drug activities in the Western Hemisphere,
the President should designate the commander of one unified
combatant command established under chapter 6 of title 10,
United States Code, to perform the mission of carrying out
all counter-drug operations of the Department of Defense in
the areas of the Western Hemisphere that are south of the
southern border of the United States, including Mexico, and
the areas off the coasts of Central America and South America
that are within 300 miles of such coasts. But not to include
the Carribean Sea.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, more Americans die each year from the
use of cocaine, heroin, and other illicit drugs than from international
terrorism.
One hundred percent of the world's cocaine comes from South America.
Realizing this, one can conceptualize possible centers of gravity where
we can reach out and disrupt the drug cartel's operations. It is
imperative that we take the fight to the drug cartels.
We can target the illicit drug industry itself; drug transshipment
areas, airfields, navigational equipment, drug labs, and drug cache
sites.
As the Honorable William Perry, Secretary of Defense has been quoted
as saying, ``Narco-traffickers don't think in terms of borders. Indeed,
they take advantage of this mind set. They violate sovereignty. So the
only way to deal with the narco-trafficking problem is to treat it as a
regional problem . . .''
With this concept in mind, I am concerned that there is a great deal
of stratification and duplication of effort within U.S. governmental
agencies. On Capitol Hill alone, there are over 74 congressional drug
oversight and review committees. To stem the tide of illicit drug
trafficking, sale, and use, we must maximize our potential and our
limited resources.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I feel
that a logical place to begin consolidating command and control, to
better curb the flow of illicit drugs from the southern portion of the
Western Hemisphere, is within the department of Defense.
The Department of Defense provides support to law enforcement
agencies and host nations in creating and strengthening their
institutions to defeat the narcotics threat. Currently, each command
provides: intelligence support, detection and monitoring (D&M),
interdiction, training support, planning assistance, logistics support,
and communications support within their respective theaters. It is my
intent to consolidate these efforts under one unified command that will
handle counternarcotics operations.
This sense of the Congress is designed to put the executive branch on
notice that it is time to streamline counternarcotic activities and
become more effective interdicting drugs at their point of origin in
South America. It is time for tighter command and control regarding
counternarcotics operations in the region of the world that is the sole
producer of cocaine.
amendment no. 2875
(Purpose: To provide for Agricultural Weather Service Centers)
On page 76, line 25, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That the National Weather
Service shall expend not more than $700,000 to operate and
maintain Agricultural Weather Service Centers''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, This amendment provides funding for the
Agricultural Weather Service Centers at Stoneville, MI and Auburn, AL
and requires the National Weather Service to continue the operation of
these important weather centers.
This bill calls for the privatization of elements of the National
Weather Service [NWS], including services for agriculture and forestry.
These weather service centers provide several important services to
America's farmers. Millions of dollars and hundreds of family farms are
at risk without proper weather information.
Many important products and services would be terminated if these
centers are closed. Special freeze forecasts, special advisories for
extreme weather events, and agricultural weather guidance would all be
eliminated. All agricultural climatology services to State and Federal
agencies would cease as would all liaison activities with the land
grant universities and other agencies. Cooperative research with
scientists at all universities would end.
Some argue that farmers can obtain the weather services they require
from
[[Page S 14681]]
the private sector from the many commercial weather services that
operate around the Nation.
However, none of the commercial weather services provide the kind of
agricultural weather information available from these agricultural
weather service centers. Additionally, there are only a very small
number of companies that could potentially provide some agricultural
services.
Commercial operators are generally unwilling to make an investment in
developing the kinds of unique products used by agriculture because the
market is too small. In areas of concentrated agriculture, such as in
California or Florida, the market might be sufficient for the private
sector. Markets like Mississippi are too small to support private
meteorological services.
Some argue that these services should be done by private sector
meteorologists and that the National Weather Service constitutes
corporate welfare. Let me bring to the attention of my colleagues that
the bulk of agriculture and forestry consists of small family
operations, not giant corporations. Large farms already hire private
meteorologists and will not be affected by office closings. This is
going to affect the small- and medium-sized farmers who do not have the
money to get expert help and could not afford to contract for weather
information.
Some may argue that this is an unnecessary service that should no
longer be funded by taxpayers, that in a time of smaller budgets, we
can no longer afford the $2.1 million to operate the National Weather
Service agricultural weather program.
However, according to a 1992 study by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the modernization of the National Weather
Service will reduce agricultural losses by $15 billion and increase
agricultural output by $117.9 million annually.
This is clearly one of the best bargains in government.
The Stoneville Center is a world renown research center with major
activities in cotton, soybeans, rice, catfish, and hardwood forestry.
At the Stoneville, MI center, more than 200 farmers have been working
with the Stoneville Agricultural Weather Service Center to develop a
credible agricultural weather forecast system. This center has the
potential of producing data that could save millions of dollars in
reduced input costs such as pesticide applications, fertilizer, and
harvest potential.
There is clearly a role for the Federal Government in providing these
specialized agricultural services. The production of food and fiber is
the most critical component of our economy. With so few Americans now
directly producing our food and fiber, it is imperative that we
maintain the most efficient production possible. The NWS agricultural
and forestry weather program contributes to this efficiency at the
lowest possible cost.
The roles of the NWS and the private sector are clear. The role of
operating and maintaining the agricultural weather data networks is
best done by NWS. The same goes for the operations of agricultural
weather forecast models. Research and development activities which
utilize the observational and forecast data is another primary NWS
function. The end result is a great wealth of information. It is the
packaging and delivery of this information which can be best done by
the private sector. The NWS does not have the resources to produce
customized information for each user. This is clearly an important job
for the private sector. The NWS and the private sector can work
together and share in the provision of weather information to
agriculture.
There is a right way and a wrong way to privatize these services.
This bill represents the wrong way. These services should not be
abruptly ended without careful planning and judicious management of the
privatization process.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cochran
amendment which would restore funding for the Agricultural Weather
Service Centers at Stoneville, MS, and Auburn, AL. The amendment would
require the National Weather Service to continue the operation of these
important weather centers.
Mr. President, the business of American farmers, ranchers, and
foresters is to produce and market the world's safest supply of food
and fiber. To do so, they must cope with all of the vagaries of nature.
Unlike the vast majority of people in this Nation who cope with
everyday weather in the context of a golf game or a picnic, weather is
the single most important external element in the production equation.
To our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters specific weather
information is crucial to the protection of crops, the application of
management practices, the timely selection and use of pesticides, the
decision to apply expensive freeze protection measures, et cetera.
In my opinion, there is no other organization, business, or
institution which is capable of gathering and analyzing data either on
the scale or to the degree of reliability which farmers, ranchers, and
foresters routinely receive from the National Weather Service. The
refinement of the data for their specific needs requires specific
analysis and employs special knowledge provided by land grant colleges,
the Cooperative Extension Service, and other State and Federal
specialists.
I am aware that there are a number of private weather services
offered and that some highly specialized and concentrated segments of
agriculture employ them. However, I am informed that these rely totally
on the data provided by the National Weather Service as the basis for
their specialized services. Regardless, farmers are incapable at the
present time to assume the functions of government privately even if
they could afford the services.
