[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14689-S14697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION AND BUREAU OF EXPORT ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the 
importance of the amendment offered yesterday by the Senator from 
Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and myself in terms of its impact on the 
trade related functions of the Department of Commerce.
  Mr. President, over the past few years, Members of the Congress have 
been deeply divided on certain trade issues such as NAFTA, GATT, and 
Fast Track. However, almost all the members of Congress agree that 
there are certain fundamental jobs that the Federal Government must 
perform to facilitate international trade and to ensure that U.S. 
companies are competitive in the global marketplace.
  We must enforce our trade laws so that U.S. jobs are not lost to 
foreign competitors who are subsidized by their governments, or who 
engage in predatory practices.
  We must monitor and enforce our trade agreements with other 
countries.
  We must produce detailed industrial sector analysis so that both 
businesses and the government can make sound policy decisions.
  The International Trade Administration within the Department of 
Commerce is the nerve center of all these activities.
  The Committee reported bill gutted our International Trade 
Administration. It cut the agency $46.5 million below the fiscal year 
1995 level and below the level set by the Contract for America House. 
The Committee report provided no details on how such a large reduction 
would actually be apportioned within ITA. What Senator Hatfield and I 
and others did yesterday was to bring the ITA back to a freeze. This 
was a bipartisan amendment. And, I should note, support for ITA has 
always been bipartisan.
  Mr. President, the ITA is made up of four separate agencies:
  First; the United States Foreign and Commercial Service.
  The Foreign Commercial Service officers are our advocates overseas. 
They operate offices in 69 countries and they have a network of 73 
offices across America. Overseas, they serve directly under our 
Ambassadors. Our Foreign Commercial Officers are the folks who hustle 
to ensure that U.S. firms get fair treatment while competing for 
foreign contracts, and who help small- to medium-sized U.S. companies 
work through the maze of foreign regulations and other barriers. They 
enable U.S. businesses to gain access to their worldwide network 
overseas, and they provide information to business owners concerning 
various foreign markets. During the past few years, these centers have 
been collocated with personnel from the Small Business Administration 
and the Export Import Bank.
  Second; trade development.
  The Trade Development section of ITA provides analysis and 
information 

[[Page S 14690]]
on industry sectors. It monitors, analyzes, and provides information on 
hundreds of industries, from the most basic to the emerging high-
technology industries. This expertise, which is found nowhere else, 
inside or outside the Federal Government--is essential to getting U.S. 
goods and services into foreign markets. The expertise at Trade 
Development is also critical to the negotiation and enforcement of 
international trade agreements.
  Third; the International Economic Policy Office.
  The International Economic Policy office is responsible for trade 
policy development and trade negotiations. IEP operates regional and 
country desks. It monitors foreign compliance with bilateral and 
multilateral trade agreements and intellectual property rights.
  Fourth; the Import Administration.
  The Import Administration is responsible for carrying out U.S. anti-
dumping and countervailing duty laws to provide remedies for U.S. 
businesses injured by unfair competition. The Import Administration 
also participates in negotiations to promote fair trade in specific 
sectors such as steel, aircraft, and shipbuilding.
  Mr. President, in 1995, the United States will post a record trade 
deficit. And since March, the U.S. has lost 188,000 manufacturing jobs. 
The proposed a $46.5 million cut to the ITA would only add to the 
deterioration in our balance of trade and the loss of good jobs.
  Virtually every industrial nation of the world provides support for 
exports. To compete, America must do the same. Recognizing this, we 
have been trying to beef up export promotion, first with the support of 
President Bush and now with the support of President Clinton. Why? 
Because at the levels we are now spending, we are way behind the 
Japanese, Germans, French, and British. We spend less and have less 
people advancing and advocating U.S. exports than do any of these other 
competitors.
  ITA's export promotion programs return $10.40 to the Treasury for 
every dollar invested in export promotion. And over the past 2 years, 
ITA, through its new Advocacy Center, has been cranked up as never 
before and has helped American companies sell over $24 billion in 
American goods and services. Through its Big Emerging Markets 
initiative, ITA has worked hand in hand with the private sector in 
accessing new markets. And through its toll-free number (1-800-USA-
TRADE), ITA has responded to about 60,000 calls per year for export 
assistance--90 percent from small businesses.
  The Committee reported bill would have seriously hindered our efforts 
to promote U.S. exports. The Foreign Commercial Service would have been 
forced to close offices in States with lower volume of exports, such as 
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 
Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, 
Vermont, and West Virginia.
  If we had allowed the cut to stand, we would have rolled back the 
progress that we have made overseas in the last few years. Namely, we 
would have had to close our new offices in Eastern Europe and in the 
Newly Independent States that formerly made up the Soviet Union. The 
Big Emerging Markets initiative would have been terminated, 
surrendering growing markets to the French and Japanese in such markets 
as China, Vietnam, Argentina, and India. I say to my colleagues, go to 
these countries and look at what our competitors are doing.
  In the area of trade negotiations, the proposed reduction would have 
debilitated our trade negotiators. ITA, and principally its Trade 
Development Office, serves as staff to the U.S. Trade Representative, 
and often the ITA itself takes the lead in trade talks. We cannot cut 
off this critical support at the very time that multilateral and 
bilateral trade issues with Japan, Europe, Asia, and the Western 
Hemisphere require increased attention. Absent the Hatfield-Hollings 
amendment, analytical support and marketing assistance from industry 
specialists would have been reduced by at least 25 percent under the 
Committee reported mark, and desk coverage of some thirty countries 
would have ceased.
  Cutting ITA would also cripple our ability to monitor and enforce 
existing trade agreements. For example, the ITA is the lead agency in 
monitoring the recently completed U.S.-Japan auto parts agreement and 
the Medical Technology Agreement with Japan.
  Finally, and of greatest concern to me, is the Import 
Administration's ability to fulfill statutory obligations. We must not 
undermines the effectiveness of U.S. antidumping and countervailing 
duty laws. We must provide ITA with adequate resources to verify 
foreign producer data, which is so essential to determining whether 
dumping or foreign subsidies exist. Scaling back the Import 
Administration only means that foreign producers will find it easier to 
evade import orders, leading directly to a loss of U.S. jobs.
  Mr. President, the amendment passed last night also provides $8.1 
million to the Bureau of Export Administration, or BXA, to restore that 
agency back to a freeze and to the House-passed level. BXA performs the 
essential task of processing export license applications and enforcing 
our Nation's export control laws. BXA, in essence, is the cop on the 
international beat who keeps critical technologies out of the hands of 
bad actors. As one BXA official noted, ``If you wake up and the bomb 
hasn't been detonated, we've done our job.''
  The 21 percent cut to BXA in the Committee-reported bill would have 
thrown the brakes on BXA's timely and efficient operation of its 
mission. Such a large cut would endanger our national security by 
gutting enforcement and hurt U.S. exporters by slowing down the 
licensing process.
  Specifically, BXA's capacity to investigate national security and 
nonproliferation cases would have been cut in half, down from 1600 
cases per year to 800 cases. The cut would also have forced BXA to 
close five of its regional enforcement offices, including those in 
northern California, the Northwest, the upper Midwest, and the middle 
Atlantic regions. In addition, BXA would not have had the resources 
necessary to fully monitor antiboycott regulations such as the 
regulations to prevent U.S. companies from cooperating with the Arab 
League boycott of Israel.
  Unnecessary delays in export licensing means that U.S. businesses 
lose out on sales to foreign competitors. Members of Congress should 
remember that BXA already took a hefty budget cut in the 1990's, 
shrinking from over 500 employees down to its current level of 321. BXA 
has to walk the fine line between promoting U.S. exports and keeping 
critical technologies out of the hands of mad men. Any further cuts 
would jeopardize our national security and would lead to unnecessary 
loss of U.S. jobs.
  Mr. President, during debate on the future of the Commerce 
Department, U.S. businesses have unanimously supported the trade 
functions performed by the Department. While some business groups favor 
the establishment of a new international trade agency, they have made 
clear that the new agency should continue the jobs done now by ITA and 
BXA.
  While their views differ on where the trade functions should be 
housed, the following business organizations are among those who have 
expressed strong support for the trade-related activities of the 
Commerce Department: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the American Electronics Association, the 
Electronics Industries Association, the Aerospace Industries 
Association, the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the 
Recording Industry Association of America, the Semiconductor Industry 
Association, and the Automotive Parts and Accessories Association.
  In this era of economic competition, the Commerce Department is the 
``arsenal'' of business. As long as Americans engage in world commerce, 
we need a Department of Commerce to help level the playing field for 
these American industries and workers, to give them a fair chance to 
compete in a world dominated by large foreign companies backed by the 
full resources of their governments. The Senate made a wise decision 
last night in restoring the funds to the International Trade 
Administration and the Bureau of Export Administration.


