[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 194 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18127-S18179]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
2076.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2076) making appropriations for the Department of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of December 1, 1995.)
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to proceed today with the 
conference report on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations.
  This legislation comes forward after a considerable amount of 
activity and, obviously, some ups and downs on the road to passage. It 
is, however, I believe, an excellent piece of legislation in light of 
the hand which has been dealt. Clearly, in an attempt to balance this 
budget, we have had to make some significant reductions in this account 
overall in order to meet our goal of a balanced budget within 7 years. 
The numbers which were assigned to us by the Budget Committee and then 
allocated to us by the Appropriations Committee put us to the test in 
the area of trying to reach this goal. But I believe we have reached it 
in a very positive and responsible way.
  The essential thrust of this bill is to make sure that we adequately 
fund the activities of our criminal justice system and to make sure 
that we have 

[[Page S 18128]]
adequate moneys and make available to the States adequate funds to 
undertake an aggressive posture relative to trying to control the 
spread of violence and crime in our Nation.
  As a result, we have committed a significant increase in dollars to 
the Department of Justice, approximately a 19.2-percent increase over 
the 1995 level. That increase in funding in the Department of Justice 
has come in the context of an overall reduction in funding for the bill 
generally of approximately $756 million.
  Thus, in order to accomplish that, we obviously had to take some 
funds from some of the other agencies. We have significantly reduced 
the funding, for example, in the area of the Department of Commerce and 
in the area of the State Department. In making those decisions to 
reduce funds in those two areas, I believe we have done it in a very 
constructive way. We have in the State Department, for example, fully 
funded, to the best of our ability anyway, the activities of the 
operations of the State Department. We made sure that the salary cap 
accounts and the construction accounts and the day-to-day functions of 
the State Department are funded in a manner which they feel they can 
accept.
  We have not, on the other hand, made a major commitment to the U.N. 
funding. We have funded the international organizations efforts and 
peacekeeping efforts, but we have kept the funding levels at a very 
low, or at least conservative, number, because we feel that is an 
appropriate decision. From my standpoint, I would rather be fighting 
crime in the United States and spending money on that than necessarily 
funding international organizations and peacekeeping at the United 
Nations.
  In the area of the Commerce Department, we have also made some very 
difficult decisions, but in the process, I think they are constructive 
decisions. We have, for example, funded very aggressively NOAA, which 
does very strong, effective research in the area of protecting the 
oceans, which are critical assets of not only our Nation but the world. 
At the same time we have, however, cut the overall funding for the 
Department of Commerce by approximately 14 percent below what it was 
funded at last year. So we have gone 14 percent below a freeze for the 
Department of Commerce. In order to accomplish that, we have had to 
reduce funding in a number of accounts, obviously, within the 
Department of Commerce. But I think the decisions for those reductions 
have been thoughtful and appropriate.

  Again, with the Small Business Administration, we have reduced the 
funding of the Small Business Administration by a considerable amount. 
But I believe we have given them still the capacity to go forward and 
participate in the process of funding initiatives to assist in the 
creation of jobs effectively.
  So, overall, this is a bill which accomplishes our major goals, the 
first goal being to live up to our obligations to balance the budget 
and, therefore, make the difficult decisions which require reducing of 
funding and, in the area of the Department of Commerce, move toward 
basically its elimination. At the same time that we are moving toward a 
balanced budget, we have made a very strong and aggressive commitment 
to the Department of Justice and to crime fighting.
  On that specific area, I think it is important to note that one of 
the issues of the debate is the manner in which we pursue these crime-
fighting initiatives. We have proposed in this bill that a large amount 
of the violent crime trust fund will be sent back to the States in the 
form of a block grant which will emphasize and encourage the use of 
those funds for the addition of police officers on the streets but will 
not require that those funds be used for the addition of police 
officers on the streets.
  This is a departure from what the administration position was or what 
they desired. The administration, of course, has taken great pride in 
its proposal which created cops on the beat and their theory, and we 
respect that. But we happen to feel that a much more logical way to 
approach this is to say to the local policing authority to get what 
they need. Do you need police officers on the street, or do you need 
the ability to communicate with your police officers on the beat, or do 
you need the ability to make sure that your police officers on the beat 
have adequate equipment in order to defend themselves?
  We think it is much more appropriate to leave the decision as to 
whether or not the funds should be used for the creation of additional 
police on the street or whether it should be used in order to make the 
police who are on the street more effective in their job up to the 
local law enforcement agencies who are on the front lines and who have 
a much higher level of awareness of what is needed.
  We also felt that the President's proposal had some fundamental 
flaws. The basic one was that the way it was structured most of the 
communities which would have added police officers would find that at 
the end of 4 years they would have to have picked up the whole cost of 
that police officer's salary. We think that in the end, rather than 
encouraging more police officers on the street, it would end up with 
approximately the same number of police officers on the street and that 
the number that has been thrown out by the administration is an extreme 
exaggeration of the numbers of new officers who might actually end up 
on the street, the number the administration talks about being 
somewhere around 100,000, when in actuality the number they proposed 
would have been somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 during the periods 
the funds were available and, after the funds were terminated, in our 
opinion, would have been less.
  In addition, we feel strongly in structuring the use of the violent 
crime trust fund significant dollars should be put into one-time items 
so that we are not creating programmatic events which we become 
responsible for at the end of the violent crime trust fund's period of 
existence, and thus we have encouraged things like one-time items that 
would encourage prison construction and activities such as that where 
we think we can help out the States as they go forward with their 
attempts to improve their criminal justice systems but not end up 
signing on to a program where we become liable for the States' 
responsibilities as far as the eye can see.
  In addition, we have strongly supported, for example, some of the 
initiatives which have traditionally been built up under the criminal 
justice system and which we think are important such as the Violence 
Against Women Act which receives a sixfold increase over the 1995 
funding level and which we think is a very appropriate initiative.
  This is a quick outline. As we move forward this afternoon in 
discussing this bill further, we will get into more specifics, but at 
this time I would like to yield to my ranking member and colleague, 
whose knowledge and history of this legislation far exceeds anything I 
will ever obtain, and whose support and thoughtful advice and guidance 
I greatly appreciated during the process of putting this bill together, 
for whom I always had a great deal of respect, having gotten to know 
him when he was in New Hampshire on occasion a few years ago, but that 
respect has only grown exponentially as a result of my having had a 
chance to work with him in this committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will yield to my colleague first I 
think for his unanimous-consent request.

  Has the unanimous-consent request already been made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I do not believe so.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the President aware of the unanimous consent relative 
to time limitations?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I believe it is 2 hours to the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire, 2 hours for this Senator on this side, 2 hours for 
the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], and 20 minutes for 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was apparently agreed to earlier. We are 
operating under that agreement.
  Mr. GREGG. In that case I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. President, right to the point, the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire is not just a quick study but a 

[[Page S 18129]]
quick excellent study. A year ago, perhaps a little more, he was not on 
the subcommittee involved in all of these hearings. The bill presently 
presented by the distinguished Senator and conference report was not 
worked upon by him until it got into conference, and yet within 
conference--I emphasized the quick study--the Senator from New 
Hampshire approached it in a brilliant and thorough fashion--I might 
add, in an almost Mansfield-like fashion. I remember the distinguished 
majority leader, Senator Mansfield. When you asked him a question, he 
said, ``Yup'' and ``Nope.'' When I asked for things to try to get in 
this bill, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire said, ``Nope.'' 
I learned that this outstanding Yankee is of a singular mind, and he 
knows how to make a decision, which is unusual in Washington.
  I really respect and admire the way he has gone about this in a very, 
very thorough fashion. I emphasize that because I am not in a position 
on final vote to support the measure for various misgivings. I made 
that clear. But in making that clear, I wish to make it equally clear 
that we have been in a sort of cooperative manner trying to reconcile 
differences. That is the Government itself, the art of compromise. And 
realistically, there are many things in the bill, in the conference 
report that the distinguished chairman, Senator Gregg, perhaps would 
not have included or some things that he wished had been included. That 
is the same with this particular Senator. We have the House side to 
satisfy as well as the Senate side and we have worked diligently, at 
least the distinguished chairman has worked diligently with staffs on 
both sides and with this particular Senator, and I am grateful for his 
leadership.
  Mr. President, the conference agreement before us provides $27.3 
billion for programs and agencies funded in the Commerce, Justice, 
State, and the judiciary appropriations bill. Of this amount, almost $4 
billion is for appropriations from the violent crime reduction trust 
fund. For regular discretionary appropriations this agreement provides 
$22.656 billion. This amount is $3.753 billion below the President's 
budget request, and $759 million below the level available in fiscal 
year 1995. I would note, however, that it represents an increase of 
$212 million above the level in the Senate-passed bill.
  Before discussing the conference report, I would like to note that 
this bill is being managed by our new subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. He took over this subcommittee in October 
following Senate passage of H.R. 2076. So he was tasked with 
shepherding a bill through conference that he did not draft. I will 
tell you he is a quick study and he has mastered this bill as quickly 
as anyone I have ever seen. And, I think it is fair to say that this is 
the most diverse and most complicated of the 13 appropriations bills. 
He has impressed everyone associated with the bill and has done an 
outstanding job.
  Mr. President, when I signed this conference report I wrote ``with 
reservations'' under my name. And, I will discuss these reservations, 
these problems I have with this agreement shortly. But, I would like to 
first make a few comments about what I do support in this conference 
report.


                            law enforcement

  First, it continues to bolster our law enforcement agencies and the 
Federal Judiciary. Justice Department programs are significantly 
increased. Here are some examples:
  U.S. attorneys are provided $926 million, an increase of $73 million 
over fiscal year 1995. That's an additional 450 U.S. attorney 
positions.
  The Federal Bureau of Prisons receives $2.9 billion, an increase of 
$306 million over this year. This funding supports construction of new 
Federal prisons and additional operating funds to open prisons that are 
coming on line. It provides funding to deal with quelling the unrest 
that has recently occurred in our Federal prisons.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service is provided $2.557 
billion, an increase of $487 million above the current year. And, 
within this account to ensure that funds go to where the Congress 
intends, we have earmarked appropriations that support the Border 
Patrol.
  Finally, Judge Freeh and the FBI are provided $2.505 billion, an 
increase of $224 million. The conferees have focused our efforts on 
rebuilding the FBI's infrastructure. So included are: funds to get the 
NCIC 2000 crime data base up and operating; $30 million for renovations 
to the FBI training academy at Quantico, VA; and $57 million for the 
first phase of a new FBI forensic facility to be located at Fort 
Belvoir, VA. We all saw the importance of DNA evidence and the 
importance of validating such evidence beyond any doubt during the 
recent Simpson-Goldman murder trial. The FBI laboratory needs to be 
modernized and enhanced so Federal prosecutors and FBI evidence are not 
successfully challenged as was the case in the O.J. trial.
  Violence against women grants are funded at $175 million, the 
President's request. This is $149 million above this year and $50 
million above the House bill.
  For agencies other than Justice and the judiciary, it is really a 
question of bad news-good news. The bad news is that almost no other 
agency received appropriations above the current fiscal year. Getting 
up to a freeze was a major accomplishment. But the good news is that 
most other agencies have survived at a funding level that enables them 
to continue to operate, albeit at a reduced level. Take the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, probably the most 
popular agency in this bill. NOAA is our Nation's principal 
environmental sciences agency. It is the agency that procures and 
operates our weather satellites and it is for the oceans what NASA is 
to space. In past years our CJS bill increase NOAA just as we have 
increased Justice.
  But in this agreement, NOAA is provided $1.853 billion--$59 million 
below a freeze, and $244 million less than the President's budget 
request. The good news is that it could have been worse. Thanks to 
efforts by Members like our distinguished chairman, Senator Hatfield, 
this agreement provides NOAA with a level that is $79 million over what 
the House crowd would have provided and only $13 million less than the 
Senate-passed bill.
  So, like NOAA, many of these other agencies are not doing well, but 
they are surviving. My colleagues need to be put on notice now, 
however, that there are going to be reductions in force, office 
closures, and contract terminations. SBA is going to close offices and 
there are going to be significant reductions in force in Commerce and 
in independent agencies. You cannot provide these levels of funding 
without such impacts.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that we can debate this bill quickly and 
get it down to the White House. President Clinton has stated that he 
will veto it and I must concur with his position. There are several 
areas that are unacceptable to both the President and most Members on 
this side of the aisle. I will briefly mention several.


                            cops on the beat

  First, this bill terminates the Cops on the Beat Program and the Drug 
Court Program. It seeks to rewrite the 1994 crime bill and provide 
funds instead to Governors and mayors for a block grant program. This 
isn't a money issue; the funds are available in a separate account 
under the violent crime trust fund. So, what this is about is politics, 
and I might add pretty dumb politics at that.
  I will put a more complete statement regarding the COPS Program in 
the Record. But, let me summarize my position.
  First, the COPS Program is focused and well managed. In just 2 years 
it has gotten 26 thousand additional police out on the streets across 
America.
  Second, the COPS Program has a component that is targeted to small, 
rural communities. It deals with sheriffs and small town police chiefs 
directly. Across South Carolina you can survey the most conservative, 
Republican law enforcement officials and they will tell you that the 
Cops on the Beat Program is the best thing the Federal Government has 
ever done.
  Third, there is no education in the second kick of a mule. Sometimes 
I would appreciate it if Speaker Newt Gingrich and the House crowd 
realized that experience and institutional memory are not necessarily 
bad. We already had a local law enforcement block grant in the Federal 
Government. It was called the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration, or LEAA. I 

[[Page S 18130]]
was here when we created it and when we had to kill it because of 
waste. Mayors were buying tanks and corporate jets. Jimmy Carter came 
up to Washington after seeing LEAA waste at the State level and said 
``kill this turkey.'' So for over $8 billion we got nothing to show for 
LEAA except we let Federal funds be wasted, while for $1.3 billion we 
already have gotten 26,000 police through COPS.
  Fourth, Bill Clinton is right. The war on crime is being fought 
principally at the local level and police are our foot soldiers, our 
marines, sailors, and airmen. I've heard all this mumbo jumbo about 
local flexibility. The last time I checked, 10 out of 10 people who 
call the police for help are calling for a police officer. There just 
isn't a better use of this crime bill trust fund than to hire more 
police officers. I don't want to see this money raided by Governors and 
local elected officials, I want it to go directly to sheriffs and 
police chiefs as is the case now.
  Support for police always has been a solid, bipartisan value. I would 
urge my Republican colleagues not to become antipolice simply because 
President Clinton supports this program. you attacked the President in 
March 1993 because he proposed more money for community development 
block grants, and for days we listened to you list every wasteful 
project that could potentially be funded through block grants because 
of local flexibility. I urge you to get your staff to pull out the 
Congressional Record and to reread your own words. And I would urge you 
reread your statements regarding the crime bill. The distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, among others, talked about the 
importance of getting 100,000 more cops.

  The President will veto over the COPS Program alone. I support him. 
It is my hope that this program and the Drug Court Program will be 
restored during round two of this bill after the veto. I know Senator 
Biden will have more to say about this issue.