Therefore, I strongly support Senator Cochran's attempt to restore
funding for the Agricultural Weather Service Centers at Stoneville, MS,
and at Auburn, AL. I urge my colleagues to support the Cochran
amendment.
amendment no. 2876
(Purpose: To restore funding for trade adjustment assistance centers)
On page 68, line 19, insert ``, $7,500,000 of which shall
be for trade adjustment assistance'' after ``$89,000,000''.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Senators Levin, from Michigan; D'Amato, New York; Mrs. Hutchison,
Texas; Moynihan, Leahy, Glenn, Pell, Murray, and Rockefeller to offer
an amendment to restore funding for Trade Adjustment Assistance
Centers, or TAACs as they are called. Our amendment provides that of
the $100 million included in the existing bill for the Economic
Development Administration, $10 million will be used to fund the 12
regional TAACs at their fiscal year 1995 level.
Trade adjustment assistance is authorized by the Trade Act of 1974 to
help manufacturers who have lost sales and jobs to imports. Once
certified as having been hurt by imports, firms receive cost-shared
technical assistance to improve their competitive position.
Mr. President, TAACs work. Looking at TAAC clients a clear pattern
emerges. In the two years prior to going to a TAAC, a manufacturing
firm has seen declining sales and reduced jobs. After receiving TAAC
assistance sales go up and employment increases.
In a study of TAAC clients from fiscal year 1990-1994, prior to
seeking assistance, TAAC clients lost over 10,000 jobs and $630 million
in sales. After receiving TAAC assistance, not only had the drop in
employment and sales been stemmed, it had been reversed. Fifty-five
hundred jobs were added in addition to the 55,000 jobs that were saved,
and client sales increased by $1.1 billion. Most importantly,
productivity, as measured by sales per employee, was increased
significantly from $82,000 to $94,000.
Productive firms stay open for business; they continue to employ and
hire new people. Mr. President, trade adjustment assistance is a good
program. For every dollar spent by the federal government there is an
800 percent return in terms of Government revenue.
As I mentioned, there are twelve regional TAACs--Boston, Trenton,
Seattle, Boulder, Chicago, Atlanta, Ann Arbor, Binghamton, San Antonio,
Los Angeles, Columbia (MO), and Blue Bell, PA. Each of these centers
have helped manufacturing firms in every State who have been hurt by
imports get back on their feet and remain viable.
TAACs save private sector jobs, and, as we all know, the best social
program
[[Page S 14682]]
is a good paying job, and manufacturing jobs are good paying jobs.
In my home State of Vermont, the TAAC which serves my region, the New
England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NETAAC) is currently
providing or reviewing certification petitions from seven manufacturing
firms who combined employ close to 500 people. In a small State like
Vermont that is a lot of jobs.
The assistance is cost shared by the client and TAAC contribution can
be as little as $25,000. The average NETAAC investment is $684 per job.
That is an excellent return on federal investment.
Mr. President, our amendment simply directs that of the $100 million
already in the bill for the Economic Development Administration, $10
million be used for TAACs. We have funded this program in the past and
the other body has included funding in its fiscal year 1996 Commerce
appropriations bill. I should also note that the Ways and Means
Committee recently voted to extend authorization for trade adjustment
assistance for 2 more years.
TAACs help manufacturing firms that have been hurt by imports. TAAC
assistance saves jobs and increases sales. For every dollar we spend on
this program, we get eight dollars back. Funding TAACs is a sound
investment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Vermont
in his effort to restore funding for the program providing Trade
Adjustment Assistance for companies affected by imports.
This has been an enormously effective program for more than 30 years.
Under the firm TAA program, we have established a national network of
centers that provide technical assistance to trade-impacted companies.
These centers, several located in universities, have a remarkable
record in improving companies' manufacturing, marketing, and other
capabilities in the face of stiffened competition from foreign imports.
This program is a complement to the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program for workers, which provides direct benefits to individuals who
lose their jobs because of imports. Both are part of an effort to
fulfill a commitment we have made to American workers as we pursue our
national trade policy. The notion of Trade Adjustment Assistance was
first articulated in 1954 by David MacDonald, President of the United
Steel Workers, and the program was later enacted in the Trade
Expiration Act of 1962. In 1993, when I last spoke on this floor in
support of this program, I cited Luther Hodges' statement to the Senate
Finance Committee in 1962 during consideration of that landmark
legislation. I find it fitting to bring that statement here again:
Both workers and firms may encounter special difficulties
when they feel the adverse effects of import competition.
This is import competition caused directly by the Federal
Government when it lowers tariffs as part of a trade
agreement undertaken for the long-term economic good of the
country as a whole. The Federal Government has a special
responsibility in this case. When the Government has
contributed to economic injuries, it should also contribute
to economic adjustments required to repair them.
Our trade policy, which began with Cordell Hull's Reciprocal Trade
Agreements Program in 1934 and culminated with the passage last
December of the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements Act, results in some
winners and some losers. Losers, simply because some American
industries have difficulty competing against companies with the
advantages afforded to them in other countries. However our winners are
plentiful, and expectations are that implementation of the Uruguay
Round agreements alone will pump an additional $100 million to $200
million into the American economy. We dare not abandon the policy. We
simply must assume responsibility for those whom it may harm.
The Trade Agreement Assistance for Firms program has been enormously
effective in assuming that responsibility. In just the past five years,
the twelve regional TAA centers have collectively helped 488 companies.
Most of those firms were in danger of going out of business prior to
the TAA center's assistance, and all were experiencing serious
difficulty meeting payroll obligations. In the two years prior to
receiving assistance, these 488 manufacturing companies had laid off
10,447 employees. In the two years after TAA help arrived, however,
those same companies had hired an additional 5,475 workers. Their sales
rose 24.5%, productivity increased 13%, and, as a result, tax revenues
are up. Program organizers estimate that more than $7 in federal and
state income tax revenue is generated for every $1 spent on the
program.
The TAA center at the State University of New York in Binghamton has
played no small role in that success, assisting 49 manufacturing
companies in my State over those same five years. While those firms
experienced a combined drop in sales of $27 million in the two years
preceding TAA assistance, they now can boast increases of over $51
million in sales in the subsequent years. These accomplishments
preserved employment for many New Yorkers plus generating jobs for 167
more.
I have received numerous letters from these companies, each detailing
for me how timely and critical was the TAA center's assistance, and I
would like to share with my colleagues some of their compelling
stories:
Beldoch Industries Corporation, located in Manhattan, has
manufactured ladies' knitwear for over 50 years under three generations
of family management. When the company had trouble competing with
inexpensive textile imports, Gene Hochfelder, Beldoch's Chairman,
sought the help of New York's TAA center. The center's consultants
identified strategies under which Beldoch could consolidate operations,
provide more prompt service to customers, and successfully compete with
foreign imports. Beldoch, with its 260 employees, has kept its
manufacturing in the U.S. and is experiencing great success.
The Beach-Russ Company, located in Brooklyn, New York, manufactures
vacuum pumps, air compressors, and gas boosters. Charles Beach,
President of Beach-Russ, writes ``The New York Trade Adjustment
Assistance Center facilitated the obtaining of assistance in the
development of a New Vacuum Pump to make our company more competitive
with low-cost foreign manufacturers.''