                    international trade association

  Mr. THURMOND. I would like to ask the distinguished sponsor of this 

[[Page S 14691]]
  amendment, Senator Hollings from South Carolina, if he would yield for 
a question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. The amendment offered last night by the Senator from 
Oregon and the Senator from South Carolina restores funding for a very 
important part of the Department of Commerce, the International Trade 
Administration. The International Trade Administration houses many 
critical programs that are vital to U.S. companies in the field of 
global trade and competitiveness. Some of the programs that are of 
greatest concern to me at the International Trade Administration are 
those administered by the Office of Textiles & Apparel, including the 
Textile Clothing Technology Corporation program, known as (TC)2 and the 
National Textile Center. Am I correct in stating that one of the 
intentions of this amendment is to ensure that all the existing 
functions at the Office of Textiles & Apparel, including the operation 
of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, as well 
as (TC)2 and the National Textile Center, will continue to be funded in 
FY 1996 at current year levels?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the inquiry regarding the textile programs 
from my colleague from South Carolina. I concur that those programs are 
critical to the stability and competitiveness of the nearly 2 million 
U.S. textile and apparel workers nationwide, and I agree that one of 
the purposes of this amendment is to continue funding the Office of 
Textiles and Apparel and its specific research programs at the current 
levels. From their inception, I have supported these programs, which 
are excellent examples of public-private partnerships which have 
resulted in tangible improvements in technology for the U.S. textile 
and apparel industries.
  Mr. THURMOND. I thank my distinguished colleague from South Carolina.


                CLARIFICATION OF SENATE REPORT LANGUAGE

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to clarify an issue in this 
legislation regarding an apparent inconsistency contained in the Report 
accompanying this bill. The bill contains significant reductions in the 
Account for International Organizations within the Department of State. 
The Administration requested over $923 million for the next fiscal year 
for the ICE account; this bill reduces that account to $550 million. 
When the Report was filed, language was included that identified eight 
international organizations to be zeroed out in the next fiscal year. 
The Report specifically references that this action is consistent with 
S. 908, the Foreign Affairs Revitalization Act of 1995, as reported out 
of the Foreign Relations Committee. However, one of the eight 
organizations listed--the International Copper Study Group--was 
actually not part of S. 908. The other seven organizations were.
  The International Copper Study Group has brought representatives of 
the copper-producing countries together to develop statistical 
information to better understand the international copper market. In 
the process, the former eastern block countries are being brought into 
the mainstream, providing the international community with a much 
greater understanding of a region that is a major participant in the 
world copper market. I sponsored the legislation that created the 
Copper Study Group and know that this information is vital. Last year, 
the funding of the Group was a mere $65,000. That seems like a small 
investment for the development, in a cooperative fashion, of such vital 
information.
  Mr. President, I hope that the conferees on the bill will review and 
correct the matter of the listing of the International Copper Study 
Group in the report because it is not addressed in S. 908 as the 
Committee report would indicate.