                           commerce programs

  Second, this conference agreement terminates the Commerce 
Department's Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. It does not even 
provide funds for the Federal Government to make good on its prior year 
commitments to industry under ATP cooperative agreements. When we 
completed the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, we provided $431 
million for the ATP. In this bill there is no funding.
  The ATP provides funds for cooperative agreements with industry to 
share the risk, on a 50-50 share basis for high-risk, precompetitive 
technologies that have potential for significant economic growth. What 
we are doing in this program is providing the necessary R&D that 
enables entrepreneurs and small companies to be able to take an R&D 
project from concept to proof of principle. It is a fully competitive 
program and every award is made by peer review panels. Neither the 
President, the Secretary of Commerce, nor any Senator has the ability 
to influence which companies receive ATP awards. This program is run 
fully on the basis of merit.
  Now, just meeting prior year commitments--that is to fund the Federal 
share of awards made before this year, requires appropriations totaling 
$290 million. Again, I'm afraid this aspect of the conference report is 
about politics and not substance. This is about the former Democratic 
Party Chairman David Wilhelm making a comment something to the effect 
that ``California is the end all and be all of politics and Ron Brown 
has the program.'' Yes, the fact is that many ATP awards do go to 
California companies, and Massachusetts companies and Pennsylvania 
companies. It shouldn't take a NIST PhD to realize that ATP awards are 
going to go predominantly to parts of the country that have 
concentrations of high-technology industry.
  This is exactly the type of program we should be funding if we are 
going to compete effectively in the trade war, now that the cold war is 
over. Our Republican colleagues have shown that they do support many 
Federal technology programs, including NASA aeronautics, high-
performance computing, and cooperative research and development 
agreements. They recognize that developing new precompetitive 
technologies is important to the long-term future of our country. This 
has been the case in other appropriations bills. So why oppose what is 
clearly one of the best-run Federal technology programs, one that is 
never porked, and one that already is leading to some major technical 
breakthroughs? Republican support for technology programs generally 
makes their decision regarding the ATP all the more regrettable and 
mistaken.
  The President realizes the importance of ATP and that is exactly why 
the absence of ATP funding is another reason for him to veto this 
conference report. Even if my Republican colleagues will not agree to 
fund new ATP grants, it would only seem fair that they fulfill past 
years commitments made by the Federal Government.
  Third, though this is not a veto issue, I strongly disagree with the 
conferees decision to terminate the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration [USTTA]. I argued against the House position and for the 
Senate position which reflected the amendment that Senators Bryan and 
Burns had made to the bill in September. Unfortunately, my colleagues 
in the conference did not see the issue as I do.
  USTTA costs only $17 million a year and provides a lot of bang for 
the buck. Almost every other country maintains a tourism promotion 
program, and so should we. I created USTTA. It is simply too 
inefficient having every State in this country running its own tourism 
promotion effort overseas. And, in Greg Farmer, we have the most 
effective director of USTTA that we have ever had.
  Tourism is big business and should not be given short shrift. It 
employs 6 million Americans and is the leading employer in 13 States. 
South Carolina is one of those States and we have almost 200,000 people 
employed in some aspect of the industry. This year we expect over 
700,000 international visitors in my State.
  I think this conference has made a big mistake.


                             legal services

  With respect to Legal Services, the conference agreement provides 
$278 million instead of $340 million as proposed by the Senate. I think 
Senator Pete Domenici deserves a lot of credit for having led the fight 
to save the Legal Services Corporation, when Senator Gramm proposed 
terminating the Corporation. And, Senator Domenici was in charge of our 
negotiations with the House. I think he would be the first to say that 
when this bill goes to round two, Legal Services is an area we need to 
get more funding for.
  Finally, I think it is obvious that the amounts provided for 
international organizations and U.N. peacekeeping are far below the 
level the President considers adequate. This is not a heartburn area 
for me, for years I have criticized U.N. peacekeeping as ineffective. 
It often seems in areas like Somalia and Bosnia, that United States 
forces are needed to rescue U.N. peacekeepers. The program just doesn't 
make sense.
  But, I think it is clear that international organizations and 
peacekeeping will need higher funding levels if the President is going 
to ultimately sign this bill.
  In summary, I want to acknowledge the hard work of Chairman Gregg and 
Mr. Rogers and their staffs. I especially want to recognize the 
contributions of David Taylor, Scott Corwin, and Vas Alexopoulos, of 
the majority staff.
  This represents the first CJS conference reports that I cannot 
support. I hope that the chairman will realize that this is because of 
decisions that were made by his leadership. Principally the termination 
of the Cops on the Beat Program and the ATP. I simply cannot support 
those decisions.
  It is my hope that this bill will be sent to the President 
expeditiously. I fully expect that it will be vetoed. I believe that 
this will be only the second time in history that a CJS appropriations 
bill has been vetoed.
  Then hopefully we could get on with round two and providing a bill 
that is acceptable to the President and one that can be enacted into 
law.
  Mr. President, let me go to the Commerce Department itself because 
over on the House side, a colloquy was had yesterday, I guess, upon the 
enactment of this bill where statements were made with respect to 
abolishing the Department of Commerce.
  There is a reference within the conference report itself on page 30, 
section 206--where the language could be envisioned as preparatory to 
abolishing the 

[[Page S 18131]]
Department--starting off with ``should legislation be enacted.'' That 
was a compromise on the word ``should,'' because I did not want 
anything anticipatory. When first presented, it was ``when legislation 
is enacted.''
  There has been no authorization for the dismantlement or abolition of 
the department itself. Yes, three times on the House floor they have 
voted for just exactly that--to the shock of this particular Senator--
for the simple reason that if you go to the Constitution itself, 
article I, section 8, in enumerating the powers and authority and 
responsibilities of the national Congress, article I, section 8, first 
says that you can levy and collect taxes.
  The second designated authority and responsibility would be to borrow 
money. Heavens above, we know how to do that around here. We are going 
to borrow $348 billion to keep the Government going while we are 
talking about balanced budgets. That is sheerly out of the whole cloth.
  The media have to be fast asleep on this particular point. I think it 
was Thomas Jefferson who said that as between a free Government and a 
free press, he would choose the latter. That is understandable because, 
yes, you can have a free Government that will not remain free long 
except with a free press. The free press owes the people, the body 
politic, the duty to expose nonsense, particularly the nonsense that is 
going on here of a balanced budget. There is no plan in the headline in 
the morning's paper to balance anybody's, particularly this 
Government's, budget.
  If you look at the innards of the plan, you will find out that rather 
than cutting spending, spending increases this year; and that the 
measure is $53 billion over last year. Starting off with the deficit, 
you are going with increased spending each year and increased spending 
over the revenues each year, which adds $1.8 trillion to the national 
debt. And yet the media, press and otherwise, fall into the lethargy of 
parroting what the pollster politicians parrot--that if you say it 
again and again and again, buzzwords, buzz headlines, ``balance,'' 
``balance,'' that it will be balanced. But it is far from being 
balanced, Mr. President. And so it is that, yes, duty No. 2 is to 
borrow money. And we respond generously.
  Duty No. 3 in the Constitution is to regulate commerce. I point this 
out because you will not find that word ``agriculture'' or ``housing'' 
or ``education'' or ``energy'' in the U.S. Constitution. When the 
contract crowd came to town, they were going to get rid of all of them, 
the Department of Housing, the Department of Energy, the Department of 
Education, right on through. End the Department of Commerce. The one on 
the griddle now is the Department of Commerce. Why? Because the selfish 
business leadership wants deregulation and more money, capital gains.
  I have listened to their leadership again and again saying, well, 
under the Congress we are concentrating or, namely, we do not want to 
bother the leadership unless we can get capital gains tax cuts.
  We do not have any capital gains to cut, unless we can get 
deregulation. So we will not bother about the Department of Commerce 
because we do not think any Government in its right mind is going to do 
away with the front line of the struggle in the global competition for 
economic strength and influence. That is what it has turned into with 
the fall of the wall.
  We have moved where the world could care less about the 7th Fleet and 
the atom bomb. Money talks. Economic power, influences. We are finding 
that out in our foreign policy. And the Department is charged, if you 
please, along with the State Department, to be more or less the front 
line of defense now, rather than the Pentagon, to get into the matter 
of dumping cases, the International Trade Administration, the Bureau of 
Export Administration.
  Everyone is talking about exports, exports. You can go right on down 
the list of these important, particular measures in that global 
competition of patent and trademark. That is a matter of issue, all of 
these trade measures, and the argument of using the OMB and CBO, the 
gross domestic product, that Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census of 
Manufacturers. All this work is being done in a very casual fashion. 
But they say get rid of it all.
  We could go right on down with the Census Bureau, the National 
Institutes of Standards and Technology, the Economic Development 
Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency, the U.S. 
Tourism and Travel Administration--all of that is under a very, very 
aggressive and productive Secretary of Commerce.
  I have been through some that have not been aggressive except to 
collect money. Invariably the Secretary of Commerce has been appointed 
from time to time to dun the business leadership for the money to run 
for reelection. On the contrary, this particular Secretary has been 
traveling and working and moving and shaking, creating jobs, a historic 
first in my 29 years on the Commerce Committee.
  I think that it was the former chairman of the Democratic Party who 
was responding to the former Senator from Wyoming, Senator Wallop when 
he pointed out that Secretary of Commerce Brown had been out in 
California. In his response, he said California was ``the end all, be 
all, of Presidential politics'' and that the Secretary of Commerce, Ron 
Brown, was going to run it. And that is how we ran right straight into 
a wall with respect to everything about that department. And that is 
why it persists today in this particular measure as perhaps to be 
abolished. A horrendous thought. But politics prevails around this 
town. And that is why it is there.
  That makes me come right to the point of emphasizing the significance 
of the Department. I could do it by way of comparison. You can go right 
under this particular bill and you will find a measure, Mr. President, 
that never existed until the year before last, just a couple years here 
in over the 200-some-year history of this great Nation of ours. But we 
have had a Department of Commerce, or commercial effort, let us say--
Teddy Roosevelt started it at the turn of the century. But we have had 
that designated responsibility and adhering and responding thereto. But 
here now we have what we call the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. 
That is $3,956,000,000. The Department of Commerce is $3,444,000,000. 
If you abolish the entire Department on all these endeavors, you have 
not saved what this Congress just year before last started out anew.
  That is why everybody talks about ``cut spending, cut spending, cut 
spending.'' But they are increasing it. And we cannot get it through 
the public mind. They run on ``cutting spending,'' but when they get 
here they continue to spend more, and more than the whole Department, 
an endeavor that has been in since the Constitution.
  But let me go right to NOAA, because I was at an occasion here this 
past weekend, and a former Secretary--I said, ``I understand that you 
said we ought to abolish the Department of Commerce.'' He said, ``Well, 
if we could blow up NOAA and get rid of it, that would do the job.'' 
The poor gentleman does not understand at all the institution of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And since I was 
participatory in its institution, let me refer immediately to the 
Stratton Commission report, ``Our Nation and the Sea.'' It has several 
volumes.
  The former Secretary stated that he had talked to an oil friend of 
his, and the oil friend said that we could easily contract out for all 
those things being done by NOAA. The truth of the matter is, the oil 
industry was very, very much a participant. James A. Crutchfield was a 
professor of economics. We had Jacob Blaustein of the Standard Oil Co., 
who served on this. We had not only in the Stratton Commission the 
deans of schools of oceanography, but we had the industry itself, 
General Electric. We had the Environmental Science Services 
Administration. We had the Under Secretary of the Navy.
  It was a most auspicious group for a 2-year study with the Stratton 
Commission report that said what we should do is organize the Sea Grant 
Program, the Bureau of the Fisheries and bring all of these particular 
endeavors--the Weather Service and, more particularly, the 
Environmental Science Services Administration--bring those in under one 
particular entity because 70 percent of the Earth's 

[[Page S 18132]]
surface is in the oceans. That is the beginning of weather, beginning 
of the environment, beginning of all the scientific studies, and what 
have you.
  While everybody was enthused about the space effort, more importantly 
we should be orchestrating, organizing and emphasizing the oceans 
effort. We have been doing that for some 20 years before any NOAA in 
what we called the Environmental Science Services Administration in 
Commerce, the Uniform Coast and Geodetic Oceans Core at that particular 
time.
  All that was blended into a very good, aggressive endeavor that sort 
of withered on the vine. I saw it happen because a Senator from an 
inland State that never saw the ocean took over the Commerce Committee. 
He did away with the Subcommittee of Oceans and Atmosphere that we had 
within the committee. And otherwise, at least financially, we have gone 
downhill.
  The Coastal Zone Management Act took 3 years of hearings and has 
really responded to the Stratton Commission report, such that by the 
year 2000, we are going to have 85 percent of all Americans living 
within 50 miles of the oceans or the coast of the Great Lakes.
  And we had to plan with respect to where the industry was going, 
where the recreational systems were going, where the power systems were 
going, where the fisheries were going, where the urban sprawl was 
going, and everything else, while at that particular time they had a 
gentleman, John Ehrlichman on President Nixon's staff, who was looking 
for a land use measure and opposing, incidentally, this particular 
institution of NOAA because he wanted his land use.
  The Attorney General and President Nixon got together with Dr. 
Stratton, and by reorganization plan No. 4 in 1970, put forth a very 
responsive and responsible entity in the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. We need a restudy, a return, so to speak, 
of the Stratton committee report and many of us in the ocean policy 
study believe that should be done.
  But in restrictive budgets right now, we have sort of held back. You 
do not blow up the endeavors of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and thereby solve the problems, as they see them, of the 
Department of Commerce. You do not disassemble and assign Census over 
here and some other Bureau officials back over here and break it up 
because somebody is trying to get rid of the Government. And if we 
cannot sell buildings--and I do not know the building in the contract 
they were supposed to sell--they say we have to get rid of Departments. 
We could not get rid of Education, we could not get rid of Housing but 
we have to get rid of Commerce, they say.
  On the Senate side, they did not even want to debate it. They put it 
off at the time because the so-called authorization was coming up. This 
Senator is ready to debate it at greater length when that measure 
arises, but we do not treat casually a fundamental endeavor in the U.S. 
Government at this particular time.
  I was going to emphasize some of the things with respect to Export 
Administration and the Census Bureau. There is an ongoing effort to 
abolish the Economic Development Administration. That has been 
recommended for about 15 years, and we have to withstand the onslaught 
there, because it is a sort of ``but if'' endeavor that brings about 
development at the local level that economically has proven its worth. 
Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, oppose that.
  I just want to say a word about the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration.
  Before I get off of the Economic Development Administration, 
incidentally, we had the Defense Conversion Act which assigned some $90 
million to the Economic Development Administration. I guess we will get 
into the Economic Development Administration's responsibility relative 
to defense conversion when we talk about the Advanced Technology 
Program and when we talk about other measures.
  Let me say a word about the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration. I 
never will forget the campaign of 1960 when President Kennedy was 
nominated, and I happened to be, at that time, in conversation with the 
President-designate. He said, ``I'm going to appoint your friend, 
Luther Hodges, as part of the Cabinet.''
  I said, ``Mr. President, look, Luther is not a politician politician, 
he is a businessman politician.'' He had been president of Marshall 
Fields in the textile division, the New York City Rotary Club and 
otherwise. He had come down to South Carolina, led the South in 
economic and industrial development, changing over from an agricultural 
economy. And he said, ``Well, good, I will put him in as Secretary of 
Commerce.''
  And thereafter Secretary of Commerce Hodges came and said, ``Well, 
you got me this thing, what can I do?''
  I said, ``Well, tourism is a fledgling industry now, but it is 
beginning and going and growing and we really need national 
coordination.'' There is not any question that the States themselves--
some of the bigger interests of what I am speaking of, Senators Bryan 
and Reid from Nevada, even Senator Pressler from South Dakota, the 
chairman of our committee. When they have a trade show in downtown 
Cairo, there is no reason for 50 States to show them how to cook an 
American barbecue. They all try. We wanted to coordinate that and, from 
time to time, pick different ones and have a nationally coordinated 
effort and direction.
  So it was and investment of $17 million. Secretary Hodges instituted 
the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration. It now is worth $7 billion 
to the economy, is the largest industry in my State and in many, many 
other States, and ranks right at the top of all endeavors in the United 
States. But to get symbols or trophies or get rid of something, they 
just pell-mell said, ``Let's get rid of the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration.'' It is a bad, bad mistake to try.
  Otherwise, the Advanced Technology Program is easily explained with 
respect to our competition in the global economy. Everyone should read 
``Blindside'' by Eamonn Fingleton on Japan and how it is operated by 
the Ministry of Finance and all industry has the Government directing 
its research. We give a minimal kind of research and development tax 
writeoff. It should be made permanent and greater, but, in any event, 
we need a national effort to stay on top of the U.S. technological 
lead.
  We do not prevail in national defense by manpower. The Chinese, the 
Soviets have always had more men than we have had, but we have always 
maintained as a superpower by the superiority of our technology. The 
same is going to be true in this, I just call it bluntly, trade war, 
economic struggle for development the world round.
  And so we--I say we, Senator Danforth and myself--really studied it 
to make sure it was not pork. It was not included in an appropriations 
bill where you cannot find it. On the contrary, the industry itself 
must come with an application and 50 percent of the money in hand. 
Thereupon, it is reviewed by the National Academy of Engineering and, 
on peer review, the award is made, not by the Secretary of Commerce 
politically or the White House over a telephone call by the President, 
but on a competitive basis, on a peer-review basis and, therefore, it 
has maintained its integrity.
  I have really stonewalled efforts on the House side as chairman and 
now as ranking member of this particular subcommittee that we were not 
going to write in any of those particular programs in our bills. We 
were not going to have pork, and it was done extremely well.
  There have been some 276 awards made. I remember when the textile 
industry of my own State came and asked for support on a research 
endeavor, and I want to make this record so they will all look at it 
closely. They came before the National Academy of Engineering and could 
not qualify for the Advanced Technology Program, so they went over to 
the Department of Energy, got money and they got a $350 million 
research endeavor at Livermore Laboratory out in California under the 
Department of Energy where it could not qualify in the Department of 
Commerce. I know that intimately because of the genesis of the program 
and my position on the particular committee.
  So we have been very cautious. When you get rid of the Advanced 
Technology Program, which I think would be one reason the White House 
has indicated a veto, everyone should understand why. Very minimal 
effort, but 

[[Page S 18133]]
very, very important effort being made there.