Michael Hrycelak, Vice President of AJL Manufacturing Inc. in
Rochester, writes of how the New York TAA center helped them devise a
new marketing plan. He adds, ``We strongly support this program, a true
example of a government agency adding long term value, with minimal
short term cost.''
And there are many works in progress as well. Helmel Engineering
Products, Inc. is a small machine tool manufacturing company in Niagara
Falls with only 26 employees. In the face of stiff competition from
overseas, the company has recently completed a two-year diagnostic
survey and adjustment project directed by the New York TAA Center. The
Center's assistance allowed them to update and improve the marketing of
their software, a task which otherwise would have taken closer to five
years and may have been altogether unmanageable for the small company.
But now, believing that they manufacture the best software their
industry can offer, Helmel is optimistic about their new future.
Judging by the success of their fellow graduates of the New York TAA
program, I think their optimism is well-founded indeed.
Mr. President, this is clearly government money well spent. These are
quality companies with capable managers and dedicated workers. The TAA
program's modest investment has been sufficient for them to recover
from damage done by imports and remain active contributors to our
national economy.
Seventy-six of my colleagues in this body, many of whom are still
here today, supported our effort to liberalize trade last December. It
was good policy. The country is better for it, and we should not regret
our decision. But we must also assume responsibility for its
consequences. I urge the Senate restore funding for this important and
very worthy program.
AMENDMENT NO. 2877
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding funding for
the Economic Development Administration)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
[[Page S 14683]]
(1) assistance from the Economic Development Administration
(hereafter in this section referred to as the ``EDA'') within
the Department of Commerce is an investment in the economic
vitality of the United States;
(2) funding for the EDA within the Department of Commerce
is reduced by almost 80 percent in this Act;
(3) the EDA serves a unique governmental function by
providing grants, which are matched by local funds, to
distressed urban and rural areas that would not otherwise
receive funding;
(4) every EDA $1 invested generates $3 in outside
investments, and during the past 30 years preceding the date
of enactment of this Act, the EDA has invested more than
$15,600,000,000 in depressed communities, creating 2,800,000
jobs in the United States;
(5) the EDA is one of a very few governmental agencies that
assists communities impacted by military base closings and
defense downsizing;
(6) the EDA has--
(A) become a more efficient and effective agency by
reducing regulations by 60 percent;
(B) trimmed the period for application processing down to a
60-day period; and
(C) reduced its operating expenses; and
(7) the House of Representatives, on July 26, 1995, voiced
strong bipartisan support for the EDA by a vote of 315 to
110.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the appropriation for the EDA for fiscal year 1996
should be at the House of Representatives-passed level of
$348,500,000.
eda sense-of-the-congress amendment
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I have offered a sense-of-the-
Congress resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe and a
bipartisan group of 18 cosponsors. I am happy that the managers of the
bill have accepted the amendment. Our amendment puts the Senate on
record in support of fiscal year 1996, House-passed appropriation level
for the Economic Development Administration [EDA].
The House level of $348.5 million dollars is a 25-percent cut from
the requested level, but a significant increase from the $100 million
passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The $100 million is a 79
percent reduction that would devastate the EDA.
Mr. President, I do want to applaud Chairman Hatfield for providing
the $100 million in his committee, which was an improvement on the zero
funding proposed initially.
Before I describe the critical role of EDA and the streamlining that
has occurred at EDA, I want to explain the spending dynamic in our
amendment. Simply put, the House allocated more funds to the Commerce,
State, Justice bill. This permits a higher EDA funding level without
cutting other programs within the bill.
Mr. President, the Economic Development Administration has been
crucial to rebuilding distressed rural and urban communities in each of
our States. Not by providing Government handouts, but by helping
communities become economically self-sufficient. EDA's goal is to
invest limited Federal dollars so that communities can attract new
industry, spur private investment, and encourage business expansion.
EDA gets more bang for the buck by creating partnerships with local,
county, and State governments and economic development entities. These
partnerships help to provide planning, financial, technical, and
specialized assistance to help develop infrastructure and create jobs
in these distressed areas.
In fact, for every EDA dollar invested, more than $3 in outside
investment has been generated. In the last 30 years, EDA has invested
over $15 billion in local communities in need of financial assistance.
This investment has resulted in the creation or the retention of more
than 2.8 million American jobs.
One of EDA's key functions is to help communities recover from
natural disasters. EDA played a pivotal role in the State of Florida
after Hurricane Andrew, in South Carolina and North Carolina after
Hurricane Hugo, and in Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin after the Midwest
flooding of 1992. After the emergency management people leave, EDA is
the only governmental agency that remains to help devastated
communities rebuild.
Perhaps the largest and best-known mission of EDA is in the field of
defense conversion. EDA is life support for base closure towns
searching for new direction and new life after the cold war.
In 1988, 1991, and 1993 we closed 250 military bases across America.
Just months ago, the 1995 Base Closure Commission recommended the
closing or the realignment of another 130 bases. Communities
surrounding these bases and defense factories being down-sized face
massive revenue and job losses. EDA is often the only place cities and
towns can turn for help in getting back on their feet.
Since 1992, EDA has provided 173 grants, matched by local funds,
totalling almost $288 million to these communities. But the value of
EDA's contribution goes well beyond the dollars spent.
A good example of how EDA helps military towns adjust is in my
hometown of Camden, AR. In 1957, the Navy shut down Shumaker Naval
Ammunition Depot, which was an old research and development facility.
After Shumaker closed, Camden was challenged with finding a new
direction and source of jobs for our people. Before long, the newly-
created Economic Development Administration provided Camden with a
$365,000 grant that helped create a new technical college on the old
Navy property. Today, I am proud to say that the Southern Arkansas
University's Technical Branch in Camden is alive and well, thriving as
a national leader in the area of robotics research. It has been a
magnet for defense contractor factories that now employ thousands of
workers.
Without EDA those thousands of jobs might not be available today.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and provide a
helping hand to communities that face the loss of a military base or a
defense production facility. Eliminating EDA's funding in the wake of
the 1995 base closure round would spell disaster for the people and the
businesses that helped us win the cold war but not suffer due to
defense downsizing.
Now, Mr. President, I have heard past criticisms about EDA's
management and I am sure that some of my colleagues will mention them
again today. However, I am here to say that EDA has reinvented itself.
It is more effective and more efficient. The EDA has:
First, trimmed application processing down to 60 days.
Second, reduced regulations by 62 percent.
Third, has cut the processing time for grant applications by 50
percent and delegated more decisionmaking responsibility to regional
offices.
Fourth, developed a single application form that can be used for all
EDA programs.
Fifth, reduced administrative expenses in half from 13.6 percent in
fiscal year 1989 to 6.6 percent in fiscal year 1995.
Sixth, in fiscal year 1996, the EDA will further reduce its staff
from 350 to 309.
On July 26, 1995, Congressman Hefley of Colorado introduced an
amendment in the House of Representatives which would have eliminated
the funding for EDA. This amendment failed by a vote of 315 to 110. By
this vote, both Republicans and Democrats voiced their support for the
many successes that the EDA has accomplished in communities across the
United States and for EDA's management.