                           amendment no. 2814

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to clarify a matter 
regarding the Hatfield amendment number 2814 that passed by voice vote. 
The amendment contained a total of $30,000,000 in additional funds for 
the Small Business Administration. Am I correct in my understanding 
that this amount includes approximately $15 million for the 
administration of business loan programs, $1 million for direct loans 
in the Microloan Program, and nearly $14 million for salaries and 
expenses.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct, that was the effect and the 
intention of my amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator, and I further note that, with the 
increased funding in the bill for salaries and expenses, a more 
adequate amount should be available for Microloan Technical Assistance 
grants that was envisioned when the Committee wrote its report, and 
that the amount should be increased commensurate with the new funding 
in the bill for salaries and expenses to ensure that the crucial 
technical assistance portion of the Microloan program is adequately 
funded. I note that every hearing we have conducted in the Small 
Business Committee concerning the Microloan program has emphasized the 
importance of technical assistance.
  Mr. BUMPERS. As Ranking Minority Member of the Small Business 
Committee, I join with the Senator from Minnesota in support of the 
crucial importance of the Microloan Program and the technical 
assistance portion of that program. I think the Chairman for his 
clarification.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business, I would like to confirm our understanding that the additional 
funding made available to SBA is intended to reduce the impact of SBA's 
cost of funding staff reductions and terminations contemplated under 
the Committee amendment. A sufficient amount of the additional funding 
under the Hatfield amendment should be used by SBA to pay these 
termination costs so the agency can get to a level of FTE's likely to 
be sustainable next year and thereafter with the further appropriations 
reductions expected as we move towards a balanced budget. I do not 
object to the SBA having reasonable managerial discretion on certain 
items and programs, including those mentioned by my colleagues. But it 
is our clear intention, is it not, Senator Hatfield, that funding of 
these first year termination costs should be taken care of as a 
priority item for SBA, along with assuring adequate loan administration 
funding for the volume of the loan programs?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct, that was the effect and the 
intention of my amendment.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate the work of the 
Chairman in recognizing the importance of small business and 
entrepreneurship in our country, while responding to the wishes of many 
Americans, including small business owners, that we make the tough 
decisions required to balance the budget.


                           amendment no. 2815

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Texas 
for taking such strong leadership and making tough choices to help 
balance the budget and streamline government. But I would like to 
clarify an important point regarding the authority of the judiciary to 
expend funds to conduct so-called gender and racial bias studies under 
HR 2076. Although the Judiciary requested a specific line item in the 
appropriations legislation for the coming fiscal year to support such 
studies, no such line item has been included in HR 2076. Furthermore, 
in the chairman's mark, approximately $700,000 was removed from the 
Crime Trust Fund from which the race-gender bias studies could be 
conducted. Am I correct that these actions indicate an intent on the 
part of the Appropriations Committee not to fund race-gender bias 
studies?
  Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate those kind words. I would only say that the 
Senator's interpretation of these removals is correct. It was the 
intent of the Committee to clearly indicate that no funds have been 
appropriated for race-gender bias studies.
  Mr. HATCH. I concur in Senator Grassley's analysis of the actions 
taken by the Appropriations Committee regarding race and gender bias 
studies. I rise to add that these studies have been ill-conceived, 
deeply flawed and divisive. In my view, they threaten the independence 
of the Federal judiciary. In the D.C. Circuit, for instance, the gender 
bias study was so controversial, and so poorly carried out, that a 
majority of judges on the D.C. Circuit have formally disavowed the 
study. 

[[Page S 14692]]
Professor Stephen Thernstrom of Harvard University has investigated 
these studies and found them to be methodologically biased and flawed. 
There are to be no funds expended on these studies in the future.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for clarifying this matter. As 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 
Courts, I believe that the choices you have made clearly indicate that 
no bias studies can be supported by Federal funds. I would also like to 
thank the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his 
cogent observations on the nature of the race-gender bias studies.


                           amendment no. 2816

  Mr. BROWN. I want to congratulate Senator McCain for pursuing the 
laudable goal of maximizing revenues for the Treasury. I asked for this 
modification to ensure that Senator McCain's objective is achieved 
without undue interference with or micro-management of pending Federal 
Communications Commission proceedings.
  The FCC is currently considering an appeal from a decision of its 
international bureau which denies the request for an extension of the 
DBS permit held by Advanced Communications Corp. Before the full 
commission is a proposal which would grant an extension of the permit, 
subject to the condition that it be assigned to TEMPO DBS, Inc., for 
use by PRIMESTAR Partners, L.P., which would provide the first 
competitive high power DBS service.
  In addition, the proposed FCC decision would require TEMPO to 
relinquish its permits for 11 channels at 119 deg.W, 11 channels at 
168 deg.W, and 24 channels at 148 deg.W. The decision would also 
require TEMPO to pay an amount to the Treasury for the 27 channels 
equal to their fair auction value. Since the FCC compromise could 
result in payment for 73 channels, in contrast to the 27 channels 
affected by the McCain Amendment, the FCC approach has the potential to 
yield greater revenues for the Treasury.
  The term ``adjudication,'' which is inherently broad in the 
regulatory context, is used to encompass the current proceedings at the 
Federal Communications Commission.