  Let me move, Mr. President, if you please, to the Cops on the Beat 
because I have not spoken at length, and the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, who has led the program itself, the 
institution of it, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, will be. 
He has a couple of hours reserved. Members of his committee will be 
speaking on that point. But, yes, I have an experience with respect to 
block grants.
  First, block grants are not authorized. Senator Gregg and I, when we 
met, we did not have that much of a stonewalling on different programs 
because they were not authorized, but we have experienced it in other 
conferences. The House Members, adhering to their authorizing 
committees, say we agree with you, we want that done, it cannot be in 
the conference report. It is not authorized. I have heard that for 
years on end--for 18 years, as either ranking member or chairman of 
this particular subcommittee on appropriations. This is not authorized. 
When it came up, the discussion on the Senate side for authorization, 
they passed that over. They did not want to debate that one. It is not 
authorized, not on the Judiciary Committee, and everything else. So 
here, trying to write in, you could raise a point of order under the 
rules, but we are not trying to waste time.
  We ought to be home for Christmas right now. Something is wrong with 
this crowd. They do not understand life itself. They want to start 
meetings at 6 o'clock. They must not have a home to go to. At 6 
o'clock, everybody else is home trying to get supper and go to bed and 
see the children, or otherwise. But not this group. They think, for 
some political reason, we ought to stay around and show that we are 
working hard late at night. But we are not paying the bills or getting 
anything done. They have not authorized block grants with respect to 
this one.
  Now, they did under President Nixon. They called it the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration, or something, LEAA. We gave up 
the block grants. And I will never forget when President Carter came to 
town. He said, ``Kill this turkey.'' It was an embarrassment. They were 
putting tanks on the courthouse lawn in Hampton, VA. I do not know who 
was going to attack the courthouse. They were buying airplanes to fly 
to New York to buy spring clothes for the Governor's wife, and they 
were giving out consultants. It was a good little political pork pot, 
where you could get anybody as a consultant. There were consultants all 
over everything. We spent $8 billion and we got nothing. We have done 
this.
  There is no education in the second kick of a mule. There is no use 
trying to go through this one because somebody put it in the contract. 
The only reason it is in the contract is they are trying to get on top 
of the message that ``We Republicans are more for crime control than 
Democrats are.'' The Democrats have the policemen on the beat program. 
There is nothing wrong with that, but ``we want to put in our crime 
about the contract.''
  Nonsense. But that is what we have to go through with--it is not 
authorized--and try to change the entire program around, where again, 
the local law enforcement has to come with 25 percent of the money. And 
after 3 years, they are going to have to take it over. We have 26,000 
cops on the beat.
  I have been in law enforcement. For 4 years, I was the chief law 
enforcement officer in my State. I know it intimately. I can tell you 
that this is a wonderful endeavor that is working, nonpartisan-like. 
All these law enforcement officers and entities all endorse these block 
grants. But it is like delivering lettuce by way of a rabbit. By the 
time the police chief sees where his money is, yes, he might buy an 
extra radio, or get a consultant, or he might never get talked to. He 
will never see an additional officer on the beat. So we have done that. 
Let us not waste time and money on cops on the beat.
  There is another endeavor I should emphasize in the opening 
statement, and that is the Legal Services Administration, and that I 
have had experience there. There have been those all the way back when 
it was first instituted, back years ago, when Legal Services--I will 
never forget I had to work with Senator Javits of New York on this one, 
and we had to enumerate the duties of domestic cases, landlord cases, 
employment cases, and otherwise, because we found that in going and 
sending money back to the Legal Services Corporation, they were hiring 
the demonstrators to come up here on the Capitol steps and call the 
Congress a bunch of bums on account of Vietnam. So we thought it was 
not quite smart to be financing our own opposition, and it certainly 
was not the intent; it was to get money in the hands of poor folks, who 
should get their day in court and could not because they did not have 
any money.
  It was really started by the American Bar Association when our 
friend, Justice Lewis Powell, was then a practicing attorney and 
President of the American Bar. In one endeavor to try to get rid of it, 
we brought Justice Powell over, and they realized the authority and the 
thought and the responsibility of the endeavor that they more or less 
abandoned the idea of getting rid of Legal Services. But farmers do not 
like the poor migrant worker--who may be cheated out of his money and 
who has to move on and cannot take care of his family and everything 
else--getting a lawyer. So the farm crowd--I know them, I have them in 
my State--do not like that migrant worker. They can cheat him, run him 
off, do not give him housing, or anything else. He does not know 
anybody in your community or have any contacts there. Get rid of him. 
They do not like it, so get rid of Legal Services. It is the same thing 
in these big cities, with landlord-tenant problems. They never fix the 
pipes that freeze over, and they are trying to get water and everything 
else in there, and heat for the children. Throw them out on the street 
and, surely, do not give them a lawyer.
  Come on. We know there is opposition to Legal Services. But, 
fortunately, on the Republican side we have the leadership of the 
former chairman of the subcommittee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, and 
he led the fight. I am sorry we did not get enough money. The chairman 
of our subcommittee tried, and I tried, but we could not get any more. 
It is inadequate. We are looking at a veto on the second go-around. 
This is going to be a subject for concern and perhaps increase, 
hopefully, because it is a tried and true program. We put the language 
in. I agreed with the former chairman, the Senator from Texas, Senator 
Gramm, that we should not use money to sue the State of New Hampshire.
  I have watched these things every time you have these crowds that 
come around and want to grab the poor people's money and bring a mass 
action and go to the Supreme Court, and the lawyers sit around and eat 
it all up. They have enough money, those charitable legal defense 
funds, and everything else. Leave our Legal Services Corporation alone 
and do not sue the Governor or the legislature. That is for poor folks, 
not rich folks sitting around in Washington with their think tanks.
  Senator Gramm was correct, and I went along with him. I think that 
when we come on the second go-around, we are going to have to really 
beef up the Legal Services Corporation. There is a tremendous need now 
in our country, and we should not be cutting it back or trying to 
abolish it.
  Finally, I will soon terminate and try to retain my time for others. 
Mr. President, we have the State Department that is the front line with 
that Commerce Department. With the fall of the wall, we ought to be 
extending democracy, freedom, and human rights to the world around with 
our Department of State. They finally are falling in line on a business 
basis.

  You had the diplomats in years gone by where they were annoyed with 
American industry and business trying to get business in a foreign 
land. Now, under Secretary Christopher and under Secretary Brown, they 
are working in tandem, because they have to if we are going to survive. 
They are working in tandem, trying to open doors now by business 
leadership so they can compete.
  We need these embassies around. They are trying to close down 
Edinburgh, Scotland. Bad mistake. They are trying to close down 
Florence, Italy. The educational institutes of this land--they have 
some 10,000 American students there. There are various 

[[Page S 18134]]
cases and visa matters and everything else coming back. Close it down 
and run it through Rome, you will spend more money, sell the property 
and lose it.
  So we have tried our best, yes, to close those that are not needed, 
open up the new ones in the 14 Republics of the former Soviet Union, 
but more than anything else, strengthen our consular service and cut 
out all the Departments of Government, keeping their endeavors upon the 
Department of State.
  Specifically, there is no reason--go down to Caracas, Venezuela; they 
want the FAA to have something go down there, and then the head of the 
FAA has a reason to go and travel to South America. The IRS would like 
to come in and they would like to have offices around in foreign lands, 
and then the hierarchy of IRS can get in a plane and they can travel 
around.
  Now, we have the FBI, which I think is a mistake, because you have 
the CIA, and the FBI is going to be arresting CIA agents. You watch it. 
We have always tried to keep that division with respect to 
intelligence. With respect to law enforcement, do not ever put your law 
enforcement in another man's country. It is ineffective. It is a 
mistake. But they are now endeavoring to put FBI around there.
  They ought to put them down on 14th Street in this city. We do not 
have enough law enforcement. That is why we have the Cops-on-the-Beat 
Program. We have enough crime in America, much less chasing it around 
in the various lands.
  But they like to travel. When they do, the poor Ambassador is the 
landlord, and he looks around and he has more and more and more people 
assigned to him and half of his budget is already gone; there is a 
housekeeper in the embassy and he cannot get his work done.
  Mr. President, I hope we can cut back on some of that that is going 
around. If we want to try and help the State Department, we ought to 
embellish their effort. We ought to acknowledge very genuinely, Senator 
Gregg, the chairman, Mr. Rogers, and their staffs on the other side. It 
goes without saying Scott Gudes on my side, I could not operate without 
him, and we have David Taylor, Scott Corwin, Lula Edwards, and Vas 
Alexopolous on the majority staff. So we look forward to a very 
compatible working together on this particular measure.
  It has 128 entities in it. You have the special Trade Representative, 
you have the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. They could really 
spend the day talking about what we have done, how we cut back on the 
money. We have cut back; it is far less. This is $1.5 billion less than 
what the President of the United States asked for. We have been in step 
with the ``seam,'' so to speak, of the revolution with the cut in 
spending. The distinguished chairman and I both believe we should cut 
spending, but it should be done in the right places.
  I could go right to the point of the International Trade Commission. 
Why have a jury find the fault of a dumping violation and then have a 
different jury find the actual sentence or injury? In fact, there are a 
bunch of sycophants that are fixes for ``yack-yack'' free trade. There 
is no such thing, but every time we find a dumping violation they can 
never find an injury. We can save $43 million getting rid of that 
crowd, let the same entity, namely, the International Trade 
Administration--be like the jury in a case that finds the guilt also 
decides the sentence. You do not waste time and have another 
bureaucracy reexamining.
  There are many places that we can go along with the spirit of the 
revolution in the Contract, but this is not one of them, where you want 
to abolish the Department of Commerce.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent 
that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a statement of 
administration policy on this particular bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.R. 2076--commerce, justice, and state, the judiciary, and related 
                 agencies appropriations bill, FY 1996

       (Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Rogers (R), Kentucky; 
     Hatfield (R), Oregon; Gregg (R) New Hampshire)
       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on H.R. 2076, the Department of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as approved by the 
     Conference Committee. Your consideration of the 
     Administration's views would be appreciated.
       The Administration strongly opposes several aspects of the 
     Conference Report. For the reasons discussed more fully 
     below, the President would veto the bill if it were presented 
     to him in its current form.
       The bill would provide insufficient funds to support the 
     important activities covered by this bill. It would undermine 
     our ability to fight the war on crime and to support 
     international organizations and peacekeeping activities; 
     decimate technology programs that are critical to building a 
     strong U.S. economy; and cripple our ability to provide legal 
     services for disadvantaged individuals.


                        programs to fight crime

       The bill would eliminate the COPS program and, instead, 
     fund a law enforcement block grant program that would allow 
     spending on anything from street lights to public works 
     projects. The American public has shown a clear desire for 
     additional police to work hand-in-hand with communities to 
     fight crime. The block grant approach would not guarantee a 
     single new officer. COPS is a proven success and should be 
     maintained as a separate discretionary program. The COPS 
     program has reinvented Federal grant making, putting grant 
     monies into the hands of local agencies on an expedited 
     basis. A block grant program cannot accomplish what the 
     current program has done.
       The President would not sign any version of this 
     appropriations bill that does not fund the COPS program in 
     its authorized form.
       Similarly, the bill fails to ensure funding for important 
     crime prevention activities, most notably so-called ``drug 
     courts,'' the Community Relations Service, and the 
     President's Crime Prevention Council. In addition, there are 
     reductions below the request for the President's immigration 
     initiative. The Administration urges the Congress to support 
     increased funding for these vital programs, as well as the 
     continuation of the Associate Attorney General's Office.
       The prison grants ``Truth in Sentencing'' provisions of the 
     bill would disproportionately and unfairly benefit a small 
     number of States, deprive some States of any funds, and harm 
     many States--including some with very strong sentencing 
     policies. In addition, the provisions would generate delay in 
     the awards of much needed prison grant funds for all States.


           technology programs of the department of commerce

       The Administration urges the Congress to support the 
     technology programs of the Department of Commerce that work 
     to expand our economy, help Americans compete in the global 
     marketplace, and create high quality jobs. The conference 
     level would eliminate funding for the Advanced Technology 
     Program (ATP) and prohibit new awards, which is unacceptable 
     to the Administration. ATP is a highly competitive, cost-
     shared program that fosters technology development, promotes 
     industrial alliances, and creates jobs. Eliminating ATP 
     funding would force wasteful cancellation of ongoing research 
     projects before they are complete. The ATP program was 
     created with bipartisan support, which it continues to 
     deserve.
       The bill also would sharply reduce funding for the National 
     Information Infrastructure (NII) grants program. The NII 
     program assists hospitals, schools, libraries, and local 
     governments in procuring advanced communications equipment to 
     provide better health care, education, and local government 
     services. The conference level would eliminate funding for 
     the GLOBE program, which promotes knowledge of science and 
     the environment in our schools. The Administration is also 
     concerned about reductions below the request for the 
     Manufacturing Extension program.
       The Administration is concerned with the funding levels 
     provided for the Technology Administration to fulfill the 
     U.S. Commitment for the U.S.-Israeli Science and Technology 
     Commission and to maintain valuable technology analysis and 
     advocacy work at a time of increasingly fierce global 
     competition. The Administration seeks additional funding for 
     economic and statistical analysis and for the Census Bureau. 
     In addition, we are concerned about the level of funding for 
     the Economic Development Administration Defense Conversion 
     program.


                       legal services corporation

       The Administration is greatly concerned with the conference 
     funding level for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which 
     would cripple the ability of the Corporation to serve people 
     in need, and urges the Congress to restore funding for the 
     Corporation. 

[[Page S 18135]]
     The Administration does not support the excessive restrictions on LSC 
     operations contained in language provisions in the Conference 
     Report. The restrictions imposed on the representation of 
     clients unduly limited their access to the justice system. An 
     allocation of $9 million for management and administration is 
     essential to permit Corporation management to meet its 
     statutory responsibilities, which include for the first time 
     the awarding of grants on a competitive basis.