Mr. President, I have letters of support for the Pryor/Snowe
amendment from the National Association of Development Organizations
and the National Association of Installation Developers that I would
like included in the Record following my remarks.
Again, I would like to thank the managers for accepting the
amendment. It was clear to all that a much higher funding level for EDA
is supported by a clear majority of the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of cosponsors, and relevant
letters be printed following my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Current List of Cosponsors
Senator Baucus.
Senator Warner.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Robb.
Senator Breaux.
Senator Dodd.
Senator Daschle.
Senator Moynihan.
Senator D'Amato.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Harkin.
[[Page S 14684]]
Senator Cohen.
Senator Rockefeller.
Senator Bumpers.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Levin.
Senator Ford.
Senator Lugar.
____
National Association of Development Organizations,
Washington, DC, September 19, 1995.
Hon. David Pryor,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pryor: On behalf of the members of the
National Association of Development Organizations (NADO), I
am writing in support of your Sense of the Congress Amendment
urging the Senate to accept the House-passed funding level
for the Economic Development Administration (EDA).
As organizations representing local governments that served
distressed communities, NADO members understand the
importance of EDA assistance--and of an adequately funded
EDA. Distressed communities, through help from EDA, have
access to the professional capacity and planning
capabilities, infrastructure grants, business development
programs, and disaster and defense adjustment assistance that
they need to battle economic disruption--whether it be
chronic or sudden and unexpected. Distressed communities
depend on EDA assistance. They need adequate funding for EDA
if they are to have any chance to develop economically.
EDA is not a hand-out: EDA is a federal program that
attracts local funds--every EDA dollar invested leverages
three local dollars; and EDA creates long-term private sector
jobs that puts people to work--2.8 million people have been
put to work through EDA assistance.
NADO members realize that difficult choices must be made to
help balance the budget. As a result, we understand the need
for cuts to EDA funding made by the House. H.R. 2076, as
approved by the House of Representatives, cuts EDA funding by
21 percent from current funding levels--a considerable
reduction. However, further cuts would significantly inhibit
EDA's ability to assist distressed communities. The
communities that EDA serves are those that can least afford
reductions.
The House of Representatives agrees: by a 315-110 vote,
representatives overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to
eliminate EDA funding. Voting in support of EDA was a
majority of the Republican caucus (including a majority of
the freshman Republican class) as well as a majority of the
Democratic caucus. We urge senators to join with you, Senator
Olympia Snowe and others in showing support of adequate
funding for this essential program by cosponsoring your
amendment and voting for it on the floor.
NADO members endorse the Pryor/Snowe amendment and urge all
senators to vote for it. We appreciate your leadership on
this crucial issue.
Sincerely yours,
James C. Tonn,
NADO President and Executive Director, Middle Georgia
Regional Development Center, Macon.
____
National Association of
Installation Developers,
Alexandria, VA, September 20, 1995.
Hon. David Pryor,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pryor: The National Association of
Installation Developers (NAID) supports your efforts to
maintain funding for the Economic Development Administration
(EDA). As you know, NAID is an organization dedicated to
helping communities that have had their local military bases
closed or designated for realignment. NAID is comprised of
nearly 400 members including representatives from communities
and states affected by base closures.
In August NAID had its annual conference in Chicago which
was attended by more than 450 delegates. One of the sessions
on the program was about EDA's role in base reuse. The
membership of our organization understands fully the critical
contribution of the EDA's Defense Economic Conversion Program
to successful base reuse. The EDA is one of a very few
governmental agencies that assists communities impacted by
military base closings and defense downsizing.
Senator Pryor, you understand the devastating impact the
loss of the EDA's Defense Economic Conversion Program would
have on communities seeking to recover from military
cutbacks. NAID and its members appreciate your effort to
preserve funding for this essential need.
Cordially,
Brad Arvin,
President.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would first like to thank my colleague
from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for his continued efforts on issues
pertaining to the Economic Development Administration [EDA] and for
sponsoring this amendment. And I am pleased to join in this effort. I
would also like to thank the bipartisan group of Senators who have
joined us in cosponsoring this legislation.
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of continued funding
for the EDA. The EDA is a small but important agency that contributes
significantly to economic growth and job expansion. Through its
programs, the EDA fulfills a key function in providing State and local
governments, non-profit organizations, and public institutions with
vital economic grants and technical assistance.
The House of Representatives clearly recognized the vital role that
the EDA plays in communities affected by economic dislocation and
included a significant and meaningful level of funding for the agency
in fiscal year 1996. And although the House overwhelming voted on July
26 to maintain the $348.5 million funding level contained in the
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, the Senate Appropriations
Committee opted to cut funding for the EDA to $100 million.
I recognize the challenge that we face in balancing the budget over 7
years and believe that all programs should be asked to contribute.
However, as we choose those programs that should be either scaled back
or eliminated, it is important that we establish priorities. I believe
the EDA can and should remain a priority even as it contributes to
deficit reduction. The House-passed funding level for EDA is $60
million less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995--which
would amount to a 21-percent cut. The amendment we are offering would
send a strong message to the soon-to-be-chosen conference committee
that, while such a reduction is acceptable, to go further would imperil
an agency that has proven to be a valuable source of economic
assistance to regions all across the United States.
The debate over EDA funding is hardly a new one in Congress--previous
administrations have even proposed the termination of the agency.
However, I have consistently fought--and will continue to fight--for
meaningful funding because of the critical assistance I have seen the
EDA deliver not only in the State of Maine, but across the United
States.
Many in Congress know the real value of EDA in distressed communities
and support the EDA. We all know that economic distress is not limited
to simply a single city or county. Pockets of need exist nationwide in
both rural and urban areas. And while some may be concerned that EDA
moneys are spent in regions lacking requisite need, 98.8 percent of the
603 EDA projects undertaken between fiscal year 1992 and today were in
areas of high economic distress.
For 30 years the EDA has provided grants for infrastructure
development, local capacity building, and business incentives that
address the debilitating conditions caused by substantial and
persistent unemployment in economically distressed areas. Since 1965,
the EDA has provided more than $15.6 billion nationally through its
programs for initiatives ranging from natural disasters to defense
conversion. The partnerships it has forged with local, county, and
State economic development organizations have provided invaluable
assistance and technical support for regions of high economic distress
not only in Maine, but across the United States.
Over this same period of time, the EDA has invested more than $182
million in 570 projects targeted to assist needy communities in Maine.
During 1994, more than $14 million in EDA assistance was received by
the State. Included in this amount was $6 million in assistance for
fishermen coping with the severe economic impacts of the ongoing New
England groundfish crisis.
EDA is a true partnership between the Federal Government and local
communities that fosters economic growth and stability by promoting
sound economic development practices and carefully investing limited
Federal dollars. The underlying philosophy of the EDA program is that
long-term job opportunities can best be created by providing the
infrastructure and other forms of support necessary for private
businesses to establish new plants or to expand existing facilities in
economically distressed areas. And the programs administered by the EDA
put this philosophy into practice.
EDA's Public Works Program is an excellent example of the federal-
local partnership that brings this vital assistance to distressed
regions. We all recognize that an adequate local infrastructure is
critical to the development and expansion of rural and urban economies.
