[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.

                          ____________________