                           amendment no. 2842

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, but I had 
reservations about doing so. I have long been troubled by the frequent 
encroachment of the Congress on the President's authority as Commander 
in Chief. Had this amendment the force of law I would have opposed it 
without hesitation.
  I also share the concerns of some Senators that the amendment might 
have an adverse affect on the current negotiations to conclude a peace 
agreement in Bosnia. I am not as certain as others that this peace 
agreement, as the probable outlines of that agreement have been 
explained to me, will achieve a stable resolution of the conflict. 
However, I think Congress should be reluctant to intrude itself in 
these difficult negotiations. Let us reserve our judgment until we see 
what the final product looks like.
  Nevertheless, it is clear that this sense of the Senate amendment 
does not bind the administration to take any action, and should not, 
therefore, influence the deliberations of any party involved in the 
peace negotiations.
  I should add that my reservations about the amendment are not nearly 
as serious or as troubling as my reservations about deploying American 
troops to Bosnia. While I am not prepared to say that the President is 
obliged to seek congressional authorization for deploying American 
troops to Bosnia, it would be a profoundly unwise course for him to 
take without such authorization.
  The American people are about to be asked to send as many as 25,000 
of their sons and daughters to a very dangerous place. Some of them 
will not return. That is a sad, but certain fact, Mr. President. The 
President should want the advice and the support of Congress before he 
undertakes an initiative as fraught with danger for American troops, 
for the Atlantic alliance and for is presidency as is his anticipated 
deployment of American troops in Bosnia.
  I cannot tell the President he must seek our support, but I can tell 
him--in the strongest possible terms--that he should. And when and if 
he does seek our support he will have some very grave questions to 
answer. And unless those questions--which will be elaborated in detail 
in the coming weeks--can be answered fully, and to the satisfaction of 
a majority of the U.S. Congress and the American people, he should not 
send a single soldier to Bosnia.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Commerce, Justice, and State Department appropriations bill before the 
Senate today. This measure eliminates or cuts many programs which help 
to preserve our natural resource base, promote economic and business 
development, invest in research and development and protect American 
consumers. In my view, it fails to provide the resources necessary to 
meet our National priorities and to enable federal agencies to fulfill 
their important missions. I want to point out just a few examples where 
the measure is particularly inadequate, unfair and unbalanced.
  First, the bill cuts the Economic Development Administration by $310 
million--or 75 percent--below the current funding level and 71 percent 
below the level recommended by the House. The proposed appropriation 
would cripple EDA's ability to continue helping communities in Maryland 
and other States throughout the Nation adjust to severe jobs losses and 
economic dislocations such as the recent round of base closures, build 
public facilities essential to commercial and industrial growth, and 
plan and implement comprehensive economic development programs. In 
Maryland alone, the agency has pumped $151 million into the economy 
over the past 30 years, creating thousands of jobs, stimulating local 
growth and generating revenues from the eastern shore to Western 
Maryland. Moreover, it is estimated that each EDA dollar invested has 
generated more than $3 in outside investment. The cuts contained in 
this bill will deprive our communities and business of this investment 
potential, and in the long run will exact a painful cost in lost growth 
and opportunity.
  Second, the bill cuts the budget of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology [NIST] by $377 million--or more than 50 
percent--below current funding levels, and $80.8 million below the 
level recommended by the House. It drastically reduces--by over 80 
percent--NIST's industrial technology services which help develop and 
commercialize high risk technologies. It also rescinds $153 million in 
funding appropriated in previous years for the comprehensive, multi-
year effort to modernize NIST's laboratory facilities in Gaithersburg 
and Boulder, CO. These cuts would essentially eliminate all currently 
planned and future upgrades and construction for NIST laboratory 
facilities and severely impact upon the agency's ability to perform its 
important mission. Reports issued by the General Accounting Office, the 
National Research Council and others over the past five years have 
identified an urgent need for repairs and upgrades of NIST's 35 year 
old lab facilities to meet the measurements and standards requirements 
of the 21st century. John W. Lyons, the former Director of NIST, 
perhaps said it best in an April 28, 1992, letter to the Washington 
Post, laboratory facilities are the infrastructure--the roads and 
bridges--of science and technology. Funding for science without funding 
for facilities is a losing game.
  Third, while the measure is a vast improvement over the House-
recommended funding levels for NOAA, it still cuts the agency's funding 
by $230 million below the administration's budget request and some $45 
million below current levels. It does not provide the resources 
necessary to meet all the statutory requirements of the Marine Mammal 
Act or for living marine resources research and protection programs. It 
cuts NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Program by $390,000 and provides no funding 
for oyster disease research in Chesapeake Bay--programs which are 
essential to the efforts to restore the vitality of the Bay.
  Mr. President, it is my intention to vote against this bill and I 
hope my colleagues will join in rejecting this measure and sending it 
back to committee for substantial rewriting and reordering of 
priorities.

[[Page S 14693]]



                 post-conviction defender organizations

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about and oppose 
elimination of the Post-Conviction Defender Organizations.
  This debate is not, as some would have you believe, about the death 
penalty. It is about common sense and fiscal responsibility.
  The benefits of eliminating these centers are allegedly two-fold; 
one, it will save taxpayers $20 million and two, it will sped up 
executions by eliminating lawyers who, under the guise of providing 
effective counsel to men sentenced to death, allegedly work only to 
delay executions.
  While these arguments may, on the surface, be appealing to some, they 
are both inherently flawed. Elimination of these centers will do 
nothing to expedite the rate of executions in this Nation, nor will the 
American taxpayers save any money whatsoever.
  In fact, the costs of providing these services will increase if these 
centers are eliminated.
  Chief Judge Richard Arnold, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Eighth Circuit and chair of the budget committee of the U.S. Judicial 
Conference has testified before Congress that these centers are the 
most economical method of providing these essential services.
  The attorneys who presently work in the 20 post-conviction defender 
centers across this Nation do so at substantially less pay per hour 
than their counterparts in private practice will require to take their 
place.
  Resource center attorneys receive $55 an hour while court-appointed 
lawyers receive an average hourly rate of $138 an hour. Therefore, 
private attorneys will increase the costs of these services even if 
they work exactly the same amount of hours as the current resource 
center attorneys. However, this is highly unlikely.
  The complexity of these cases requires highly specialized skills 
which, frankly, you will not find in an attorney who does not devote 
their full-time practice to this area of the law.
  Therefore, not only will we be paying private lawyers more per hour, 
they will have to work additional hours just to get up to the speed of 
the attorneys who will be displaced when the centers are eliminated.
  GAO has reported that the cost of representing men on death row was 
nearly $20,000 more when a private attorney was used as opposed to a 
lawyer from the resource centers.
  We will be paying private attorneys at a higher rate to work longer 
hours. This is hardly the formula for saving taxpayer dollars.
  Furthermore, under the present system, private attorneys are often 
assisted by resource center lawyers in preparation for handling these 
complex cases.
  The ability to attract private attorneys to handle these cases cannot 
conceivably be enhanced by removing the support these resource center 
lawyers offer.
  In short Mr. President, the alleged savings of roughly $20 million 
will quickly be consumed by the increased cost of attaining private 
representation.
  Furthermore, the argument that eliminating these centers will 
expedite the imposition of the death penalty is equally without merit.
  Our system of justice calls for representation of those sentenced to 
death. In the absence of this representation, the system is delayed--it 
does not move ahead.
  As was reported recently in the National Law Journal, these centers:

       Came about precisely because delays in finding lawyers for 
     post-conviction appeals delayed executions. Cases could not 
     proceed unless the condemned had representation.

  The simple fact of the matter is that it will not be possible to find 
enough attorneys to handle the post-conviction caseload particularly 
when one considers the fact that the caseload will increase in coming 
years rather than decrease. In fact, since these centers were created 
in 1988, 900 men have been placed on death row.
  To suggest that the private sector can fill the void resource center 
attorneys will leave overlooks the practical realities of what this 
litigation involves.
  Eliminating these centers will not expedite the appeals process nor 
will it expedite imposition of the death penalty.
  Although critics may argue that these resource centers slow the 
process, the simple fact is that the delays will be worse if these 
centers are eliminated.
  Furthermore, there is also a larger issue. The credibility of our 
system of criminal justice is imperilled when we apply the sanction of 
death but at the same time fail to provide adequate representation to 
those condemned.
  Regardless of our respective views on the appropriateness or 
effectiveness of the death penalty, we should all be offended by even 
the possibility that death would be administered in anything less than 
a fair and equitable manner.
  Many of the so-called habeas corpus reforms which were pushed through 
this body earlier this year are predicated upon the presence of 
competent counsel.
  The attorneys who work at the post conviction resource centers embody 
the competence that our system of justice requires.
  The post conviction resource centers provide a vital service and they 
do so at the most efficient level.
  If my colleagues look closely at the practical effects the committee 
language will have, not only on the efficient administration of 
justice, but also on the costs that taxpayers will incur, they will see 
that this effort will not achieve either of its stated goals.
  The committee language is ill-conceived and misguided. It will attain 
neither of its stated goals. We should not eliminate these centers 
based on a specious premise.
  Acting attorney general of Pennsylvania, Walter Cohen recently stated 
that if these centers are eliminated it will:

       * * * Take away the capability of the system to provide 
     adequate counsel to death row defendants * * * You're not 
     going to have the death penalty carried out. This is one of 
     those cases where Members of Congress can talk tough but end 
     up with a very weak result.