By pairing federal grants
[[Page S 14685]]
with matching monies from local communities, the Public Works Program
has led to the development of water and sewer systems, industrial
access roads, and high-skilled training facilities. All of these
services are essential to not only retaining existing businesses, but
to attracting new industries to communities. In our increasingly
competitive global economy, the importance of developing this
infrastructure and attracting new businesses cannot be overstated.
The Title IX Economic Adjustment Assistant Program provides
communities with the most flexible tools necessary to develop and
implement locally-identified economic development priorities that
address changes that are causing--or are threatening to cause--serious
structural damage to the underlying economic base. Examples of such
economic changes include sudden and severe economic dislocations caused
by base closures, reductions in defense contract spending, new Federal
laws or requirements, industrial or corporate restructuring, or natural
disaster. Structural economic changes may also result from long-term
economic deterioration as evidenced by gradual population shifts,
depletion of natural resources, or increased foreign market competition
that drains a significant local industry.
Under the Title IX program, communities are provided with the
flexibility and tools necessary to organize a local strategy for
achieving economic stability and change. Such planning may lead to
grants for projects including the construction of public facilities,
roads, or industrial parks. In Lewiston, Maine, Title IX monies proved
invaluable in renovating the Bates Mill--a textile mill that required
massive renovations following its closure.
Finally, the EDA Planning, Technical and Trade Adjustment Assistance
Programs are visible examples of local-federal partnerships with
academic institutions, communities, and economic development
professionals committed to the promotion of our nation's economic well-
being.
As cited in a recent issue of Fortune magazine, many firms with
strong growth potential have very little in the way of physical assets,
but many intangible assets. When these firms seek capital for
expansion, their lack of collateral is a significant hindrance. Through
the utilization of a small EDA grant, the article demonstrated how a
recipient was able to create a formula to help firms calculate the
value of these intangible assets--which could thereby be helpful in
expanding access to capital. EDA Planning Assistance also supports
local economic development planning efforts necessary to respond to
local problems and, therefore, help communities take advantage of
opportunities at the state, multi-county, and local level.
Through these and other programs, the EDA has proven itself to be an
invaluable guide and resource for economically depressed communities.
Based on available data, the EDA has created more than 2.8 million jobs
of which 1.5 million were the result of public works projects. In
addition, through the EDA revolving loan fund program, the agency has
created $1.9 billion in private sector capital--which amounts to more
than three dollars in outside capital being generated for every federal
dollar invested in the program. And don't be mistaken: EDA is not an
entitlement program--rather, it is a push in the right direction for
our nation's communities.
As Congress begins to make the tough decisions necessary to balance
the budget, let us be sure we continue to maintain a program that has
proven itself to be both necessary and effective in its broad
assistance to distressed communities across America. I urge my
colleagues to continue funding the EDA at a responsible level--and
support the Pryor-Snowe amendment.
amendment no. 2878
(Purpose: To establish conditions for the termination of sanctions
against Serbia and Montenegro)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . RESTRICTIONS ON THE TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO.
(a) Restrictions.--Section 1511 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following:
``(e) Certification.--A certification described in this
subsection is a certification by the President to Congress of
this determination that:
``(1) the elected Government of Kosova is exercising its
legitimate right to democratic self-government, and the
political autonomy of Kosova, as exercised prior to 1984
under the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, has been restored;
``(2) systematic violations of the civil and human rights
of the people of Kosova, including institutionalized
discrimination and structural repression, have ended;
``(3) monitors from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, other human rights monitors, and
United States and international relief officials are free to
operate in Kosova and Serbia, including the Sandjak and
Vojvodina, and enjoy the full cooperation and support of
Serbia and local authorities;
``(4) full civil and human rights have been restored to
ethnic non-Serbs in Serbia, including the Sandjak and
Vojvodina;
``(5) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has halted
aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
``(6) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has terminated all
forms of support, including manpower, arms, fuel, financial
subsidies, and war material, by land or air, for Serbian
separatists and their leaders in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia;
``(7) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has extended full
respect for the territorial integrity and independence of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia,
and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and
``(8) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has cooperated
fully with the United Nation war crimes tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, including by surrendering all available
and requested evidence and those indicted individuals who are
residing in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro.''.
(b) Foreign Assistance Act Amendment.--Section 307(a) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) is
amended by inserting ``Serbia and Montenegro,'' after
``Cuba,''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1511(a) of such Act is
amended by striking ``subsections (d) and (e)) remain in
effect until changed by law'' and inserting ``subsection (d))
remain in effect until the certification requirements of
subsection (e) have been met''.
(d) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the conditions specified in section 1511(e) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, as
amended by this section, should also be applied by the United
Nations for the termination of sanctions against Serbia and
Montenegro.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, together with
the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, which
would require the President to certify that certain conditions have
been met before United States sanctions on Serbia can be lifted. These
conditions include an end to systematic violations of the civil and
human rights of the people of Kosova; the restoration of Kosova's
political autonomy as exercised prior to 1984; and an end to the
Belgrade regime's support for Serb separatists in Bosnia and Croatia.
In my view this amendment is very important. For all of the
administration talk of peace being around the corner, the situation in
the former Yugoslavia is hardly peaceful--or stable. We cannot and must
not forget that in Kosova, 2 million Albanians are in their 6th year of
martial law. Not only are they disenfranchised, unemployed, and living
what is at best a subsistence existence, they are victims of brutal and
systematic repression. The Serbian Government has deployed thousands of
interior police to ensure its regime of terror in Kosova.
Furthermore, despite his image as peacemaker, Serbian President
Milosevic continues to support aggression against Bosnia, and the
occupation of Croatia. The Yugoslav Army is assisting Bosnian Serb
forces--who are still attacking Bosnian towns.
The sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro are essentially the
only leverage the United States--and the international community--has
chosen to use to influence the behavior of the Milosevic regime. These
sanctions should not be lifted until the situation in Kosova is
resolved--even if a peace plan is agreed to for Bosnia.
One of America's key objectives should be stability in the region,
and this goal cannot be achieved without a military balance in Bosnia
and Croatia, and without resolving the question of Kosova. Although
originally Kosova was on the agenda of EU and U.N. sponsored talks on
the former Yugoslavia, negotiating efforts since 1992 have ignored
Kosova. This is short-sighted and a serious error. Both the Bush and
[[Page S 14686]]
Clinton Administrations have publicly recognized that a conflict in
Kosova could draw in Albania and our NATO allies.
Therefore, I believe that sanctions should not be lifted on Serbia
until a comprehensive settlement which includes Kosova, is not only
agreed to, but implemented. We must take a long term view, not a short
term view, and pursue policies which can enhance stability.
kosova
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the majority
leader to offer this amendment, which would condition the lifting of
sanctions against the former Yugoslavia on specific improvements in
Kosova. I am concerned deeply with events taking place in the former
Yugoslavia. It is my hope that a workable peace agreement can be
reached in the troubled Balkan region. However, I remain concerned with
the fragile condition in Kosova. The United States should be resolute
in averting an accelerated campaign of ethnic cleansing and Serbian
aggression against Kosovar Albanians. I believe the legislation
introduced today will ensure United States policy interests in Kosova
stand a far better chance to be achieved.