                         international programs

       The Conference Report includes a 50-percent reduction to 
     Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities and a 
     24-percent reduction to Contributions to International 
     Organizations, which fund the treaty-obligated U.S. share of 
     activities of the United Nations, International Atomic Energy 
     Agency, NATO, and others. These activities support important 
     U.S. national security and foreign policy interests 
     including, among others, the Middle East (including Israel's 
     borders and Kuwait/Iraq), weapons nonproliferation and 
     safeguards activities, sanctions against international 
     renegade countries, promotion of an open international 
     trading framework, control of diseases such as Ebola viruses, 
     and promotion of human rights. These reductions would impair 
     the ability of the U.S. to carry out and safeguard important 
     U.S. interests around the world. Also, without restoration of 
     funding for these accounts, the Administration would be 
     severely hindered in the pursuit of much needed reforms at 
     the organizations.
       In addition, other international affairs programs of the 
     Department of State, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
     and the United States Information Agency, are reduced to 
     levels that would hinder the execution of important national 
     security and foreign policy activities. Finally, the 
     Administration regrets the inclusion of extraneous language 
     in the bill related to the presence of U.S. Government 
     facilities in Vietnam.


                              other issues

       The Administration objects to section 103, which would 
     prohibit the use of funds in the act for performing 
     abortions, with certain exceptions.
       In addition to the issues discussed above, the 
     Administration would like to work with the Congress to 
     address the other concerns that were outlined in the 
     conferees letter of November 6, 1995.
       Clearly, this bill does not reflect the priorities of the 
     President or the values of the American people. The 
     Administration urges the Congress to send the President an 
     appropriations bill for these important priorities that truly 
     serves the American people.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I certainly appreciate being yielded to by the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.
  Actually, I came to the floor at this moment to pay my respects to 
Chairman Gregg, who is our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, 
for his having brought the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
conference report to the floor. I know he enjoys working with our 
distinguished friend from South Carolina who has been here 29 years and 
who is still the junior Senator from North Carolina, but Fritz Hollings 
is a wonderful friend, as well.
  Both Chairman Gregg and Chairman Gramm, who recently inherited the 
CJS issues, have done outstanding work in consulting and actively 
cooperating with the authorizers of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  Now, Senator Gregg served on the Foreign Affairs Committee before 
accepting his current responsibilities on the Appropriations Committee. 
I have to say to him, we miss the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but we are grateful, as a 
member of the Senate Appropriations, he remains a strong and steadfast 
advocate for the concern of the American people relating to foreign 
policy.
  While the CJS conference report does not contain everything that I 
wanted, it is consistent with the thrust of S. 908, the State 
Department reauthorization bill. A great many of us have worked hard to 
craft the legislation to prepare the Department of State for the 
challenges of the future.
  I confess, from time to time, Mr. President, I have been discouraged 
that the administration and many of our colleagues on the other side 
have deliberately blocked every effort to permit the Senate even to 
debate and vote on this important reorganization legislation.
  I have been encouraged by recent events that we may finally see a 
Senate vote on a State Department authorization bill, perhaps as early 
as this evening or tomorrow.
  We shall see about that. The actions of the CJS appropriators have 
been instrumental in causing the administration to recognize that the 
issue of reorganization and consolidation is not going to go away.
  I am very appreciative of the actions of Senator Gregg and Senator 
Hollings and others to stipulate that this appropriations conference 
report waives authorization only until April 1, 1996. Now, this key 
provision will require the administration and the Congress to act on an 
authorization bill for 1996.
  Without an authorization bill, the authority to spend appropriated 
funds for the State Department and other related agencies will expire 
on the first of April next year.
  Now, as I mentioned earlier, the issue of reorganization and 
consolidation of the foreign policy apparatus of the United States is 
not going away. Every day that the administration refuses to plan for 
the future, the State Department is going to pay a price for it.
  I hope that we can move the authorization bill into conference to 
provide the administration with the authority and the flexibility 
needed for a successful restructuring of its operations. If President 
Clinton does not find this legislation acceptable, he will provide the 
Senate with yet another opportunity to revisit the consolidation issue 
on this appropriations bill.
  In any event, it is my understanding that the administration opposes 
this conference report because, first, it provides $223 million less 
for international operations spending; second, it reduces the 
President's request for peacekeeping operations by $220 million; third, 
it cuts the State Department salaries and expenses spending by $50 
million; and, fourth, the President does not like it because it reduces 
the State Department's foreign building spending by $36 million, 
including a $60 million rescission. The fact is, this conference report 
requires the administration to cut spending, and that is what the 
President does not like. That is what the whole argument has been about 
all along. I wish it could also force the President to reduce the size 
of the Federal bureaucracy, but we can work on that later.
  However, as a practical matter, Senator Gregg's initiatives to reduce 
funding levels in this bill will require the administration to 
restructure its efforts so as to meet reduced funding levels. H.R. 2076 
is approximately $500 million below the authorization levels of the 
Senate Foreign Relations bill. At a time when the Federal Government is 
approaching the $5 trillion Federal debt mark, the work of Senators, 
like Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings and others, is most 
encouraging.
  At my request, and I am so grateful to him, Senator Gregg included a 
4-year extension of the Au Pair Program. There is a similar provision 
in S. 908, the State Department reorganization bill. The Au Pair 
Program expired on September 30, and that has caused great hardship 
among many working parents. Senator Gregg agreed to include the 
extension of the program in the appropriations bill, since Au Pair 
enjoys wide support.
  So, in summation, I come here to thank the two managers of the bill. 
My friend, Senator Gregg, has particularly been helpful, working with 
me. He has made some very wise and reasonable decisions in this bill. I 
congratulate him. I congratulate Senator Hollings, and I urge our 
colleagues to support the CJS conference report.
  Mr. President, if I have time remaining, I yield it back and I thank 
the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for 
his generous remarks. His assistance and guidance and thoughts on this 
bill were extraordinarily helpful to me. Obviously, coming to this bill 
at a late date, it was very nice to have the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee there to give me his thoughts and help us in 
crafting the bill. I very much appreciate that.
  At this point, I will suggest the absence of a quorum----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will withhold just a minute, the Senator 
from North Carolina, the chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee--
let me say publicly, which I have told colleagues along the line, the 
initiative of our distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee to blend in 

[[Page S 18136]]
the U.S. Agency for International Development Program, the U.S. 
Information Agency, the Arms Control Disarmament Agency, and the other 
particular programs that they have in the Department of State is, I 
think, a salutary initiative on the chairman's part.
  I have worked the budgets. Specifically, if they appointed me the 
Under Secretary of State in charge in Africa, I could look over and 
could designate the needs. At the present time, if I did, the AID 
Director would say, ``Oh, no, this is where we are going to put it.'' 
And he has all the money.
  We need a coordinated effort. We can save, really, millions with the 
particular initiative. I happen to know, as he knows, five Secretaries 
of State have recommended this. I intend to support the distinguished 
chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee. I state that as having 
been at the financial end of these endeavors on appropriations for over 
25 years now.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the chairman as much time as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have enjoyed working with both of these 
Senators--a little longer with Senator Hollings, because he and I have 
been around here longer. But the Senators from New Hampshire and South 
Carolina are remarkable Senators. And I appreciate your comments, 
Senator Hollings. I thank Senator Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point I suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support passage 
of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill as it has come from 
the Appropriations Committee so that we can get it to the President. As 
everyone is well aware, the President has signaled that he will veto 
this bill. We need to pass the bill and then begin the task of fixing 
any of the remaining problems contained in this legislation.
  We are at a watershed moment in this Nation's history. We are 
deciding whether or not we will have a balanced budget or whether we 
will continue to plunge our Nation into debt and mortgage our 
children's futures. This bill represents one piece in the puzzle to 
achieving a balanced budget. While imperfect, this legislation 
nevertheless represents an honest effort to achieve a fiscally 
responsible Federal budget.
  Of course, there are programs that I would like to receive more 
money. I am sure there is not a single person sitting in this Congress 
who would not want to spend more money on some particular program or 
issue. This bill, however, represents a compromise between our desires, 
and our true, fiscally responsible, law enforcement needs.
  To my colleagues that voted for the balanced budget amendment, I 
would ask them to vote for this bill. To my colleagues who voted 
against the amendment, but believed we needed a balanced budget and 
could achieve such a budget, I tell them now is their hour. Now is the 
time. This is an opportunity for them to prove that they can exercise 
the discipline and restraint needed to achieve a balanced budget.
  Even with the cuts necessary to achieve a balanced budget, I would 
note that the Department of Justice receives a nearly 20-percent 
increase over fiscal year 1995. The violent crime reduction trust fund, 
moreover, will be increased by some $1.6 billion. While the conference 
bill does not provide federal law enforcement with as much money as I 
might otherwise want it to, it nevertheless represents an enormous 
commitment to fund core federal law enforcement programs.

  For example, the conference report provides the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service with nearly $2.6 billion. This represents a 
23.5-percent increase over fiscal year 1995 enacted levels. The 
conference agreement provides funds for 800 new Border Patrol agents 
and 160 new support personnel.
  If you look at this chart, the Department of Justice budget authority 
between 1990 and 1996, you can see that it is going up dramatically 
from around $8\1/4\ billion up to almost $16 billion. It has almost 
doubled in the last 6 years. So we are spending an awful lot of money, 
and I think doing it in the right way.
  The bill also increases, by some 1,400 positions, personnel dedicated 
to apprehending, locating, and deporting illegal aliens.
  The FBI receives over $2.5 billion, a 9.8-percent increase over 1995 
enacted levels. Additionally, construction funds are provided to 
renovate the FBI Command Center, to modernize the FBI Training Academy 
for use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers, and to 
begin construction on a new FBI laboratory.
  Similarly, the U.S. attorneys offices receive an over 8.5-percent 
increase in funds compared to the 1995 enacted levels.
  The DEA receives some $806 million, a 6.4-percent increase over last 
year. This provides DEA with funds to improve its infrastructure and to 
better support investigative efforts.
  In addition to these law enforcement expenditures, the bill also 
fully funds the Violence Against Women Act, legislation that I worked 
on with Senator Biden to get passed last year. As most of my colleagues 
are aware, I have long opposed programs I believed were mere pork 
projects. In fact, I led the battle against last year's crime bill 
because I felt that it had ballooned in terms of unjustified costs. The 
Violence Against Women Act, however, is an important program that 
deserves to be fully funded. The act provides funds for: rape 
prevention education; battered women shelters; the investigation and 
prosecution of domestic violence and child abuse in rural areas; 
treatment and counseling programs for victims; and grants for 
developing community domestic violence and child abuse education 
programs.

  These programs are vitally important. Prosecutors and police officers 
must become more sensitized to the problem of violence against women. 
Women who are abused by their spouses must have a place to stay and 
must have counseling available to repair their shattered lives. 
Resources need to be channeled to stem the tide of violence directed 
against women.
  According to Justice Department data, nearly a half-million women 
were forcibly raped last year. Some studies estimate that the total 
number of rapes, including those not reported to authorities, may 
exceed 2 million.
  Similarly, domestic violence strikes at the heart of the most 
important political unit in America--the family. The family should be a 
safe harbor for those tossed about by the storms of life, not a place 
of abuse or degradation.
  The act is one small, albeit vital, step toward addressing the 
problem of family violence, and violence against women generally. A 
vote for this conference bill means a vote to combat violence against 
women.
  The conference bill also contains legislation I introduced with 
the distinguished majority leader to reform frivolous prison 
litigation. This landmark legislation will help bring relief to a civil 
justice system overburdened by frivolous prisoner lawsuits. In 1994, 
over 39,000 lawsuits were filed by inmates in Federal courts, a 
staggering 15-percent increase over the number filed the previous year. 
The vast majority of these suits are completely without merit. Indeed, 
roughly 94.7 percent of these suits are dismissed before the pretrial 
phase, and only a scant 3.1 percent have enough merit to reach trial. 
In my home State of Utah, 297 inmate suits were filed in Federal courts 
during 1994, which accounted for 22 percent of all Federal civil cases 
filed in Utah last year. The crushing burden of these frivolous suits 
is not only costly, but makes it difficult for courts to consider 
meritorious claims.

  Indeed, I do not want to prevent inmates from raising legitimate 
claims. While the vast majority of these claims are specious, there are 
cases in which prisoners' basic civil rights are denied. 

[[Page S 18137]]
Contrary to the charges of some critics, however, this legislation will 
not prevent those claims from being raised. The legislation will, 
however, go far in preventing inmates from abusing the Federal judicial 
system.
  They will have to pay something to file these charges, and that stops 
a lot of the frivolous cases right there. And there are other 
mechanisms that will make them think twice before they file frivolous 
law suits.
  This legislation will also help restore balance to prison conditions 
litigation and will ensure that Federal court orders are limited to 
remedying actual violations of prisoners' rights, not letting prisoners 
out of jail. It is time to lock the revolving prison door and to put 
the key safely out of reach of overzealous Federal courts.
  As of January 1994, 24 corrections agencies reported having court-
mandated prison population caps. Nearly every day we hear of vicious 
crimes committed by individuals who should have been locked up. Not all 
of these tragedies are the result of court-ordered population caps, of 
course, but such caps are a part of the problem. While prison 
conditions that actually violate the Constitution should not be allowed 
to persist, I believe that the courts have gone too far in micro-
managing our Nation's prisons.
  This bill also contains important changes to the Prison Grant 
Program. The conference bill provides nearly $618 million in grants to 
States to enable them to engage in the emergency buildup of prison 
space and to encourage the States to adopt tough truth-in-sentencing 
laws. In contrast, the President requested only some $500 million for 
prison grants.
  The conference bill makes four key changes to the prison grants 
provisions included in the 1994 crime bill:
  First, it authorizes significantly more resources to assist the 
States in implementing a much-needed emergency buildup in prison and 
jail space.
  Second, it removes onerous and unnecessary Federal strings that were 
attached to the 1994 grant program, and that would have eaten up a 
significant portion of the grant money provided.
  Third, it ensures that the Federal money will be used to increase 
available prison space, instead of permitting the funds to be used for 
a variety of so-called alternative sanctions, which would have left the 
States in the same dire need of prison space at the end of the grant 
program as they are now.
  Finally, it includes meaningful incentives--not mandates--for the 
enactment of State truth-in-sentencing laws.
  Prison crowding in many of our States has reached crisis proportions. 
The average prison system in the United States is operating at 112 
percent above its rated capacity. In 24 States, prisons are under 
court-ordered population caps. And, in 1993, an estimated 21,000 
inmates in 18 States were released under so-called emergency release 
programs to relieve crowding--the ``Corrections Yearbook,'' 1994. In 
other words, 21,000 criminals were returned to the streets not because 
they were no longer a threat to law-abiding citizens, but merely 
because there was not enough room to keep them in prison.
  The Federal Government, of course, cannot solve this crisis for the 
States. But it can and should provide meaningful emergency assistance.
  This bill also provides meaningful incentives for States to enact 
truth-in-sentencing laws. At least 50 percent of the funds under this 
program are reserved for States that practice truth in sentencing. It 
is appropriate for the Federal Government to encourage the States, 
through the provision of extra funds, to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws 
that honestly tell citizens--and warn criminals--what the penalty is 
for breaking the law. This does not mean that the Federal Government 
should dictate any particular sentencing system or sentence length. But 
it does mean that those States with criminal justice systems that mean 
what they say should be rewarded.
  I would like to briefly dispel a misconception about this truth-in-
sentencing provision. Some of my colleagues are concerned that this 
provision will mandate that States adopt long sentences that they 
cannot afford to impose. This is simply not the case. The issue is not 
sentences of any particular length, rather, it is truth in sentencing. 
Recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics demonstrate that as 
of 1991, State prison inmates serving sentences for violent offenses 
expected to serve less than half of their sentences.
  The data also show that the inmates' expectations were accurate--
violent prisoners released in 1994 served an average of only 46 percent 
of their sentences--``BJS Selected Findings, Violent Offenders in State 
Prison: Sentences and Time Served, July 25, 1995.'' Moreover, in 1991, 
the Department of Justice reported that the average murderer was 
sentenced to 20.5 years, but served only 7.7 years; the average rapist 
was sentenced to 13.3 years, but served only 4.6 years; and the average 
robber was sentenced to 9.9 years, but served only 3.3 years. This is 
outrageous.
  Continued public confidence in our criminal justice system requires 
that sentences mean what they say. A 20-year sentence should not mean 
release in 7 years, once a person has committed a murder and been 
convicted of it. This legislation will provide the States with grant 
incentives to ensure that violent criminals serve the sentences 
imposed.
  Furthermore, Federal incentives work. A recent report from the 
National Institute of Corrections stated that of the 29 States that 
considered truth-in-sentencing legislation in the 1995 legislative 
session, 60 percent reported that Federal incentives were a significant 
factor, and 20 percent reported that these incentives were the main or 
only factor.
  Thus, even under last year's weaker truth-in-sentencing provisions, 
progress is being made. However, this bill is necessary to protect 
those gains and ensure that they continue. Under last year's bill, 
States may qualify for truth-in-sentencing funds by enacting laws 
providing for truth in sentencing only for second-time violent 
offenses.
  Even more astonishing, States that do nothing to change their laws 
could end up with a chunk of the truth-in-sentencing grants by simply 
waiting for the funds to revert to the general grant fund, as the last 
year's bill provides. Keeping faith with the States that have made 
legitimate strides in their area requires that we eliminate these 
potentially unfair loopholes.
  It is also vital, however, that we provide allowances for differences 
among state correctional policies, and not penalize States that 
practice indeterminate sentencing, yet do an admirable job of keeping 
violent criminals off the streets. My home State of Utah, for example, 
employs a release guideline system that allows the board of pardons to 
keep the worst criminals off the streets longer than would be possible 
in many determinate sentencing systems. This amendment accommodates 
successful indeterminate sentencing States.
  Finally, I would like to address the law enforcement block grant 
proposal. While I do not fully support the language of the current 
proposal, I nevertheless believe we should pass the conference report 
and fix the problems after the President returns it to us. This 
proposal improves, at least in certain respects, the administration's 
so-called COPS Program. I understand that the President prefers the 
COPS Program, but I believe that a block grant program better supports 
the local communities law enforcement needs.
  To begin with, this program moves us away from the Washington-knows-
best philosophy. The proposal returns responsibility to frontline local 
law enforcement officials. If, for example, a community believes 
community-oriented policing works best in its jurisdiction, it can hire 
police officers and structure a community policing program. If, 
however, the community needs bullet proof vests or communications 
equipment, it can buy that equipment with these funds.
  A serious problem with the so-called COPS Program is that the award 
is entirely discretionary. It lacks a solid formula and instead depends 
upon the good graces of Washington bureaucrats to distribute the money.
  The conference report, however, establishes a formula to distribute 
the money on a fair, consistent basis. Communities will no longer have 
to wonder whether or not they are going to receive a grant.