  Mr. President, we should avoid such a result, and retain the post-
conviction defender organizations.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, if anyone wonders why people do not trust 
Congress, an answer lies in what we have done with the crime issue. 
What Congress is doing, Mr. President, is worse than nothing. Congress 
is, in fact, breaking a public promise to the American people.
  One year ago last week, the President signed into law a tough, 
balanced, bipartisan crime bill after years of political infighting. 
That bill devoted 80 percent of its resources to punishment and 20 
percent to prevention, and it reflected a mainstream consensus.
  Democrats and Republicans agreed that we need to put more police 
officers on America's streets.
  Democrats and Republicans agreed that we need to build more prisons 
to house violent criminals.
  Democrats and Republicans agreed on the importance of prevention 
efforts targeted toward at-risk youth.
  And Democrats and Republicans agreed that all of this would be 
financed from a trust fund that dedicated money saved through 
reductions in Federal personnel.
  In just 1 year after that public agreement, the COPS Program has 
funded more than 25,000 police officers who go after crime where it 
happens--on our streets. More than 200 communities in Wisconsin alone 
have received funding and the COPS Program has enjoyed overwhelming 
bipartisan support among law enforcement in my home State.
  But do not take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the police chiefs 
and sheriff's--mostly Republican--who apply for these grants. My office 
surveyed these front-line people, and found that 85 percent of 
Wisconsin law enforcement officers support last year's crime bill. 
Moreover, almost 80 percent specifically support maintaining the 
current COPS Program, and oppose turning it into a block grant. This 
support comes through loud and clear throughout the State. In the words 
of one Wisconsin police chief:

       This is the first time in my 17 year career that I have 
     seen the Federal Government put together a program that 
     helped small police agencies that did not bury the department 
     in paper work, and had a reasonable turn around period. We 
     have already hired an officer under this program and the 
     results are very noticeable. Our community is glad to have 
     the increased police services and at a cost they can afford.


[[Page S 14694]]

  And this kind of effectiveness has been amazingly inexpensive--less 
than 1 percent of all COPS funds are spent on administration. How many 
other organizations--whether public or private--can say that?
  And what will happen to this effective and efficient program under 
the downsized block grant of this appropriations bill? The numbers tell 
the sad truth:
  When State and local matching funds are not spent on cops--but on 
anything any Governor could arguably label a basic law enforcement 
function--fewer cops will patrol our streets.
  When $200 million is slashed from Federal funding for police 
officers, fewer cops will patrol our streets.
  And when the 14,000 communities that have applied for grants must 
start over--competing with every imaginable basic law enforcement 
function--fewer cops will patrol our streets.
  Fewer cops on the street--that is not what we promised last year, and 
it is not what most Americans want. That is why more than three-
quarters of the mostly Republican law enforcement officials in my State 
oppose block granting and want us to preserve the COPS Program.
  Mr. President, Americans have every right to feel cheated if this 
Congress becomes absorbed in Presidential politics and ignores its 
commitment to safety for the sake of a soundbite. Giving our citizens 
fewer cops to fight a growing crime problem is not only bad policy--it 
is also bad politics. Because ultimately our Government depends on the 
faith of its citizens for support. Reversing ourselves on our 
commitment to fulfill one of our most basic obligations--to protect the 
public from crime--only undermines our credibility with the American 
people. To preserve that credibility, we should all vote in favor of 
restoring the COPS Program.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
to restore funding to the Community Policing Program which serves as 
the cornerstone of the crime law passed last Congress.
  Under this program, the Clinton administration has already approved 
funding to hire and place over 25,000 police officers on American 
streets. In just over 1 year, they are over a quarter of the way to 
fulfilling the President's promise of putting 100,000 additional police 
into cities and towns across this Nation.
  It is ironic, and in my estimation, unfortunate, that barely 1 year 
after President Clinton signed this program into law we are forced to 
revisit and attempt to preserve a program which the American public, as 
well as law enforcement across this Nation, strongly support. However, 
the fact that we must do so, particularly under the guise of an 
appropriations bill, speaks more clearly about the partisan nature of 
this debate than it does the merits of community policing.
  As has been stated many times previously on this floor, the premise 
behind community policing is very simple and very sound. When local 
police agencies increase their physical presence on the streets and in 
the communities they protect, they not only deter crime, they forge 
community wide bonds between the police and the citizenry--bonds which 
will help combat criminal activity.
  The Community Policing Program has to date provided funding necessary 
to place an additional 297 police officers on the streets of cities and 
towns all across the State of Wisconsin.
  The response of Wisconsin law enforcement to this program has not 
simply come from the large urban centers like Milwaukee, but has also 
come from rural communities from across the State. In fact, of the 297 
additional officers provided to Wisconsin law enforcement a great many, 
188 officers, have gone to cities and towns with populations under 
50,000.
  While the popular misconception may be that crime affects only large 
inner city neighborhoods, a visit to small towns all across this Nation 
paints a very different picture. Mr. President, crime does not 
discriminate based upon population density. It is a problem for 
everyone in this Nation, regardless of where they live.
  The COPS Program recognized the needs of smaller communities and 
tailored the grant application for communities with populations under 
50,000 to one page, so that the limited time and resources of these 
towns would not be squandered writing grant applications. Doing so is 
but one example of how the emphasis under this program has, from the 
very outset, been to get police into communities across this Nation. We 
should not be too quick to dismiss the value of having a visible law 
enforcement presence on our streets.
  The men and women of law enforcement can and should serve as positive 
influences, particularly in regard to our young people. The need for 
this positive voice is even more important than last year at this time, 
because the legislation we are considering today fails to fund most 
prevention programs created under the crime bill.
  This conscious failure to do so will have, in my opinion, two 
detrimental effects--one, it will make the job of law enforcement even 
more difficult than it currently is, and two, it will eliminate many of 
the positive influences that these prevention programs have on the 
young people of this Nation.
  The failure to fund prevention magnifies the importance of putting 
the police in the community working to offset the negative influences 
of drug-dealers and criminals--influences which we all must admit are a 
day to day part of the lives of many of our young people. To leave 
these corrupting voices unanswered is a formula for disaster.
  As I meet with members of law enforcement from across Wisconsin they 
repeatedly extol the value and importance of prevention programs--not 
just in keeping young people out of trouble, but also in making the job 
of law enforcement easier. The police of this Nation intuitively 
understand what this legislation chooses to ignore--you cannot fight 
crime without prevention.
  While it is an abdication of our responsibility to defund prevention 
programs, the failure to do so only serves to heighten the importance 
of integrating law enforcement into our communities.
  However, the bill before us today chooses a different, and in my view 
ill-conceived, response--a so-called block grant. Unlike the targeted 
community policing program, the proposal before us does not promise 
even one additional police officer will be placed on the streets.
  The money provided under the block grant may be utilized for any 
purpose ranging from prosecutors to secretaries to radios. Not one 
additional police officer is assured under the block grant. There is no 
guarantee that any of this money will even filter down to the local 
police department. While prosecutors clearly play an important role in 
our criminal justice system, and have my support, they cannot help you 
until you, or your family, have been victimized. The basis of the COPS 
Program is to attack crime at the source--on the streets. This program 
does not fund police to answer phones or work at a desk--it funds cops 
to work the streets.
  The Republican proposal we are asked to accept in its place has no 
focus, no objectives, and apparently no parameters. It simply allocates 
billions of dollars to be used for any function which is arguably 
related to fighting crime.
  Past history tells us that programs such as are proposed here today 
will not work. One need look no further than the LEAA, the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration, for evidence of the potential 
for abuse.
  LEAA poured massive amounts of Federal aid into cities and towns to 
fight crime. These unchecked funds garnered the citizens of this Nation 
such prudent crime fighting weapons as encyclopedias on law 
enforcement, tanks, consultants, and land.
  I want to be very clear, Mr. President, as I cross the State of 
Wisconsin and hear from the fine people of my State, I hear about the 
need for flexibility in fighting crime. I hear about the need for 
communities to target community specific problems.
  I think we should heed the concerns of the people who live with and 
fight crime everyday across this Nation. But this need for flexibility 
should not be a pretext for an open-ended, ill-defined block grant 
offered solely to undermine a successful program administered by a 
Democratic administration.
  If we are truly concerned about flexibility--if we are truly 
concerned that the needs in places like Woodruff, WI are different than 
the needs in Milwaukee, we should fund the rural crime 