Briefly, our amendment would require specific conditions be met in
Kosova before lifting sanctions against the former Yugoslavia. These
conditions include: full restoration of all civil and human rights; the
return of international observers to monitor the human rights situation
in Kosova; permitting the elected Government of Kosova to assemble; and
bringing an end to the brutal Serbian-imposed martial law. Last year,
President Clinton announced a set of conditions concerning the lifting
of sanctions against Serbia. However, these requirements did not
include improvements in Kosova. I believe the situation in the former
Yugoslavia demands that the plight of Kosovar Albanians be addressed.
Unquestionably, Albanians in Kosova have suffered great hardship.
Since the Belgrade government expelled international observers, basic
civil and human rights have deteriorated significantly. Currently,
Serbian-imposed martial law, institutionalized discrimination, and
organized repression characterize daily life for the more than 2
million Albanians living in Kosova. Kosovar Albanians are denied
education, employment, and due process of law solely on the basis of
their ethnicity. Given these dire circumstances, I believe the
termination of sanctions imposed on the former Yugoslavia should be
coupled with a successful resolution to the crisis in Kosova.
Mr. President, I have long been an outspoken advocate for Kosovar
Albanians. This amendment would help to resolve their current plight. I
urge my colleagues to adopt this important legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendments, en bloc
The amendments (No. 2847 through 2878) were agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank several staff members. I
thank Scott Gudes, who did an exceptional job in helping us put this
together. I thank, from my own staff, David Taylor, who, in my period
as chairman of this committee, has done an absolutely great job. I am
very proud of him and the work he has done. I thank Scott Corwin, Lula
Edwards, Steve McMillin, from my own staff, to the degree to which we
have made a small impression on the deficit, to the degree to which we
have started to change the way American Government works in this one
little appropriations bill. I think nobody deserves more credit than
Steve McMillin does. I appreciate his help.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I did not think I would be thanking the
Senator from Texas, but I do. We have really cleaned this bill up
materially, substantially, and meaningfully. I do thank the
distinguished chairman of our subcommittee for his cooperation and
assistance in working out a bill that, no doubt, would still be vetoed
as inadequate, but certainly by way of balance and maintaining
fundamental programs, such as the cops on the beat and Legal Services
Corporation, the minority business enterprise, and so forth--you can go
down the list--and for saving from very, very severe cuts the Small
Business Administration, Federal Trade Commission, SEC, and many, many
others.
You can tell by the participation, Mr. President, and the numerous
amendments that we have adopted, en bloc, after consideration here for
three full days, that it could never have been done without the
wonderful work of David Taylor, Scott Corwin, Lula Edwards, Steve
McMillin, Scott Gudes, and Keith Kennedy and Jim English of our full
Appropriations Committee. They guide us regularly in all of our
deliberations here.
So I want to make sure that Mark Van de Water and the rest are
acknowledged, because they have been doing it until 2 o'clock this
morning and around the clock here this evening.
We are very grateful to the Members for their cooperation and then,
of course, most particularly, my good friend, the Senator from Hawaii,
who kept us going, the Senator from Kentucky, our leader, along with
the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, and
most of all, the Senator from Oregon, the principal chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee. With his guidance within the committee
and in the last few days, we have a bill that I intend to vote for.
I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Hatfield, chairman
of the full committee. I think it is clear that without his help and
guidance and leadership, we would not have passed this bill at this
time.
Finally, I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, Senator
Hollings. Not only has he done his usual great job, but no one has
missed the fact that his eye was operated on. There are very few
Members of the Senate who, under the circumstances, would have been
here doing their job. I know it has been painful for all of us looking
at it, so it has got to be painful to Senator Hollings looking through
it. I just want to commend him for the great work he has done.
Finally, before suggesting that we move to third reading, the bill
before the Senate has been amended in such a way that funding levels
for a number of accounts are set by language contained in two or more
places in the text.
Under the standard procedure for conferring with the House on
amendments in disagreement, the funding levels for these activities
would be determined by the interaction of several amendments in
disagreement. This would greatly complicate the resolution of
conference on terms favorable to the Senate.
In order to assist the resolution of a conference with the House, I
propose that the Senate action on this bill be presented to the House
in the form of a substitute.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments of the Senate
bill be deemed as one amendment in the nature of a substitute for the
House of Representatives-passed bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
economic development administration
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my
colleague from Texas, Senator Phil Gramm, the distinguished chairman of
the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee.
My distinguished colleague from Texas can well understand the
ferocity of natural disasters. I know he remembers well the historic
``Great Midwest Flood of 1993'' that devastated thousands of people's
homes, businesses, and lives throughout the Midwest, including my home
State of Missouri. Missourians are fighters and survivors and don't
accept defeat. After the floods subsided, Missourians picked up the
pieces and began rebuilding their lives, only to be hit again this year
with near-record flooding.
It is devastating that my fellow Missourians have had to fight and
survive natural disasters. But what is even worse and more devastating
is that my fellow Missourians are having to fight man-made disasters
created by White House policy.
The White House policy that I am referring to was the choosing, by
the Administration, of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to
handle
[[Page S 14687]]
part of the levee reconstruction program.
I believe a lot of mistakes were made by bureaucrats during our flood
recovery, but one of the biggest blunders was choosing the Economic
Development Administration to handle part of the levee reconstruction
program. As proof of how ill-equipped the agency was to administer this
levee program--only one of the twelve levee projects awarded nationally
was complete two years after the ``Great Flood.'' Out of the eleven
incomplete levee projects, most not even begun, six are in my own state
of Missouri.
Thanks to the delay of repairing the levees, when the latest flooding
occurred, people were evacuated, thousands of acres of farmland
flooded, and highways were inundated. Hundreds of thousands of dollars
were spent trying to preserve water supplies, and countless hours of
backbreaking work literally washed downstream.
The State of Missouri, local residents and cooperative federal
agencies have pushed and prodded the EDA into awarding contracts and
have even gotten the EDA to start work on our flood control projects.
But the EDA is still being difficult. EDA is trying to claim it cannot
modify the scope of projects to include damage from this past spring's
flooding, even though this Congress has been careful to preserve
unobligated funding for contingencies just such as my State is
experiencing.
When we did the rescission bill earlier this year we left $2,000,000
in unobligated balances related to emergency supplementals available
for projects currently in the funding pipeline such as the flood
control projects you have mentioned. I do not understand why the EDA
claims it cannot modify the scope of a project, if the project was in
the funding pipeline and the reason that it needs to be modified is
because of delay of action by the EDA.
I ask the assistance of my good friend in assuring that the EDA will
honor its obligations to Missouri by making available quickly the
funding necessary to complete projects awarded from the Flood of 1993.
I want to emphasize that this assistance would not be necessary if the
agency had accomplished this mission before the flooding hit earlier
this year. If the matter is not revolved quickly, we risk still more
avoidable flooding and the passing of a third construction season.
These consequences would be unconscionable.
Mr. GRAMM. It is my view that this situation should be solved and I
will work with the Senator to that end.
immigration and naturalization service account
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I had intended to offer an amendment to provide such
funds as may be available, but no less than $10 million, for a Central
States Support Fund. These funds are needed to provide additional INS
offices in the central states. Additional offices are needed to support
communities in their efforts to reduce the flow of illegal workers and
to assure expeditious deportation. Senator Grassley is a cosponsor of
this amendment.