[[Page S 18138]]

  This proposal also contains a lower matching requirement than the 
President's program. Therefore, poorer communities can hire more police 
with less of a financial strain on the community. By lowering the 
match, we do not penalize poorer cities that cannot afford it. This is 
what the American people want--assistance in handcuffing criminals not 
handcuffing communities.
  Critics complain that a block grant will lead to the abuses of the 
old LEAA Program of years past. I would note, however, that LEAA did 
far more good than harm. And many of the LEAA grants occurred before 
the professionalization of the Nation's police forces. I do not believe 
that the excesses that occurred under the LEAA would occur under the 
proposed legislation. Indeed, I think that the Byrne grants stand as a 
testament to the ability of local communities to wisely look after 
their own best interests.
  While this conference report is imperfect, I encourage my colleagues 
to support it and permit us to fix any remaining difficulties after the 
President has vetoed it. In closing, I would just like to thank Senator 
Gregg for his work on the report. He has consistently sought out the 
views of the Judiciary Committee and has attempted to incorporate our 
views into the final product. I look forward to working with Senator 
Gregg.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield--5, 10 minutes?
  Mr. BRYAN. I would appreciate it if the Senator will yield 10. I 
probably will use less.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. President and my colleagues, I wish to express my profound 
disappointment that the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration funding 
is not included in this bill.
  I know that my friend and the ranking member of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator Hollings, proudly and rightly proclaims himself as 
one of the founding fathers of this very important function. We are 
talking about something that in the current year is funded at a modest 
level of $16 million. It is a program which has enjoyed bipartisan 
support. I wish to emphasize that. When we came to the floor earlier 
this year to amend the Senate version to continue it for a 1-year 
transition, a 1-year transition of $12 million in funding, we had the 
support of Senators McConnell, Hollings, Murkowski, Inouye, Thurmond, 
Daschle, and many others.
  So the point I wish to make to my colleagues is that this is not an 
issue which had as a cutting or defining edge any sense of 
partisanship. We had broad bipartisan support.
  Why do I think this is such an important function? First of all, 
tourism is either the No. 1 or No. 2 or number No. 3 industry in every 
State in America. It generates $417 billion annually and is recognized 
as being, with the possible exception of the health care industry, the 
largest employer in America.
  In the context of our difficulty with the international trading 
accounts, where the United States suffers from an enormous trade 
imbalance, when all of those individual categories are added together, 
it is a shining example of where we enjoy a trade surplus, net trade 
surplus, of some $22 billion.
  So this is an agency that is worth every penny that is expended. 
Putting this in the context of what is happening in the world today, 
out of the 175 major countries in the world, we will be the only one 
without some type of a national tourism office. The timing of this, it 
seems to me, is particularly bad. We are talking about jobs, travel 
tourism provides 6.2 million direct jobs, and is growing at twice the 
rate of job growth in the national average.
  So this generates economic growth here at home, jobs, $417 billion in 
the economy. In terms of the international trade, we have a net surplus 
of $22 billion. And all we sought to accomplish in this bipartisan 
amendment was to keep the agency funded for one more year, one more 
year, at a level of $12 million.
  What the conference report did, it seems to me, is absolutely 
indefensible, both in terms of philosophy as well as pragmatism. It 
will cost us under the provisions of this conference report, to 
terminate this agency immediately, $8 million. We get nothing for that 
$8 million. It simply represents severance pay to existing employees 
and the various costs that are incurred in terminating existing 
contracts. I mean, in is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  This makes no sense at all, Mr. President. And I know the 
distinguished occupant of the chair from my neighboring State knows how 
important tourism is to his own State. We share a common interest in 
one of nature's great wonders in the Southwest, the Grand Canyon.
  International tourism is driven to a large extent in our part of the 
world because of the interest and desire in seeing this great wonder of 
nature. We spend less than Malaysia, Tunisia, countries that are not 
ordinarily identified as states that are in the vanguard of promoting 
tourism.
  So I must say that I think we miss a tremendous opportunity here. We 
just had a very, very successful White House conference on tourism. 
Bipartisan in every sense. It is the first time in the years that I 
have been involved in the tourism movement. And I was very much 
involved, as the Governor of Nevada, in putting together, in our State, 
a strategy at the State level to develop a comprehensive approach to 
tourism that compliments what is done with the local visitor and 
recreation authorities, particularly in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, 
where the two most active authorities exist, putting together that 
partnership which made it possible for us to generate the largest 
growth of tourism that has occurred in the history of Nevada.
  So I must say that I am extraordinarily disappointed in this. It is 
bipartisan in every sense. We ought to, it seems to me, in the interest 
of making some sense, see if we cannot at least keep this agency one 
more transitional year.
  In that sense I certainly would invite comment from either the floor 
manager or the minority floor manager here in terms of, do we have any 
chance, my colleagues, of getting this funding, as the President 
indicated he is going to veto the bill so it will come around again.
  I certainly would pledge to work with the distinguished floor manager 
from New Hampshire, my long-time friend, the former chairman of the 
Senate Commerce Committee and one who actually presided at the birth. 
This ought not to be an issue that divides us, Mr. President, on 
partisan grounds because it has broad bipartisan support. The Governors 
support it. The private sector is most energized, and as I say, this 
White House tourism conference was the first time in years I have been 
involved where we actually brought in every segment of the tourism 
industry, focusing on a strategy of how we can increase our 
international travel.
  I would certainly invite comments from my friend, the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished Senator will yield, Mr. President, 
let me first acknowledge the leadership of the chairman of our tourism 
caucus. As he has indicated, he has correlated a most wonderful 
coordinated effort on both sides of the aisle and more or less some on 
the House side.
  But I say to the Senator, in responding--I must say that the House 
conferees were pretty adamant. The Senator had the cooperation of our 
distinguished chairman. The Senator had the cooperation of this 
particular Senator. And we continue to do our very best. But I can tell 
the Senator, they were pretty intransigent on the House side.
  Mr. BRYAN. I am not unmindful of the difficulties that occur in 
trying to reconcile differences between the two bodies.
  I say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the floor 
manager, the Senator from New Hampshire, I pledge to work with him as 
well to--this is not a partisan issue. And I would certainly, if he has 
any thoughts in terms of how I could be helpful, those of us who have 
spent a good bit of time in trying to work out a reasonable compromise, 
reorganizing that the agency is going to be terminated at the end of 
the next fiscal year under the proposal that we advanced as a 
compromise measure, I certainly would be happy to be guided by his 
suggestion in terms of how we might approach our 

[[Page S 18139]]
colleagues in the House who are perhaps less informed about what this 
means to all of us.

  Whether we are from the West, the Northeast, the South, wherever, 
clearly we have an industry which is growing enormously. We are going 
to have 661 million people that will be traveling throughout the world 
by the turn of the century. And America is the travel bargain of the 
world. I certainly would be happy to yield to my friend from New 
Hampshire and take any suggestions that he might have in terms of how 
one might work with him and our Senate colleagues who understand how 
important this is.
  Mr. GREGG. I certainly appreciate the Senator from Nevada's interest 
in this, and his understanding of the importance that tourism plays in 
the economy, obviously of his great State, but many of our States, 
tourism being the largest employer in the State of New Hampshire.
  However, I think the concerns that the House raised had some 
credibility. They were concerned about the fact that this agency, 
although on a theoretical downward glidepath toward being eliminated, 
may actually have a certain Phoenix-like quality to it, as a result of 
the conference may actually be coming back to us with the request for 
funding which would be in the multiple millions of dollars, 
approximately $50 million as a joint venture exercise.
  So I think they decided that rather than go through the gnashing of 
teeth and trauma of fighting this battle a year from now, to fight it 
now and terminate the agency. They were very insistent in their 
position. I suspect that it will be difficult, depending on how this 
bill comes back, to change that position.
  But I am certainly happy to sit with the Senator and work with him on 
any ideas that he might have. I think the real concern here is that we 
be on a glidepath to termination and that we not be on a glidepath that 
is sort of a touch and go.
  Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate my friend's comments. If I might respond and 
engage him in a constructive colloquy. The $50 million that the Senator 
made reference to is $50 million of private-sector capital. As I am 
sure the Senator from New Hampshire is aware, at the White House 
conference one of the reasons that was part of the compromise--which 
was accepted by the Senate--that was crafted in the fashion in which it 
was was that we recognized that the agency would terminate at the end 
of this fiscal year under the proposal the Senate embraced. Therefore, 
during this transitional year the industry would have to come up with 
this $50 million.
  I say to the Senator--I know he knows this; perhaps our House 
colleagues have not followed as closely; again, I would certainly be 
delighted to work with him--that $50 million is not an attempt to come 
in sideways or in the back door to get $50 million Federal dollars. I 
can represent to the Senator from New Hampshire that, if we can get 
this compromise in a future conference report, because the President 
indicated he is going to veto this, that I will represent to him it 
will be my intention to oppose any attempt to extend the agency beyond 
that year, based upon a representation that we made on the floor.
  So I am not part of any effort, I can assure my colleague, to just 
keep it alive this year and then argue, ``Well, look, we need to keep 
it alive another year.'' This is $12 million. This is it. And this is 
the transitional year for the industry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nevada has 
expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself time.
  The Senator from Nevada has expressed a good case in the context of 
``we are going to terminate this agency; is it $12 million or $2 
million we need to do that.'' The concern the House raised, I think, is 
a legitimate concern.
  I want to give a very distinct clarification on this. As I understood 
the small business conference report, they wanted to follow, or 
suggested they follow, the Canadian system where the private sector 
does put in $50 million, but the Government puts in a matching amount, 
and that there is, if not stated, at least an implication we are going 
to end up with a joint program involving the Federal Government or a 
request for a joint program involving the Federal Government once the 
private sector has raised the $50 million. I think that is the concern. 
That type of contingent, potential liability should be nipped now 
rather than get into the fight at a later date.
  We will certainly rejoin this issue when we get the bill back, and I 
appreciate the Senator's thoughts.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for the purpose of a single 
question?
  Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
  Mr. BRYAN. Let me say, clearly the decision that we deal with is, 
what do we do during this critical year? I understand the concern that 
may be addressed as to, will there be a request next year or the year 
thereafter? I put my own credibility on the line and tell the Senator 
that, to his House colleagues and to our House colleagues who may have 
that concern, this is not a guise to come back next year or the year 
thereafter. This, I think, is a very practical way to deal with the 
situation, which we all acknowledge that the Agency is going to be 
terminated after the end of the year, as a practical matter. For $12 
million, we get the benefit of a functioning Agency; for $8 million, we 
get no benefit at all and simply pay folks to terminate contracts and 
for severance pay.
  To the extent I want to be helpful, I assure the Senator I want to 
work with him and encourage him to use his own legendary persuasive 
skills as a former chief executive of his own State. I have some 
sympathy and understanding of how effective the Senator can be. Our 
distinguished friend from South Carolina also served as a chief 
executive of his State. So, together, we can work on this. We are only 
talking about $12 million. I think we may be able to get that back in.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Nevada. 
Probably the best way we can get that money is to get the entire 
Congress out of here for Christmas.
  At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the 
time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is 
roughly 1 hour 40 minutes under my control. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use up to 
that point.
  I rise today in opposition to the Department of Justice 
appropriations in this conference report and an attempt by my 
Republican colleagues to rewrite the anticrime legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  In my view, it is a lousy idea to rewrite crime policy on an 
appropriations bill, wiping out major programs the Senate created only 
last year after 6 years of extended debate and replacing it with new 
programs without review or debate and doing it all on an appropriations 
bill. It is unnecessary, in my view, and it is completely contrary to 
how the Senate has traditionally worked.
  I assume--and I see the distinguished chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee is here--I assume it is because you cannot get the votes 
straight up and down to change the law through the authorizing process, 
because I have not seen anybody come here to the floor and say they do 
not want 100,000 cops. I have not seen anybody come to the floor and 
say they do not want the prison money the way it is allocated. The 
argument goes on. But it is kind of doing it in a way that obviates 
that kind of debate, discussion and votes on individual items within 
the crime bill.
  We all know that the Republicans have wanted to change the crime 
bill, and they have wanted to change it since it was passed, I assume 
in part because it has a Democratic label on it. I have not heard many 
other compelling reasons why it is a bad idea. But they say it is in 
their Contract With America to change the crime bill. I do 