[[Page S 14695]]
component of the crime bill. But this legislation fails to do that. If 
we are truly concerned, we should fund drug courts and prevention 
programs. But this legislation also fails to fund those proposals.
  The crime law contained many facets which could be used to respond to 
differing needs. And yet, this legislation fails to fund many of them. 
Furthermore, it eliminates one of the most successful and popular 
programs, the COPS program, despite the fact that response has been 
overwhelming.
  In addition to the 168 Wisconsin jurisdictions which have already 
received grants, there are over 100 pending applications from Wisconsin 
communities requesting funding under the COPS Program. These 
communities have made the conscious decision that they want more police 
on their streets. If we abandon this program, these communities will be 
forced to hope that their proportional block grant allocation is 
sufficient to cover all their law enforcement needs.
  Mr. President, the COPS Program is working. Cities and towns have 
responded and are working with the Federal Government to put more 
police officers on American streets. They are doing so because they 
know that it is a far more effective response to try and stop crimes 
before they occur. And they know that putting police on the streets, 
working with the community, is the best way to prevent crime and take 
back our neighborhoods.
  The American public cannot be pleased to see that once again this 
body is debating a policy which took 6 years of partisan wrangling to 
develop in the first place. The American public wants us to quit 
talking and start responding to their needs.
  The community policing program does just that. Although it might 
cause some of my colleagues discomfort, the Clinton administration has 
developed and is implementing a sound anti-crime strategy which 
addresses this Nation's needs from many different perspectives. 
Although I clearly do not agree with each and every portion of the 
plan, I do support putting 100,000 additional police on our streets.
  The ink is barely dry on the crime law, and today we are asked to 
repeal most of it. This despite the fact that in only 1 year the COPS 
Program has provided funding for over 25,000 additional police 
officers.
  Mr. President, the American people support this program. The men and 
women of law enforcement support this program and so should this body. 
We should not abandon it for the failed promise of an ill-defined block 
grant. I urge my colleagues to support putting 100,000 police on the 
streets of this Nation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to point out that the most important 
change in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill just happened 
in the most quiet of ways. The Senate has just restored the funding for 
next year's installment of the 100,000 COPS Program. This important 
program has already funded 25,891 State and local police officers 
devoted to community policing. This bill now continues the 100,000 COPS 
Program.
  The program is continued due to the addition of an amendment I 
offered that eliminated the law enforcement block grant and restored 
the 100,000 COPS Program. I am gratified that the amendment offered by 
Senator Hollings and myself has been adopted by the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I rise today in support of the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The bill is within the 
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation and is clean of budgetary gimmicks.
  The bill provides $26.5 billion in budget authority and $18.7 billion 
in new outlays for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the 
Judiciary, and related agencies.
  The Senate-reported bill is $1 million below the subcommittee's 
section 602(b) allocation in budget authority and by $11 million in 
outlays. It is $4.5 billion in budget authority and $2.8 billion in 
outlays below the President's request, and is $1.1 billion in budget 
authority and $739 million in outlays below the House-passed bill.
  Under very difficult funding constraints, this is a bill that 
honestly and straightforwardly sets forth funding priorities, most of 
which I support, some I may redirect in the form of amendments to this 
bill.
  This bill provides dramatic increases in our front line law 
enforcement by providing $2.3 billion for State and local law 
enforcement and $4.6 billion for Federal law enforcement agencies and 
the border patrol.
  Increased flexibility for States in developing their crime fighting 
strategy is provided through the new State and Local Law Enforcement 
Assistance Block Grant. A total of $1.7 billion will be provided to 
States and local governments for the hiring and equipping of law 
enforcement personnel, updated technology, and crime prevention 
programs.
  As part of the Federal role in ensuring equal justice under law, I 
have offered an amendment, along with Senator Kassebaum and others to 
retain the Legal Services Corporation as a provider of traditional 
legal services with a funding level of $340 million for fiscal year 
1996, higher than both the Senate-reported and House-passed CJS 
appropriations bills, and adopting tough new restrictions on its more 
controversial activities.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and adopt this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table showing Budget Committee scoring 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  COMMERCE-JUSTICE SUBCOMMITTEE--SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL  
                 [Fiscal year 1996, dollars in millions]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........         92
    H.R. 2076, as reported to the Senate..........        124         94
    Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal defense discretionary..............        124        185
                                                   =====================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........      6,561
    H.R. 2076, as reported to the Senate..........     21,935     16,807
    Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary...........     21,935     23,368
                                                   =====================
Violent crime reduction trust fund:                                     
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................  .........        826
    H.R. 2076, as reported to the Senate..........      3,944      1,277
    Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal violent crime reduction trust fund.      3,944      2,103
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
    Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                        
     completed....................................          2         20
    H.R. 2076, as reported to the Senate..........  .........  .........
    Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                       
     Budget Resolution assumptions................        530        505
                                                   ---------------------
      Subtotal mandatory..........................        532        525
                                                   =====================
Adjusted bill total...............................     26,535     26,182
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
    Defense discretionary.........................        124        188
    Nondefense discretionary......................     21,936     23,373
    Violent crime reduction trust fund............      3,944      2,107
    Mandatory.....................................        532        525
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................     26,536     26,193
                                                   =====================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
    Defense discretionary.........................  .........         -3
    Nondefense discretionary......................         -1         -5
    Violent crime reduction trust fund............  .........         -4
    Mandatory.....................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
      Total allocation............................         -1        -11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