Mr. President, it has been said that the border states are
increasingly a pass-through to reach jobs in the interior. My state and
others in the central corridor need help in meeting this challenge. But
not much help has been forthcoming. There is no INS office in the whole
western half of Kansas, where the need is great. In other parts of my
state, the INS presence is thin. Local law enforcement, having arrested
vans of illegal aliens being smuggled into the country, have been told
to send them on their way because INS personnel was not available.
Senator Grassley, if he were not tied up in the Finance Committee,
would point out that in the whole state of Iowa there is no INS office,
though, again, the need is great.
The efforts of these interior states are critical to the success of
national initiatives to control the flow of illegal workers. Areas in
the central corridor that are most challenged by the flow of illegal
workers must have a day-to-day INS presence--for example, to assist
local law enforcement in expeditious deportation of illegal workers who
are repeat criminal offenders.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment. This amendment
would open a separate account, to be called the Central States Support
Fund, to assure that these needs are promptly addressed and that the
funds are used exclusively for that purpose.
Mr. GRAMM. I understand the concerns of my colleague. The needs of
the interior states are great, and it is my belief that these needs
will be alleviated by the strong Border Patrol initiative in this bill.
However, I would like to be able to assist my colleague from Kansas and
Senator Grassley in ensuring a strong INS presence in their states, as
well as others in the central corridor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Since funding under this bill is very tight, I agree
not to offer the amendment, with the understanding that $10 million in
additional funding will be sought in conference with the House for the
purpose of establishing this fund. I also understands that the INS will
be required in the next two months to provide a plan for deployment of
additional personnel and offices in the central states.
law enforcement support center
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am concerned that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's (INS) continue to develop and implement the
Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). This Center is the only on-line
national database available to identify criminal illegal aliens.
The LESC is a valuable asset and essential to our national
immigration policy. The Center provides local, state and federal law
enforcement agencies with 24-hour access to data on criminal aliens. By
identifying these aliens, LESC allows law enforcement agencies to
expedite deportation proceedings against them.
The Center was authorized in the 1994 Crime Bill. The first year of
operations has been impressive as the 24-hour team identified over
10,000 criminal aliens. After starting up with a link to law
enforcement agencies in one county in Arizona, the LESC expanded its
coverage to the entire state. In 1996, the LESC is expected to be on-
line with California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Texas, and Washington.
The House and Senate Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bills do
not expressly provide funding for the LESC. The LESC is available now
and is proving to be an effective resource for law enforcement
agencies.
We owe it to states with illegal alien problems to support the only
system available to identify criminal aliens. INS Commissioner Doris
Meissner supports it. Commissioner Meissner recently wrote to me
reaffirming INS' commitment to the LESC. I urge setting aside $3.8
million within the INS budget to allow the LESC to continue its
valuable work. Accordingly, I ask the Chairman whether the bill will
allow INS to continue to fund the LESC at $3.8 million for fiscal year
1996?
Mr. GRAMM. Yes, it does.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chairman.
benefits review board
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that
there is an excessive backlog of longshore claims at the Department of
Labor's Benefits Review Board and that it takes an inordinate amount of
time for the Board to process appeals under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act. I would ask the distinguished subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Specter, if he agrees that the Board should take all
steps necessary, including reorganization, to ensure that all appeals,
including those now pending before the Board, are acted upon within one
year from the date of filing the appeal. If by next year the Board
falls short of this one-year standard, I believe we should consider
suspension of pay for Board employees who have not acted within one
year of an appeal being assigned to them.
Mr. SPECTER. I certainly agree that the Benefits Review Board should
take all steps necessary to ensure that all appeals are acted upon
within one year from the date of filing the appeal.
Anti-Government Criminal Activity Funding
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, along with my distinguished colleague,
Senator Burns, I wish to bring to the Senate's attention a serious law
enforcement problem facing too many Montana communities.
We both received a letter from Ron Efta from Wibaux, MT. Mr. Efta is
president of the Montana County Attorneys Association. The association
points to a serious problem with a lack of prosecution resources
necessary to
[[Page S 14688]]
deal with cases caused by anti-government criminal activity in our
State. The increased demands that these prosecutions create for local
prosecutors and law enforcement is well documented in court and law
enforcement records and by a letter I received from Montana Attorney
General Joe Mazurek.
Fortunately, part of the legislation before us today can help our
local law enforcement and Attorney General Mazurek keep pace with these
demands. As page 40 of the Committee Report states, the Edward Byrne
Memorial State Law Enforcement Assistance Program includes $50 million
in funding for discretionary grants to ``public and private agencies
and nonprofit organizations for educational and training programs,
technical assistance, improvement of state criminal justice systems,
and demonstration projects of a multijurisdictional nature.'' I believe
a modest investment of these funds, approximately $100,000, should be
allocated to the Office of County Prosecution Services of the Attorney
General of Montana. And I respectfully ask the support of the
distinguished managers of this bill in making this request of the
Justice Department.
Mr. BURNS. I share the concern of my colleague from Montana. This is
a serious problem for our Montana law enforcement. I believe it is
essential that a portion of the Byrne funds be allocated for this
purpose. And I join Senator Baucus in making this request of the
distinguished managers of the bill.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senators from Montana for bringing this
concern to the committee's attention. And I will encourage the Attorney
General to award this grant if the need exists.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senators. I recognize the seriousness of
this situation. And I will encourage the Attorney General to award this
grant.
funding earmarks for dare america
Mr. HATCH. I share the concerns of other Senators, including Senators
D'Amato and Biden, regarding the DARE program. DARE is a well-managed
law enforcement program that is run by DARE America. DARE is very
popular with citizens and police officers across the country. Salt Lake
City police chief Ruben Ortega says DARE officers ``may be the most
visible symbol of drug prevention in our community.''
The DARE program uses police officers to teach students how to resist
pressure to experiment with drugs and alcohol. DARE is taught in 60
percent of America's schools, and involves over 20,000 police officers
in all 50 States. Unlike some prevention programs, DARE is truly a
grassroots program. Most of its assistance comes in the form of in-kind
contributions of personnel and supplies. Less than 1 percent of DARE's
budget is direct federal money [$1.85 out of $257 million in fiscal
year 1995]. DARE needs that direct support, however, to run its five
regional training centers.
DARE has been around for years, but recent headlines make the need
for it especially clear. Tuesday we learned that drug use among young
people has almost doubled in the past 2 years. According to former HEW
Secretary Joseph Califano, more young people know that cigarettes are
harmful than think marijuana is harmful. That kind of alarming
statistic argues for renewed diligence in this area.
Mr. GRAMM. I also support the DARE program. One reason why prevention
programs are so important is that young people are under so much
pressure to use drugs. The July 18 New York Times reported that drugs
are the greatest problem facing adolescents, ``far outranking crime,
social pressure, grades or sex,'' according to a survey released by the
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
In fiscal year 1995, the DARE America program received an earmark of
$1.75 million out of funds administered by the Bureau of Justice
assistance for State and local law enforcement assistance. It is my
intention that in fiscal year 1996, the same amount of money, $1.75
million, be available for the DARE program.