[[Page S 18140]]
not know anywhere under the Contract With America the American people 
said they do not want 100,000 more cops. I do not know of any police 
under the Contract With America who say they do not want to build any 
more prisons or who say they want to go back to the old LEAA days where 
cops could buy Dick Tracy watches, and small municipalities could buy 
armored personnel carriers, and you could spend money on public 
defenders instead of on a cop, which you can do now the way the 
Appropriations Committee has rewritten this legislation.
  I do not recall anybody who ran as a Republican on the Contract With 
America campaigning on those issues. The fact is that Senator Dole and 
Senator Hatch at least had the good grace to straightforwardly 
introduce a bill to change the 1994 crime law, and they have every 
right to try to do that. They introduced such a bill, but they have not 
chosen to act on it. No one has called up the crime bill.
  Where is the crime bill? I have been hearing since the day that Mr. 
Gingrich became Speaker and the Democrats lost control of the Senate 
that one of the first items on the agenda was a Republican crime bill. 
Well, bring it on. Where is it? Where is the Republican crime bill? Let 
us debate it. But, no, the Republican crime bill is now in the 
appropriations bill, allowing everyone to go back home and say, no, I 
did not eliminate the 100,000 cops; I did not eliminate the drug 
courts; I did not do that; I did not change any of that. All I did was 
vote for an appropriations bill to give you more flexibility.
  Translated, you do not get 100,000 cops. Translated, you do not get 
what is in the crime bill. Where is the Republican crime bill? Please 
bring it to the floor. I have been waiting to debate it. I can hardly 
wait. But it looks like I am going to wait until the next Congress, 
assuming I am here, which is not an assumption I am relying upon.
  This is a blatant attempt to sidestep the usual process in this body 
and, I think, by stealth to try to get it both ways. This bill is, of 
course, dead. Dead. Dead. It is not going nowhere, to use the 
vernacular. It may have the votes to pass here. I hope that allows you 
all to say that you have fulfilled your contract with yourselves, but 
you are sure not fulfilling a contract with the American people.
  I hope you will feel good about that and then maybe, after you come 
back, after the President vetoes this, we will go through this again. 
Let us do it straight up, because I want you to stand up on the floor 
and say, I do not want 100,000 cops. Say it. We will debate it. Take it 
to the people.
  Notwithstanding that we will be right back here doing this again in a 
few days, I should like to list and then explain some of the major 
changes this conference report proposes. First, as I have mentioned, it 
would eliminate the 100,000 cops program that was established a year 
ago in the crime law and maintained in the Senate appropriations bill. 
Because we had this debate, remember. We did this over here through the 
appropriations process. And as they say in the southern part of my 
State, ``Y'all lost.''
  But never fear; Gingrich is here. So you headed to the other side, 
and you caved in in conference and now are back here, I assume in part, 
to be able to go home and say, ``We didn't cut the 100,000 cops 
program.''
  We have already funded more than 25,000 new police officers across 
the country in this first year alone, and I challenge any of you to go 
home and hold a press conference and say you did not want those cops to 
come to your State--25,000. ``Moses'' Heston, better known as Charlton 
Heston, ran ads, was on an ad for months when we were debating this 
crime bill saying there was not even enough money in here for 20,000 
cops. We already have 5,000 more than ``Moses'' thought would be in the 
bill, with 75,000 more to come--unless this became law.
  There are 25,000 that police departments across the Nation have 
already put in place, and police departments across the Nation have 
already applied for more than $0.5 billion in fiscal year 1996 to fund 
an additional 9,000 new cops, and these pending applications are now 
threatened by this conference report. In its place is a law enforcement 
block grant, the old LEAA Program, which is written so broadly that the 
money could be sent back to the States, could be spent on everything 
from prosecutors to probation officers, from traffic lights to parking 
meters, and not a single new cop. The block grant, this block grant 
that is in the bill now has never been authorized by the Senate.

  Let me explain why, when I wrote this bill in the first place, now 
the crime law, I insisted it go for cops. Because the way it works now 
is that in order to get a new cop at home the Federal Government will 
put up roughly $75,000 if the mayor, the county executive, or whomever 
puts up the rest. But it requires the mayor, the county executive, the 
Governor to step up to the ball, stop mouthing to their constituents 
they want more cops; they just cannot do it. But under this 
legislation, they will get the money and they will not buy the cop 
because when they buy the cop, they have to make a commitment they are 
going to keep that cop for 5 years and they are going to 
straightforwardly tell the voters, their constituents, that is what 
they are spending the money for. It is going to be a lot easier for 
them when they do the budget now to say, I can make it look like we are 
making progress here; we will not hire any new cops. We will pay for 
those traffic lights we were going to buy out of our city taxes with 
Federal dollars.
  I used to be a county councilman. That is what we did with the old 
LEAA money. We did not hire any more cops. What we did, we fired cops. 
We fired cops; we fired firemen; we fired law enforcement people who we 
were paying for with county funds and we rehired them with the Fed 
money.
  I see some of the staff on both sides are smiling. That is what we 
did, and that is what will happen again. Because then we would say--I 
will never forget sitting in a county council meeting. The chairman of 
our council was a very distinguished man, his name was C.W. Buck. I 
mean that sincerely. He was a very distinguished Republican. His father 
had been the Governor of the State of Delaware. I turned to Mr. Buck, 
saying, ``Mr. Chairman, how much will this cost us?'' He looked at me 
and said, ``It will not cost anything.'' I said, ``Why?'' He said, ``It 
is Federal money. We don't have to put up a cent.''
  So in New Castle County, DE, and Wilmington, DE, we laid off cops, 
then hired them back with Federal money. What was the net effect? Not 
one ounce of additional public safety, guaranteed. Not one new cop. 
But, boy, it is real appealing when you are the county executive and 
real appealing when you are the Governor and real appealing when you 
are the mayor not to have to come up with any money, and then go tell 
your constituents what you are doing for them.
  Now, look, if Governors and mayors--if the reason you Republicans are 
doing away with this program is in the name of helping localities so 
they do not have to put up their money to get a cop, great. Under the 
existing legislation, they did not have to ask for a cent. There is no 
requirement that says, Athens, GA, must send in a request for more 
cops. Athens, GA, or Berlin, NH, they say, ``We don't want any more 
cops and we don't want any more Federal money.'' No problem. Send it to 
Delaware. We will pay.
  So in the name of helping localities, letting them, from a ``block 
grant''--that is a code word, folks. Block grant means ``we don't have 
to spend it for cops because cops cost us money. It costs us money.'' 
Governors and mayors and county executives, they have their budget 
people coming in saying, ``Look, Gov, look, Mr. County Executive, look, 
Madam Mayor, if you sign on to this, this means we have to, for the 
next x number of years, put in our share of what this additional cop is 
going to cost us.''
  It is like what you find in most States. I have never been to a State 
legislative body--and I have been to a number and had the privilege of 
speaking to a lot of them--but Democrat or Republican, where they did 
not have, in the State legislature, debate that goes like this: ``You 
know, violent crime is an overwhelming problem in the State of x, and 
we must do more to fight crime. We're going to pass laws that increase 
the penalty tenfold, and we are going to do this, and so on.''
  They do pass all the penalty laws. And then somebody has the temerity 


[[Page S 18141]]
to say, ``By the way, we don't have enough prisons to put these people 
in. We don't have the prisons. There's not the space.'' And then what 
do those folks do? Do they go to you, the voters, and say, ``Well, you 
know, we have got to raise your taxes to build more prisons''? Oh, no. 
They tell you how tough they are, and then they let the folks out of 
prison.
  That is why, by the way, nationwide, if you live in the State of 
Pennsylvania, you live in the State of California, you live in the 
State of Texas, when you get sent to jail, you do not go to jail for 
the time for which you are sent. You get 10 years for robbery? You 
serve on average 4.6 years. But guess what? In the Federal Government, 
you get sentenced to 10 years, you go to jail for 10 years. Bingo.
  You ever wonder why folks do not want to be tried in a Federal court 
and they prefer to be tried in a State court, even in tough hang-them 
States like Texas and States like mine? Because they are not nearly as 
tough as the Federal Government, because we put our money where our 
mouth is. We have said, ``You do the crime, you do the time.'' It is 
called the Sentencing Commission. I authored it with several other 
people back in the early 1980's. And we do not fool around.
  The point I am making is one that is not popular to make, and I 
should not make, I am sure my political folks are going to tell me, but 
it is the truth. We let the States off the hook, we let the cities off 
the hook. They will not hire the cops, and that is what you all are 
doing. That is what you Republicans are doing here. It is not going to 
enhance public safety one iota.
  I want 100,000 new cops on the street. That is why I wrote the bill. 
We have roughly 550,000 local police officers. When this crime bill is 
all over and we spend $30 billion, if you all have your way, we will 
have 575,000 cops on the street, maybe. I want 650,000 cops on the 
street. We need more cops.
  Again, you do not have to ask for a single cop, Governor; you do not 
have to ask for a single cop, Madam Mayor; you do not have to ask for a 
single cop, County Executive. But if you ask, you have to kick in, and 
we will give you $75,000 per cop on average. Pretty healthy commitment 
by the Federal Government.
  Let me tell you what else this bill would do. This bill would 
completely eliminate or severely restrict other programs set up in the 
1994 crime law, like the Drug Court Program, the Rural Drug Enforcement 
Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Scholarship Program, the Scams 
Program for fighting telemarketing fraud against senior citizens, that 
the Senator from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Hatch, authored and I coauthored. There are tried and 
tested programs that fight youth violence, for example, by putting 
boys' and girls' clubs in housing projects. Under the 1994 crime law, 
these programs were targeted for separate funds in addition to the 
funds for the 100,000 cops.
  But under the conference report of the Appropriations Committee, a 
mayor would have only the amount of the block grant out of which all 
efforts would have to be funded. The result would be that proven crime-
fighting programs that the Congress voted to support last year would be 
effectively eliminated.
  I hear everybody talk, especially my good friend from Texas, Phil 
Gramm, talk about being tough on crime. And I hear a lot of my folks 
out there--a lot of folks on your side of the aisle--talk about a lot 
of these liberal mayors. Well, guess what the liberal mayors are going 
to be able to do with your block grant? They are going to be able to 
put it all in programs if they want. They can go out and put it all in 
boys' clubs and girls' clubs if they want. They can put it all in 
prevention if they want, and not one new cop if they want.
  Now, all of a sudden, I am amazed how trusting you are. I hear 
Senator Gramm and others talk about the liberal Conference of Mayors. 
Well, my Lord, you are a trusting bunch. You really are. You have seen 
the light. I guess you are for straight prevention now. What do you 
think the cities are going to do with this money? You and they are 
going to go out and hire cops? Oh, yeah, right. With their tight 
budgets? So you folks on the Republican side, I am amazed, have become 
the lily-livered liberals, what I am called over on this side. You all 
are the ones now changing the rules. You are changing the rules.
  Now that this can be all spent for prevention, who are the tough 
guys? I hope you are not going to stand up and make any more of those 
speeches about, ``Lock them up and throw the key away, and don't take 
my mama's gun away,'' the ones we hear, you know, rolled out every 4 
months or so.
  Block grant means just that, it is a block grant: ``Here you go, Mr. 
Mayor, do with it what you wish.''
  You all ran ads, your national party ran ads last election of 
prisoners dancing in tutus. I thought it was really good. It was a 
great ad. It shows these prisoners dancing in pink tutus saying, 
``That's what the Democrats want to do.'' That is not what we did, but 
that is what you are doing. Can you imagine where this money would go 
if Jerry Brown were still Governor?
  And you talk about getting tough on crime? This is not tough on 
crime, this is just dumb. This just does not make any sense. If we are 
going to legislate by fiat like this, then we might as well do away 
with committee systems, with hearings, with subcommittee markups, with 
full committee markups, with careful consideration of authorizing 
legislation. We can simply do all our Senate business by appropriations 
bills, which is the way we are doing it these days.
  I guess I am number--I do not know. I do not know what my number in 
seniority is. I think I am 16, 17, 15, something like that. In light of 
the 99 decisions not to run again for office, if I get elected again, I 
may even be higher.
  I made the wrong pick. I came here to legislate. I should have gone 
on the Appropriations Committee. I made a big tactical mistake here. 
Had I gone on the Appropriations Committee, I would be the No. 3 or 4 
ranking person on that committee. Why have a Judiciary Committee? Why 
have a Commerce Committee? Why do this? They do not legislate any of 
this.
  I ask a rhetorical question: Why did my friends, Senator Dole and 
Senator Hatch, not bring their crime bill to the Judiciary Committee to 
be acted on? Why did we not do that? I respectfully suggest it is 
because they did not have the votes to win. I respectfully suggest that 
in order to win, you would have to say, ``By the way, we don't want 
100,000 cops added by this crime bill; we don't want more prisons built 
in this crime bill the way we had; we want to change it.''
  Any of you who doubt what I am saying, any of the press who is 
listening to this, you go ask any chief of police in the United States 
of America, you go ask any superintendent of the State police in any 
State in America, you go ask the head of any county or city police 
organization, and you ask him or her whether or not they think they 
will fare better with their budgets for their city, State or county 
with a block grant that allows the legislature and the Governor to use 
it any way he wishes, or whether they will fare better with the 
proposal with 100,000 cops. You ask them.
  When I wrote this legislation, Mr. President, I wrote it by first 
calling in the six major police organizations and asking them, ``What 
do you need most to deal with the crime problem in America? What do you 
need the most?'' And they told me. So I wrote the bill with them in the 
room.
  They were the ones who said, point blank, ``If you don't require the 
Governors, the mayors to come up with some of the money for only cops, 
we won't get any new cops, because we're an expensive item. When we sit 
down in the budget process in our town or our city, we have to say to 
the mayor, `Mr. Mayor, if you hire this police officer, you are taking 
on a salary of X amount and benefits of Y amount and you are making a 
long-term commitment, and that is going to impinge on your budget not 
this year but every year that that cop is around.' But when you don't 
do it this way, Joe, what you do is you allow them to say they are 
fighting crime by putting lighting in parks. That is a one-shot 
operation and a utility bill. Putting up traffic lights, that is a one-
shot operation. Hiring a probation officer,'' which I am all for 
hiring, which costs less money and allows the city or county or the 
State to reduce the rest of their State budget to do what they are 
already doing. This is not revenue sharing, this is about cops. 

[[Page S 18142]]

  Now, all that hyperbole about--I even heard one of our colleagues 
saying when we passed the Biden crime bill, it is now the crime law, I 
heard my colleague say, ``All this means is we are just going to hire 
100,000 new social workers.'' I do not think there is anything wrong 
with new social workers. We could stand 100,000 new social workers in 
America. But this is about cops.
  Under the crime law, you cannot use the money for that purpose. But 
my crime-fighting Republican friends and the staff who helped them 
write this--I do not know if the staff realizes what a favor they have 
done for their principals. They have now allowed them to hire 100,000 
social workers. We should rename the bill: ``The social worker bill.'' 
You can hire instead of 100,000 cops--there is not enough money left, 
you can only hire 75,000 new social workers. You cannot do that under 
my bill, under the crime law, and this is masquerading as fighting 
crime.
  I would like to briefly point out that another Republican plan in 
this conference report is to drastically cut Federal law enforcement as 
well. The conference report does the following: It cuts the FBI by $112 
million below the President's request, so new FBI agents will not be 
hired; it cuts the Drug Enforcement Agency, the DEA, $5 million below 
what the President has requested for drug enforcement officers in this 
Nation; it cuts interagency drug enforcement by $15 million below 1995 
and $19 million below what the President has requested; and it cuts 
Federal prosecutors by $13 million below the President's request. So 
much for your credentials of tough on crime.
  I do not know why you are doing this. Maybe it is because you want to 
give tax cuts to people making 250,000 bucks. But for my money, I want 
a prosecutor. I want a new DEA agent. I want more FBI agents. You cut 
all of them, every one of those areas you cut below the President's 
request.
  But as the saying goes, talk is cheap. Talk without commitment of 
dollars is meaningless. Republicans in the conference have failed to 
fund the President's request for Federal law enforcement despite all 
the talk about being for law enforcement.
  (Mr. BROWN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BIDEN. Let us look at these cuts to Federal law enforcement. The 
conference report cuts $5 million from the $54 million boost requested 
for the DEA by the President. Again, we hear a lot of talk about how we 
need more to fight illegal drugs, and there is much finger-pointing 
about that the administration should do more, and they should. But in 
the end, it is the Congress that fails to fund the drug enforcement 
request of the President.
  In yet another important area, let us review what has happened in 
interagency drug enforcement. The organized crime and drug enforcement 
task forces combine the efforts of the FBI, the DEA, U.S. attorneys, 
Immigration and Naturalization and the Marshal Service, Customs 
Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Internal Revenue, all working 
together in 13 regional task forces to target and destroy major 
narcotic trafficking organizations. And you need them all. The 
President requested $378 million for this program, but the Republican 
conference cut this amount by $19 million. This means that we will cut 
the important drug-fighting capacity below the 1995 level. In other 
words, you have all decided that the drug problem, I guess, is less 
worse this year than last year, notwithstanding all your speeches, with 
which I agree, that the problem is worse this year than it was last. 
But you decided to cut it. You did not decide to say we should 
restructure it or that the money is not being used wisely and we should 
redo it; you decided to keep the existing system and cut it.