                         sba microloan program

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as a member of the Small Business 
Committee, I thank the managers and Chairman Hatfield for improving the 
Small Business Administration portion of this bill. I would like to 
talk briefly about the SBA Microloan Program.
  The Microloan Program has been a remarkable success in its short 
existence. It was the first small-business bill I cosponsored when I 
got to the Senate, and I am very proud to have worked on it with 
Senator Bumpers, who authored the legislation, from the beginning. As a 
member of the Senate Small Business Committee, and in the course of a 
number of visits with program participants in Minnesota, I have been 
extremely impressed by the first-hand accounts I have heard. The 
program is working, and the owners of the very small businesses which 
are its beneficiaries in many cases have absolutely inspiring stories 
to tell.
  SBA's Microloan Program assists women, low-income, and minority small 
business owners with very small loans--loans averaging just over 
$10,000. These are generally very small businesses, and they are very 
small loans. In many cases, these loans actually have helped 
individuals to leave welfare, to start their own small businesses, and 
to make a full economic 

[[Page S 14696]]
contribution to their communities. I am sure that many of my colleagues 
have heard from or visited with participants in this program from their 
States.
  In my State of Minnesota, for example, we have four intermediary 
lending organizations making small loans to small businesses and 
providing technical assistance.
  The Northeast Entrepreneur Fund of Virginia, MN, has made 
approximately $218,000 in loans to 56 very small entrepreneurs. That's 
an average loan size of less than $4,000. In many cases, that's all 
people need to get on their feet, to start or expand their very small 
business and allow it to succeed.
  The Northwest Minnesota Initiative Fund in Bemidji, MN, assists 
mainly rural small businesses. Average loan size is just over $5,000, 
and the default rate is about 10 percent. Staff from the initiative 
fund point out that their default rate would be even lower, but in many 
cases they provide technical assistance to the point where the small 
business clients can get bank financing. The fund then ends up 
financing some of the riskier operations. Still, the program has helped 
start 56 new businesses, with a success rate of about 90 percent.
  Women Venture of St. Paul, MN, was one of the models for this 
legislation. They have made loans to 55 small businesses in the amount 
of $581,000. Eighty-seven percent of the businesses served by Women 
Venture are owned by women. Twenty-five percent are owned by people of 
color.
  Finally, the Minneapolis Consortium of Community Developers has 
helped 32 very small businesses with loans in amounts ranging from 
$4,000 to $25,000. I have visited with some of these business owners in 
their places of business. It is a remarkable program. Staff from the 
consortium have pointed out to me that they provide an average of about 
26 hours of technical assistance to each small business client.
  I would like at this time to enter into a colloquy with a number of 
my colleagues concerning the Microloan Program.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wellstone for his 
leadership in this area. The SBA Microloan Program really works. It's 
the most effective welfare to work program we've got. It turns welfare 
dependents into taxpaying small business people.
  The Institute for Social and Economic Development in my State of Iowa 
has been a pioneer in promoting microloans. This organization headed by 
John Else works with individuals, helping them establish their own 
businesses. The institute works with them to determine if a concept to 
establish a business is sound. If so, they help the client establish a 
sound business plan, teaching them the many skills that are necessary 
to be successful in a small business. And, they work with the person to 
secure a loan through a bank or other financial institution. This is 
time intensive work. But, without this technical assistance, there is 
no way microloans will produce significant success. Most microloan 
intermediaries use SBA financing to provide direct loans. In either 
case, the program really works.
  I have personally met with a number of people who have used the 
program. In many cases, they were on AFDC, food stamps, and other 
Federal assistance when they started. Now, they are operating 
successful businesses, making a decent living and paying taxes rather 
than receiving welfare benefits. Through this program, they have been 
able to turn their lives around. When we talk about helping people get 
off welfare, this is a mechanism that really works.
  I believe that technical assistance for this program deserves to be 
fully funded.