Mr. HATCH. That is an appropriate amount, in my judgment. The DARE
program will also be eligible, I believe, to receive block grant
funding under provisions of the Neighborhood Safety Act. I want to take
this opportunity to acknowledge and thank my colleague from Texas for
his efforts and leadership on this issue, and for his support for law
enforcement as well.
Mr. D'AMATO. I would also like to encourage funding for the DARE
program for fiscal year 1996. Drug use is rising among our Nation's
youth, not declining as it should be. We have a responsibility to our
children to prepare them for the devastation that results from drug
habits. If DARE provides our children with such basic skills, it should
be continued. It seems to me that having uniformed police officers
speak directly to school children could only have beneficial effects.
national weather service
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, during the conference with the House, it
is my desire that the senior Senator from Texas will defer to the House
level on funding for the National Weather Service.
As my colleague is aware, the National Weather Service has been
undergoing a complete modernization and restructuring to prepare it to
give even better service as the Nation enters the next century. With
two thirds of this modernization complete, it is not time to begin the
restructuring--realigning people and consolidating offices to gain the
efficiencies and cost savings that modernization promises.
An especially important step in the restructuring will come in fiscal
year 1996--the activation of the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction. Using the latest in communications and the best weather
science, these centers will streamline the way the National Weather
Service produces and disseminates forecasts. A good example is the new
Storm Prediction Center now being organized in Norman, OK. This will
provide detailed guidance and coordination to the Weather Service's new
offices around the country on all severe weather except hurricanes.
I believe the proper course is to fund the National Weather Service
and its supporting laboratories at the level authorized by the House of
Representatives which will allow modernization to continue and
restructuring to proceed as planned. Is it the Senator's intention to
work toward the end during conference?
Mr. GRAMM. I certainly understand the concern of the Senator from
Oklahoma. I strongly support the efforts to modernize and streamline
the National Weather Service.
During the conference with the House, it is my intention to support a
level of funding that will facilitate this ongoing modernization and
streamlining effort at the NWS, including the Storm Prediction Center
in Oklahoma.
on noaa coastal zone management fund
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the Senator from Texas regarding use of the coastal zone
management fund in H.R. 2076. The Committee report on page 67 describes
using $4,300,000 from this fund to administer the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Programs, similar to a House proposal. Because of the
need to leave at least $4,000,000 to administer the Coastal Zone
Management Act [CZMA], I understood that the committee intended to
designate $3,300,000 for national research reserve administration, and
$4,000,000 for CZMA administration.
Mr. GRAMM. The Senator is correct. It is the intention of the
committee that $4,000,000 be designated in order to fund administration
of the CZMA Program, $3,300,000 be used to administer the National
Estuarine Research Reserve Program, and $500,000 is left for State
program development grants out of the total amount of $7,800,000 in the
coastal zone management fund.
RELOCATION OF NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for
entering into this colloquy with me regarding the relocation of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Laboratory from Tiburon, California to
Santa Cruz, California. The purpose of this colloquy is to ensure that
this important project be supported in conference.
I cannot overstate the importance of this project to California and
to the marine science community in the Monterey Bay area. The Tiburon
research group consists of a core of world class fishery scientists.
Relocating the group
[[Page S 14689]]
to the Santa Cruz campus offers the opportunity to establish the
University of California system's first PhD level fisheries curriculum.
Bringing Tiburon scientists to the Monterey Bay area offers the almost
unlimited potential of Federal, State, and private sector collaborative
research, a potential that is not even conceivable in most other places
in the U.S. or in the world.
Within the NMFS, the relocation of the Tiburon research group remains
a top priority. NMFS views the project not as a replacement but as a
consolidation initiative consistent with the recent Congressional
guidance calling for a NOAA consolidation study. NMFS desperately needs
a state-of-the-art research facility in the central California area to
maintain and enhance its research activities along the central coast
and in the San Francisco Bay area. If Tiburon were to be closed and
staff assigned to other NOAA facilities, NMFS would have no research
facility between La Jolla, California and Newport, Oregon, a distance
of over 1000 miles and an area of critical marine resource problems.
NOAA and the Department of Commerce (DOC) also consider the
relocation of the Tiburon research group to Santa Cruz a top priority.
Last fall the DOC Deputy Secretary David Barram publicly announced the
plan to relocate Tiburon to Santa Cruz. NOAA followed up by setting
aside virtually all discretionary funding in the FY 1995 NOAA
Construction Account (approximately $10.1 million) for the Tiburon
relocation project. When rescission of these funds was proposed, I did
not object because it is my understanding that the rescission would not
impact, or delay, the project in FY 1995 since sufficient funds would
remain to carry out all planned FY 1995 activities, and there was an
agreement that the rescinded construction funds would be restored in
the FY 1996 appropriations process.
It is critically important to get additional funds for land
acquisition and construction in FY 1996. The best current estimates
indicate that $10 million is required in FY 1996 for land acquisition
and to enable construction to go forward. Even in this budget cutting
climate, I believe an investment of $10 million in FY 1996 for a
modern, consolidated research facility that ensures wise and
sustainable use of California's valuable fishery resources is well
justified.
Given that it has not been possible to provide for the full $10
million in FY 1996, I would like to thank the Senator for agreeing to
assist me in securing a placeholder amount of dollars in Conference, to
the NMFS Construction account in FY 1996, and for agreeing to the
extent possible that these dollars will not impact NOAA's budget. I
would also like to thank the Senator for agreeing to make every effort
to add report language in Conference giving the go-ahead on expenditure
of the appropriated Architecture and Engineering funds.
Mr. HATFIELD. We will make every effort to see that this is done in
conference.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chairman very much for his help on this
important issue.
American Institute of Indian Studies
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I rise to stress the importance of continued active
participation in the American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS). AIIS
is the preeminent organization funding U.S. scholarship in India. This
program operates in conjunction with the Council of American Overseas
Research Centers, and is affiliated with Universities across the
country.
Is the distinguished Senator from South Carolina aware of the
participation of researchers from the University of South Carolina in
AIIS?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for raising this issue and for
noting the participation of the University of South Carolina in the
program.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I say to my two colleagues that in 1974 President Nixon
asked me to go to New Delhi as Ambassador in his second. At that time
relations between our two nations were somewhat strained. The two
largest democracies in the world should not have strained relations,
but we have experienced such periods in the half-century since
independence. One thing that I have noticed as a longtime follower of
U.S.-India relations has been that when official contacts between our
countries cool, citizen to citizen contacts have successfully carried
the weight of the relationship. I would say to my two friends that AIIS
is an organization which has played such a role in our relations with
India.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I do not disagree that well run exchange programs can
help improve relations between our countries.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am concerned that the level of funding in the bill
for international educational exchanges will seriously impinge on the
ability of AIIS to adequately fill the research demands of U.S.
scholars in India. I would therefore seek assurance from the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee that the statement of managers
for the Conference Report of this Bill contain mention of the merits of
AIIS and the importance of continued funding for the organization.
Mr. GRAMM. I understand the concerns of the Senator from New York and
I will seek to address them in the Conference Report.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator raises an important point and I will be
sure that his views are raised at the conference.
Mr. Moynihan. I thank my colleagues for their assistance.
____________________