  Let me also point out that the Republican conference report cuts the 
President's request for U.S. attorneys, U.S. prosecutors. Our Federal 
prosecutors are the ones who prosecute all Federal crimes. You cut this 
by $13 million. The President requested an increase of $86 million to 
boost Federal prosecutors, but the conference report backed away from 
this commitment. In short, the conference report cuts the President's 
request for Federal law enforcement. So our Federal effort against 
crime and drugs will be fought by fewer FBI agents, fewer DEA agents, 
and fewer Federal prosecutors than requested. I assume that is because 
you all think that there is less crime, that there is less of a drug 
problem, and there is less of a need to prosecute.
  If you believe that, this is fine, no problem. But somebody stand up 
and tell me that. Stand up and tell me that is the reason why you cut 
it back. If you tell me you cut it back for budgetary reasons, then I 
say, fine, you have made your priority choice. You have chosen other 
things to spend money on, or to cut taxes for, rather than on these. 
That is a legitimate position to take. But do not get up and tell me 
how you want to fight crime, how it has gotten so bad, how it is so 
terrible, how we want to move so rapidly on it, but, by the way, we can 
all do it with less money and effort. That does not work. That does not 
work, I respectfully suggest. It may work politically, but not 
practically.
  I would like to return to the merits of the 1994 crime law. The 1994 
crime law, in my view, and in the view of law enforcement officers 
across the country, is working. The passage of the major $30 billion 
anticrime package last year capped a 6-year effort to launch a bold and 
comprehensive and tough attack on violent crime in the roots of 
American communities. As we pass the 1 year mark, it is already clear 
that the major programs of the bill are working even beyond my 
expectations. Consider the 100,000 cops program. If this had been a 
typical grant program, the Federal Government would just now, at the 
end of the first fiscal year of funding, be preparing to issue its 
first awards. That is how it has worked in the six Presidential 
administrations I have been here for. They would be just now doing it.
  The better part of the year would have been consumed drafting 
regulations and preparing application forms before money could finally 
be disbursed at the end of the year. The implementation of the 1994 
crime law stands in stark contrast to this typical scenario. Instead of 
requiring burdensome applications that often fail to work and fill 
entire binders, a one-page application was developed by the Attorney 
General. Instead of waiting until the end of the year to distribute the 
funds, the money was awarded in batches beginning only weeks after the 
passage of the law. As a result, we find ourselves, at the end of the 
first year, with nearly all the fiscal year money out the door, with 
all of the funds having already been sent on their way to the States, 
and with more than 25,000 out of 100,000 new cops already funded in 
every State in the Nation. In a word, the law is working.
  In addition to the new police, the law's provisions combating 
violence against women are also working. The first criminal has been 
tried and convicted under the new Federal violence against women 
statute, resulting in a life sentence for Christopher J. Bailey, who 
kidnapped and beat his wife nearly to death. Otherwise, he would have 
only gotten a couple years in jail. In addition, charges have already 
been filed in another case. Every State has received a grant to 
increase the police, prosecutors, and the victim services to combat 
family violence. Rape shield laws have been extended to protect more 
victims. Women no longer have to pay for medical examinations to prove 
they are raped, which had been the practice up until now. The victims 
of rape are finally being treated like the victims of any other crime. 
These long-overdue measures mean that women are now being protected, 
instead of further victimized, by the criminal justice system.
  Another major accomplishment of the 1994 crime law is the military-
style boot camp prisons. Crime law dollars are already at work helping 
27 States plan and build and run military-style boot camps for 
nonviolent offenders. Boot camps allow States suffering from 
overcrowding problems to move nonviolent prisoners into cheaper space. 
Boot camps cost about one-third the price, per bed, as a conventional 
prison, and thereby free up space for the most violent offenders in 
conventional prisons.
  Yet, another effort that is already underway is the drug court 
program. But before I move to that, let me tell you what this prison 
program in the crime law would look like after it goes through this 
reincarnation, were the President not to veto this.
  The prison program in the crime law we passed last year was designed 
to 

[[Page S 18143]]
meet two goals: First, to help States increase and then use to a 
maximum advantage the supply of prison space they have available to 
them. The second purpose was to encourage States to adopt the kind of 
truth-in-sentencing system that has been instituted by the Federal 
Government, to which I referred about 15 minutes ago. Today, prison 
systems in 34 States are under court order for overcrowding, and 
because there are not enough prison cells, many States are keeping 
violent criminals behind bars for roughly only 46 percent of the time 
for which they have been sentenced.
  Worse yet, 30,000 offenders, who each year are convicted of a violent 
crime, do not even see a single, solitary day in prison. That is, 
30,000 convicted in State court systems of a violent crime do not see a 
single day in prison because the States either do not have the money or 
do not have the leadership or do not have the gumption to tell the 
taxpayers that if they want these tough laws, they have to build more 
prisons.
  The 1994 crime law is helping States respond to that problem with a 
$9.7 billion grant program. Under the 1994 crime law, States can use 
the money to build and operate additional secure prison cells for 
violent criminals or for boot camp prisons for nonviolent offenders, 
thereby freeing up secured prison space for violent offenders.
  Let me tell you about these boot camps. Today, there are 160,000 
young, nonviolent minor offenders who are behind bars in costly prison 
cells. That just does not make any sense. They are nonviolent, they are 
first offenders primarily, and they are behind bars at more than what 
it costs per year to send your kid to Harvard or Yale.
  What this does, the crime law encourages States to take them out of 
those systems if they choose, put them in boot camps where you string 
barbed wire, you have the equivalent of Quonset huts. Make them engage 
in military-style activities to occupy them. It does not hurt marines 
or trainees. Surely, it will not hurt them at about one-third the cost.
  I am encouraged that the Republicans' prison proposal permits States 
to use the funds for boot camps. That is an important change, I might 
add, and I compliment them for that on the House bill. But the fact of 
the matter is, it is a big change.
  One of the key problems in the Republican prison plan is it permits 
States only to build or expand prisons, leaving out the ability to 
spend the funds to operate the present system. The State of Florida, 
when we had this debate on the bill, had built new prisons. They are 
sitting there with not a prisoner in them because they do not have the 
money to operate the prisons. They needed them badly but did not have 
the budget to operate them. This just does not make sense.
  When the 1994 prison provisions were written we heard from several 
States about these operating problems. A close look at the fine print 
in this bill reveals what I believe is one of the most troublesome 
aspects. While $617 million is appropriated for prison grants in the 
conference report, the Republican conferees raided $200 million of that 
fund to fund prisons in just seven or eight States.
  Let me explain that. The bill directly funds $300 million to 
reimburse States for the cost of housing criminal aliens in State 
prisons. That was a provision included in the 1994 crime law. I support 
that goal.
  On top of that $300 million in direct appropriations to reimburse 
States for incarcerating criminal aliens, language was slipped into the 
bill so that an additional $200 million was shifted from general prison 
grants for all States through the Criminal Alien Reimbursement Program. 
I assume that was a legacy of the Senator from Texas before he went to 
the Finance Committee. So that means a few States are going to get the 
money.
  I point out to my colleagues if you are not from Arizona, Florida, 
Texas, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California, or Michigan, funds 
that should have gone to building prisons in your States have been 
stolen in this conference report. I think this is outrageous.
  I support the need to reimburse States for these costs, but in the 
1994 crime law, we recognize that crime is plaguing all States, not 
just a few of the largest States in America.
  I have a list here that I ask unanimous consent to have printed at 
this point, entitled ``Conference Report Prison Funding--How Does Your 
State Do?''
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            CONFERENCE REPORT PRISON FUNDING--HOW DOES YOUR STATE DO?                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1994  Crime                                 
                                                                        Law       Conference        Win/Lose    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................................   $5,671,000         (\1\)  .................
Alaska............................................................    1,495,000             0        -$1,495,000
Arizona...........................................................    8,617,000    17,368,000         +8,751,000
Arkansas..........................................................    2,954,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
California........................................................   94,034,000   181,300,000        +87,266,000
Colorado..........................................................    3,822,000             0         +3,822,000
Connecticut.......................................................    3,038,000     6,975,000         +3,937,000
Delaware..........................................................    1,532,000             0         -1,532,000
D.C...............................................................    3,326,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Florida...........................................................   46,535,000    38,262,000         -8,303,000
Georgia...........................................................   14,680,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Hawaii............................................................    1,273,000             0         -1,273,000
Idaho.............................................................    1,279,000             0         -1,279,000
Illinois..........................................................   31,297,000    26,471,000         -5,456,000
Indiana...........................................................    8,561,000     8,423,000           -138,000
Iowa..............................................................    2,179,000         (\1\)  .................
Kansas............................................................    4,300,000     6,674,000         +2,374,000
Kentucky..........................................................    3,422,000             0         -3,422,000
Louisiana.........................................................   13,445,000     9,956,000         -3,499,000
Maine.............................................................    1,050,000             0         -1,050,000
Maryland..........................................................    8,175,000             0         -8,175,000
Massachusetts.....................................................    8,004,000             0         -8,004,000
Michigan..........................................................   11,958,000     15,764,00         +3,806,000
Minnesota.........................................................    3,013,000     6,981,000         +3,968,000
Mississippi.......................................................    3,996,000     6,593,000         +2,597,000
Missouri..........................................................   11,616,000     9,478,000         -2,138,000
Montana...........................................................    1,040,000             0         -1,040,000
Nebraska..........................................................    2,329,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Nevada............................................................    4,188,000     6,614,000         +2,426,000
New Hampshire.....................................................    1,248,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
New Jersey........................................................    8,152,000    14,185,000         +6,033,000
New Mexico........................................................    3,050,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
New York..........................................................   54,953,000    45,227,000         -9,726,000
North Carolina....................................................   13,892,000    10,310,000         -3,582,000
North Dakota......................................................      893,000     5,392,000         +4,499,000
Ohio..............................................................   16,313,000    11,293,000         -5,020,000
Oklahoma..........................................................    3,864,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Oregon............................................................    5,046,000             0         -5,046,000
Pennsylvania......................................................   14,756,000    10,769,000         -3,987,000
Rhode Island......................................................    1,415,000     5,752,000         +4,337,000
South Carolina....................................................   11,150,000     9,209,000         -1,941,000
South Dakota......................................................    1,040,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Tennessee.........................................................    6,617,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Texas.............................................................   21,224,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Utah..............................................................    1,650,000     5,928,000         +4,278,000
Vermont...........................................................    1,001,000         (\1\)  .................
Virginia..........................................................    7,514,000     7,875,000           +361,000
Washington........................................................    8,312,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
West Virginia.....................................................    1,382,000         \2\ 0              \2\ 0
Wisconsin.........................................................    2,797,000             0         -2,797,000
Wyoming...........................................................    1,191,000         \2\ 0             \2\ 0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No data.                                                                                                    
\2\ State is ineligible for Conference ``Truth in Sentencing'' grants, sufficient data not available for        
  determining eligibility under Conference ``general'' grants.                                                  
                                                                                                                
 Source: State data compiled by National Institute of Corrections and Department of Justice.                    

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me point out to you, if you are in 
Alaska you will get $1.495 million less; if you are in Colorado, you 
get $3.822 million less; in Delaware, you get $1.532 million less; in 
Maine, you get $1.050 million less; in Maryland, $8 million less; in 
Massachusetts, $8 million less; Missouri, $2 million less--I am 
rounding these numbers down--in Montana, $1 million less. I did not 
think that was the deal.
  There are more problems with what they did with prisons in this 
conference report. In the crime law, it permits all States to qualify 
for one or both pots of the prison money. There are two pots of prison 
money. There is 50 percent for general grants that essentially all 
States receive because there are no hard strings or conditions on these 
dollars, and 50 percent of the money is to go to States which meet the 
truth-in-sentencing standards we set out.
  The Republican conference also splits prison dollars into two pots, 
but States are forced to choose either one or the other, even if they 
qualify for both. This is the second reason why so many States will get 
so many fewer prison dollars on a Republican conference report. It 
seems to me to be written by Speaker Gingrich to favor only the biggest 
States.
  There is a third problem that most Senators will be hearing about 
from the prison officials in their States. I know none of the Senators 
is likely to be listening to this. They are doing other things, 
including being in conferences and hearings themselves, but in addition 
to the Senators on the floor, warn your Senators and be prepared that 
if this becomes law, you will get a call, most of you, from your home 
State. You will have to answer them, ``Why did you cut the money for 
prisons in my State? Why did you do that?''
  I strongly urge you to take a look at this little chart that I have 
just printed in the Record.
  To illustrate the problem with these changes, conditions, let me 
review the situation from my home State. First of all, truth-in-
sentencing grants: The conference report changes both the standard and 
the language so that despite the fact that Delaware, unlike all 