          EDA AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR: PUTTING AMERICA TO WORK

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment that has 
been offered by Senator Pryor. Like Arkansas, south Dakota is a rural 
State that has faced the challenge of rebuilding distressed communities 
and stemming the tide of outward migration. I support the Pryor 
amendment for a number of reasons.
  Senator Pryor's amendment is reasonable and prudent. We recognize the 
need for spending cuts to meet deficit reduction targets. Senator 
Pryor's amendment simply asks the Senate to support the House's funding 
level of $348.5 million, a 22 percent cut from fiscal year 1995.
  Second, EDA has proven to be a solid investment over the years. EDA 
grants have resulted in the creation or retention of 2.8 million jobs 
in the Nation's most distressed areas, areas where, quite frankly, the 
private sector was not creating jobs.
  In fact, EDA resources are used as a catalyst to leverage private 
sector investments, which turn into long-term growth. EDA has 
demonstrated a remarkable ability to attract private sector capital. In 
the last 30 years, for every Federal dollar invested, more than $3 in 
outside investment has been leveraged.
  The third reason to support this amendment is because many of the 
Nation's smaller counties and communities rely on EDA help for local 
planning efforts. In South Dakota, a number of the smaller communities 
cannot afford a full-time economic development director. In many 
instances, these are the communities that need the most help. EDA 
funding has allowed local planning districts to travel to small towns 
across rural America, identify local leaders, and help them execute 
plans for infrastructure development or industrial recruitment.
  Finally, EDA has taken steps to reduce bureaucratic overhead without 
sacrificing customer service. In 1994, overhead at EDA was just 4.6 
percent. Regulations in the Federal Register have been cut by 60 
percent. EDA has delegated more responsibility to its regional offices. 
And, EDA will be reducing its staff from 350 people to 309 in fiscal 
year 1996.
  Mr. President, the budget resolution and 13 appropriations bills we 
have been considering in recent weeks have forced the Senate to make 
hard choices about what our country's priorities should be. If our 
current budget can include $245 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, 
why can it not include another $249 million for EDA? Let us be clear--
Senator Pryor's amendment requests that the Senate support a Federal 
investment that is less than 2 percent of what is being set aside for 
this country's top income earners.
  Is providing tax relief for this group 100 times more important than 
helping distressed communities battling base closures, defense 
downsizings, and depressed prices for commodities? Are tax cuts for the 
wealthy 100 times more important than creating 2.8 million jobs, 
keeping people off unemployment lines and out of welfare offices?
  While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle point to a 
decline in values, they are missing the point. Strong values are built 
on the self-respect and economic stability that come with a good job. A 
strong sense of community is fostered by shared economic hope for the 
future. There is no greater sense of values and community than in the 
rural areas of South Dakota. These towns are hungry to innovate and 
adapt to the changing economy. They are deeply committed to making 
economic development projects work so they can preserve their way of 
life.
  EDA gives us the efficient investment tools to help communities make 
this happen. And it does so while paying its own way. Taxes received by 
the Federal Government from EDA investments exceed Federal funds 
provided to the agency.
  Our vote today on the Pryor amendment will reflect this body's 
priorities. Do we cut EDA funding to pay for tax cuts? Or do we invest 
in our future wisely and give distressed communities the tools they 
need to put more Americans to work.
  Mr. President, EDA is the right priority, and it works. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Pryor amendment.


                              zebra mussel

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Gramm, Hollings 
and Levin for working with me to find an appropriate solution to the 
zebra mussel problem that has overtaken the Great Lakes and Lake 
Champlain. I hope Senators Hollings and Levin can join me in a brief 
colloquy on the Hollings-Levin-Leahy amendment.
  For Senators who may not be familiar with the zebra mussel, I want to 
briefly describe the challenge facing the State of Vermont. Zebra 
mussels, which are tiny, fresh-water mollusks the size of my thumbnail, 
threaten to choke off 25 percent of Vermont's 

[[Page S 14697]]
drinking water, clog our hatcheries and unravel the Lake Champlain 
ecosystem.
  We did not ask for the mussels, but we got them. I was scuba diving 
in Lake Champlain this summer and was shocked to find mussels taking 
over the lake bottom, historic ship wrecks included. Three years ago we 
had no zebra mussels--this summer I found mussels by the handful.
  The zebra mussel problem in Lake Champlain deserves immediate and 
swift action. This pest poses a serious risk to the water resources 
throughout Vermont, economic opportunities along the lake, and the 
health and safety of Vermonters. In the not-so-distant future, some 
Vermonters may turn on their taps to find nothing flowing, as these 
mussels have blocked water intakes and delivery systems up and down the 
shoreline.
  The biggest hurdle our States face is the fact that there is no 
proven control technology. It is like the State of Vermont looking for 
a solution to cancer--by itself. The Hollings-Levin-Leahy amendment 
provides a modest contribution of Federal assistance that will help 
address the zebra mussel problem.
  My understanding is that this amendment includes $100,000 
specifically for Vermont to tackle the problem. Our State Legislature 
has appropriated millions of dollars to address the problem, and this 
token of Federal support will make a big difference.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Vermont has been very supportive of our 
efforts to clean up the Great Lakes and is correct about this 
amendment. We know first hand the challenge Vermont faces. The Great 
Lakes research and control efforts have benefited Lake Champlain, and 
we expect the Lake Champlain efforts funded in this amendment to 
benefit the Great Lakes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with both the Senator from Vermont and the 
Senator from Michigan. They have worked hard on this amendment to 
address a problem of true national concern and scope.
  Mr. LEAHY. I want to thank the Senator from South Carolina for his 
leadership on this bill, and the Senator from Michigan for his long 
standing commitment to the Great Lakes and to freshwater issues like 
the Zebra mussel.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I believe now we are ready for third 
reading.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third time and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is, Shall the bill pass?
  So the bill (H.R. 2076), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and 
request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on behalf of the city of Smyrna, GA, 
and its outstanding Mayor Max Bacon, I rise to commend the Senate--and 
especially Senator Gramm--for helping Smyrna and the entire Atlanta 
area in its efforts to deal with the transportation of illegal 
immigrants once they have been detained.
  By increasing by $12.3 million the portion of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service budget for fiscal year 1996 which deals with the 
transportation of detained illegals, the Commerce, Justice, and State 
appropriations bill will go a long way toward more effectively 
enforcing our immigration laws.
  In the city of Smyrna--as in many across the country--illegal 
immigrants are placing an enormous burden on legal residents, who are 
facing rising taxes due to the increased costs of providing health 
services and educational programs, in addition to the loss of jobs.
  In the Atlanta area, we have been concerned with the lack of vehicles 
available for the transportation of detained illegals. The city of 
Smyrna is optimistic that an influx of new buses and vehicles will help 
the INS be even more effective in removing illegal immigrants and 
transporting them to the proper authorities. Again, I commend my Senate 
colleagues for their wisdom, and extend my gratitude on behalf of 
Smyrna's Mayor Bacon.

                          ____________________