[[Page S 18144]]
but one other State in America, keeps its violent criminals behind bars 
for 90 percent of the time for which they are sentenced--unlike 
Pennsylvania or Maryland, my neighboring States, or New Jersey, it is 
one of the highest rates in the Nation, according to the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics--because Delaware State law only refers to a 75 
percent floor, Delaware is not eligible for truth-in-sentencing grants 
under this little change.
  Second, general grants: The conference changes the rules to require 
increased time served by State prisoners since 1993. Well, Delaware's 
truth-in-sentencing law came into effect in 1990. We have been doing 
the right thing since 1990. But, no, it gets changed. Delaware cannot 
increase the time served since 1993 since we already did it in 1990. 
You cannot get above 100 percent. That is just one illustration how my 
State and many others are going to be out in the cold.
  It is one illustration out of the conference report that cuts prison 
dollars for a State. I am sure there are other explanations where other 
States will have their prison dollars slashed if this conference report 
were to become law.
  My staff has prepared this for me, and the title of the next section 
is ``Why Does Utah Do So Well?'' The conference report includes a 
special exception, one that appears to help Utah and perhaps a few 
other States, in the truth-in-sentencing prisons.
  Section 20104, subsection (a), subsection (3) permits only those 
States with indeterminate sentencing to meet the 85 percent truth-in-
sentencing standard if they serve 85 percent of their time under the 
State's sentencing and release guidelines.
  Translated, if you have indeterminate sentencing, you get the money. 
Well, far be it for me to criticize that. Some day I hope to be 
chairman of the committee again and I hope to take unfair advantage of 
the process for my State. I am not criticizing, but I am complementing 
my friend from Utah.
  He does what a good chairman should do. He changed the law to benefit 
his State at the expense of other States. I understand that. I would do 
the same thing if I were in his position. It is legitimate. But I just 
point out that Utah has indeterminate sentencing.
  Second, the term ``sentencing and release guidelines'' has some 
circular logic. The only way someone can get out of prison under an 
indeterminant sentencing law is either when they have served a maximum 
sentence or under some sort of release guideline. So this definition is 
a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prisoners have to serve 100 percent of the 
time they have to serve.
  That is kind of fascinating, is it not? If it is indeterminate, you 
say at the end of this, they served all the time they were supposed to 
serve so now they served 100 percent of their time so now you qualify 
for that pot of money. I think it is really good. I mean, it is 
admirable. If I become chairman of the Judiciary Committee again, 
assuming I get reelected, which is certainly an assumption, and 
assuming the Democrats take back this place, I want to hire one of the 
staffers who gave this idea to Senator Hatch, because it is 
magnificent.
  The only States in the Union that really do not keep their folks in 
prison are the ones with indeterminate sentences, but they are the ones 
who qualify to be the toughest because, by definition, you would have 
kept them in as long as they were supposed to be in because you never 
said how long they had to be in. So, then, all of a sudden, when you 
release them, they had been in all the time they were supposed to. That 
is brilliant, absolutely brilliant. But it does not have a darned thing 
to do with what was the intent of the law. This is a definition of a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.
  The bottom line of all this is 34 States can expect to lose prison 
money under this conference report. Again, I have to admit, I admire 
the ingenuity of my friends. I might add, though, it is easier to do 
this--I wonder what would happen if we had to vote as if this were a 
crime bill. If this were a crime bill, you would have to defend that. 
You would have to defend it. You would have to stand up and say why 
that is a good idea, and I would beat you. I would beat you even on 
your side. I would even get Republicans to vote with me.
  But you figured out a way to keep that from happening. You put it in 
an appropriations bill so we do not have to do that. We can avoid the 
messy stuff of legislating. We can avoid the messy process of having to 
stand up and vote on this stuff. Do you remember how many votes we had 
on prison funding when we had the crime bill up? It went on and on and 
on.
  The reason I point this out again--I mean this sincerely--is not to 
criticize Senator Hatch. I think it is a great idea. I think if I were 
he--I wish I had thought of it. But I want to tell you, the bottom line 
is 34 States are going to get less money. If we voted on that, from my 
23 years here, the calculus usually means 34 States beat the remainder. 
But, I say to the ranking member of the committee, these guys did it 
well. They did a good job. They really rode you. You did not have the 
votes. I know you fought like the devil on this one, but they did it 
well. This is really a masterful piece of work.
  In the absence of my friend from South Carolina from the floor--I do 
not want to get him in trouble, but he is the guy primarily responsible 
for getting me elected, if anybody had helped me, in 1972. But I kind 
of have a growing resentment toward him. He did not tell me to get on 
the Appropriations Committee when I got here. I thought you legislated 
here. I thought the process was, you were to get on authorizing 
committees. If I wanted to change the criminal justice system, I 
thought I was supposed to get on the Judiciary Committee. I did that, 
and I became the senior Democrat on that committee--sometimes running 
it on the minority side, sometimes the majority side.
  It took me all this time to figure it out, you steered me wrong, 
Boss. You did not send me the right way. I should have gone to 
appropriations, because anything I do in that committee--it took me 6 
years to put this bill together. We fought it and fought it and fought 
it and fought it, and when you came up with harebrained ideas like 
indeterminate sentencing qualifies, I was able to whip you straight up 
and down. But now I do not even get a chance to do that.
  So, I am at some point going to offer an amendment saying that the 
U.S. Senate should meet as a Committee of the Whole, and we should call 
ourselves the Appropriations Committee, and we all get a chance at 
this. I would like to get in on this.
  Russell Long, Senator Long, with whom I served for a long time--not 
nearly as long as the Senator from South Carolina did--used to use that 
expression ``I ain't for no deal I'm not in on.'' It is obvious I am 
not in on this deal anymore. I authored the bill, but I am out of it. I 
do not even get to debate it in the usual form where you get to vote on 
it. If my friends are willing to have a freestanding amendment on this, 
we could ask unanimous consent to waive the rules to allow a vote on 
the prison funding piece. I would welcome that. In the interests of 
fairness, they might be willing to do that. What do you think? I know 
the Senator from Massachusetts would support me in that effort, I 
expect. Maybe we ought to do that. But I have a feeling we are not 
going to get to do that.
  There is another effort that is already underway. That is that thing 
called the Drug Court Program. This is a long-overdue drug program to 
crack down on--let me give you the numbers--600,000 drug-abusing 
offenders who are on our streets today, subject to no random drug 
testing, no mandatory treatment, and no threat of punishment.
  Let me translate that for you. Mr. President, 600,000 folks who were 
arrested--actually there were about 1.4 million or 1.6 million arrested 
in America--1.4 million. And here is what happened. There are a total 
of 2.7 million State offenders who are on probation. There are 1.4 
million drug offenders on probation. There are 800,000 of that 1.4 
million who are being tested and treated. And there are 600,000 
convicted--convicted--convicted drug offenders; not arrested. These are 
people who either pled guilty or have been convicted in a court of law, 
who are on the street--no probation, no parole, no testing, no 
treatment, ``no nothin','' as my Aunt Gerty used to say, ``no 
nothin'.''
  So we came up with an idea. We actually got it from a Republican 
judge in Delaware, and Dade County, FL. It is 

[[Page S 18145]]
called drug courts. Let me tell you what drug courts do. They capture 
those 600,000 folks and they say, ``Here is the deal. You either--you 
are subject to random drug testing. If you have a job, you have to keep 
a job. If you are in school, you have to stay in school. You have to 
show up for intensive probation. And if you do not do any of those 
things, you go to jail--probably one of the boot camps which we 
funded.''
  But my Republican friends--who I think are getting soft on crime, if 
not soft in the head on this stuff--they decided we might as well let 
those 600,000 folks wander the streets, every one of whom is an 
accident waiting to happen. Every one is an accident waiting to happen.
  Before they put drug courts in Dade County, FL, the rearrest rate for 
one-time drug offenders was 36 percent. After several years of these 
drug courts, the rearrest rate is down to 3 percent. These work and 
they work in my State.
  But what is the wisdom here? It is better to be soft than tough? Let 
us do away with this program. The Justice Department has already funded 
efforts to help local officials plan 52 new drug courts, begin 5 new 
drug courts and expand 8 other drug courts including one in my home 
State, that a Republican court, a Republican judge, a Republican 
attorney general have put together.
  Despite this concrete record of success, the conference report would 
eliminate the separately targeted $150 million Drug Court Program and 
require States to fund drug courts, if at all, out of the money that 
could be spent on hiring cops on the beat. In real terms, this could 
mean about 85,000 drug-abusing offenders will not be subject to drug 
testing and mandatory treatment.
  The other provisions of the 1994 crime law that are not affected by 
this bill are also proving to be very effective in combating crime, 
such as provisions against sexual offenders, death penalty provisions, 
the Brady law, the criminal alien provisions.
  The reason I say ``not affected,'' remember we had this debate 
before. My Republican friends decided what they were going to do is cut 
money for the violence against women legislation and do it by the 
appropriating process. Do it that way. Legislate it that way. And the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina came along and said--which he 
always does, and I am grateful--``By the way, Joe, let me tell you what 
is coming.'' And through his leadership we sort of just stood up and 
said, ``Hey, look what they are doing.''
  We didn't do anything special. They insisted they were going to make 
the cut. We were going to debate it. We hung on, hung on, hung on, and 
the very guy who suggested the cut--and I admire him, I truly do, 
Senator Gramm of Texas--he ended up introducing the amendment to 
restore the money for the violence against women law. So it is not cut 
here. I guess my Republican friends have heard the call that they had 
better not fool around with that piece of it.

  The reason I am taking so much time today knowing that this is going 
nowhere anyway--it is going to be defeated--is this is my attempt to 
play a small part in raising the same kind of call. The new call is OK. 
We finally got the Republicans to not fool with the violence against 
women law. They are not going to. They will not have the nerve to try 
to cut that again. They will not have the nerve to try to cut it again.
  But guess what, folks? They are now going after your cops. The answer 
is going to be, look, we are not cutting anything. The total dollars 
are cut, but we are not cutting anything. We are just telling the 
States we are giving you a pot of money and you do with it what you 
want. So if you want to hire the cops, you can hire the cops.
  Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. Surely.
  Mr. KERRY. As a preface to a couple of questions, I'd like to thank 
the Senator and ask to be completely associated with his comments--the 
extraordinary, astute, and accurate comments--that precede these 
questions.
  I also would preface it by saying that there is nobody in the Senate 
who has worked harder to produce a real comprehensive, systemic 
response to crime than the Senator from Delaware.
  But, is it not true--I ask the Senator having worked together with 
him on this question of police officers and cops on our streets--that 
today we have, I believe, one-tenth the effective strength of police 
officers in the streets that we had 30 years ago? Is that not true?
  Mr. BIDEN. That is true. If I can expand 60 seconds on the answer, I 
say to my friend that 30 years ago for every crime committed, every 
felony committed, there were three cops. Today for every three crimes 
committed there is one cop. There used to be three cops for every 
felony committed. Now we have for every cop three felonies committed. 
Of the 20 largest States in the Nation, if you look at the last 10 
years, the increase in their police force is about 1 percent. Even 
though the populations are growing, the crime wave is growing above 
that. The 30-to-10 number the Senator suggests I cannot swear is the 
number, but it is close.
  Mr. KERRY. From 1971 to 1990, in the midst of this increase in crime 
wave, and in the midst of the diminution in the number of police 
officers, we increased the Federal spending on lawyers and public 
defenders by 200 percent, and we increased prison spending by 156 
percent. But we only increased the spending on police officers by 12 
percent.
  I ask the Senator, is it not true that the effort to put 100,000 
police directly into the streets of America--the least costly, the 
least administratively overburdened manner--was a direct response from 
police officers themselves, from police chiefs themselves, and from 
mayors all across this country who simply did not have the ability to 
respond to this crime wave?
  Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend that he is absolutely categorically 
correct. And there is one other piece of this. After years of hearings, 
extensive hearings on the issue of violent crime in America--I realize 
it does not mean much in the new process; you just do appropriations--
but after years of hearings, there are only a few things that we know 
about crime. The Senator, as a former prosecutor, knows this better 
than the Senator from Delaware. If there is a cop on one corner, and 
there is not a cop on the other, it is much more likely that the crime 
will be committed where the cop is not. I mean it sounds bizarre. We do 
not know that much about criminal behavior except we know that where 
there are cops and where there is light there is less crime--prevention 
of crime; let alone the arrest and prosecution, prevention of crime.
  So the purpose of the 100,000 cops and the purpose for the request 
from the cops was that they are outmanned, they are outgunned, and they 
are outwitted because of all the array of technology, the new and the 
different nature of crime in America. That is why we need more cops. 
That is why they asked for them.
  Mr. KERRY. If I could further ask my friend a question, is it not 
also true that while some communities may decide they do not need nor 
want a cop, for that community that might make that decision, there are 
probably 10 or 15 or 20 or 100 other ones in the country that could use 
2 or 3 or 4 cops but which cannot get them because even the 100,000 
cops is not enough to do what we ought to be doing?
  Mr. BIDEN. I answer my colleague by saying the following: Look at the 
applications that have come in. I will once again compliment the 
Attorney General. Find me a cop in your State or in the State of 
California, New Hampshire, or South Carolina representative of Senators 
on the floor, or Colorado, who calls the process burdensome; the one-
page application, No. 1. No. 2, of the applications every single month 
there are more applications than there is money. They would probably be 
able to sustain 200,000 more cops. I am pulling that number out. I do 
not know for a fact. I know there are more applications than there is 
money.
  Since my time is running out, I only have 3 minutes left, I am told, 
may I conclude rather than answer, on another question?
  I would like to reiterate that in its breadth the 1984 crime law 
reflects the lessons that have been learned over the past decade as we 
studied crime and law enforcement, and have worked on passing this law. 
And in its approach, 

[[Page S 18146]]
as well as in its many specifics, the law was a result of bipartisan 
efforts. We should not retreat on this tough but smart crime package. 
It already is hard at work preventing violent crime across the country. 
We should not retreat on the 100,000 cops program that we insisted on 
just a few months ago.
  Let me point out that the $30 billion crime trust fund that uses the 
savings from cutting 272,000 Federal bureaucrats--160,000 have already 
left--pays for every cop, for every prison cell, and for every shelter 
for a battered woman and child. That is provided for in this crime bill 
without adding to the deficit or requiring 1 red cent additional in 
taxes. That was the deal we made right here on the Senate floor 1 year 
ago.
  Now my Republican colleagues are trying to block out what we did, and 
back out of the deal by refusing to write the checks for next year's 
funding of the crime law. The money is there in the trust fund.
  I have tried today to outline my objections to the Republican retreat 
represented by this conference report on the key provisions of the 
anticrime law last year.
  So I urge my colleagues to consider very carefully whether this is 
the right form, the right idea, to dismantle these vital parts of the 
already successful and highly popular crime bill.
  In the end I suspect that the merits will speak for themselves, and 
the American people will decide whether it is a good idea to take this 
trust fund money and spend it on 100,000 cops and the other programs 
here, or reduce it and send it out in block grants. And $525 million in 
applications are out there as we speak. Already, as of November 16, the 
Justice Department has received applications for an additional 9,100 
cops under the 100,000 cops program beyond the 26,000 that have already 
been granted.
  This is concrete evidence that the 100,000 cops program is working, 
is necessary, is local, and is needed. The shift to a block grant is 
wrong for many reasons. The 9,100 additional police that are all ready 
to go and waiting for us only to finish this political debate, is the 
most important reason why to shift the block grant is the wrong thing 
to do. Let us not try to change horses in midstream. This program is 
working.
  If my Republican friends need to be able to say they have a 
Republican crime bill so that they can meet their contract pledge, let 
them pass the antiterrorism bill that we passed. It is the Hatch-Biden 
bill. Let us call it the Hatch-Republican bill. Let that be your crime 
bill. You can go back to your Republican conservative friends and say, 
``You have a crime bill''--in order to meet a pledge that no one signed 
on to to dismantle one of the few big Federal programs that is working, 
working well, working without additional bureaucracy, and to do the 
job.
  Let me say in final conclusion, if you doubt what I am saying, I 
challenge you to go home and find out that for every new cop that this 
new bill has in fact funded so far, just ask the police chief, or the 
commissioner of police, for whom that cop works, to list the number of 
dollars that cop has made. Then go get the names of the people that 
police officer has collared, has arrested--the criminal who he gets who 
names the victims. And then you go ask those victims whether or not 
this crime law made any sense.
  This all comes down to the little tiny things, and the little tiny 
things here are making sure there are fewer victims of crime, and that 
those victims are in fact getting their day if court, and that they 
find the bad guy. That is why we need more cops.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Department of Justice 
appropriations in this conference report and the attempt by my 
Republican colleagues to rewrite anticrime legislation on an 
appropriations bill.


                         Procedural objections

  It is, in my view, a terrible idea to rewrite crime policy--wiping 
out major programs the senate created only last year and replacing them 
with new programs without review or debate--on an appropriations bill. 
It is unnecessary and completely contrary to how the Senate has 
traditionally worked.
  We all know the Republicans want to change the crime law now at work. 
They said so in their Contract With America. House Republicans passed a 
new bill.
  Here, Senators Dole and Hatch introduced their bill to change the 
1994 crime law. They have every right to try to do so.
  But they have not chosen to do so. Their bill has never been acted on 
by the Senate, or even had one hearing. Instead, what we now have with 
this conference report is an attempt to change the current law by 
lifting entire parts of the crime bill passed in the House and 
attaching them to this appropriations bill. That House crime bill has 
already been rejected by the Senate when we amended the appropriations 
bill to restore the 100,000 cops on the beat program a couple of months 
ago.
  This blatant attempt to sidestep the usual deliberative process of 
this body is, I believe, a terrible way to make law.
  This bill is, of course, dead. It will be vetoed because, among other 
reasons, it eliminates the commitment the President and Congress made 
to the American people to get 100,000 cops on the beat. And it will 
continue to be vetoed until my Republican colleagues get the message 
that there will be no new crime bill without the 100,000 cops on the 
beat program. The Senate has already rejected this bill without the 
100,000 cops program and it should do so again.


                 Overview of the problems with the bill

  Notwithstanding that we'll be right back here doing this again in a 
few days, I'd like to list and then explain some of the major changes 
this conference report proposes.
  First, as I've mentioned, it would eliminate the 100,000 cops program 
established 1 year ago in the crime law and maintained in the Senate 
appropriations bill.
  The 100,000 cops on the beat program has already funded more than 
25,000 new police officers across the country in its first year alone. 
And police departments across the Nation have already applied for more 
than one-half of a billion dollars in fiscal year 1996 to fund more 
than 9,000 new police. These pending applications are now threatened by 
this conference report.
  In its place is a law enforcement block grant program that is written 
so broadly that the money could be spent on everything from prosecutors 
to probation officers to traffic lights or parking meters--and not a 
single new cop.
  This block grant has never been authorized by the Senate.
  Let's be clear on what is being done here. What this conference 
report does is take a crime bill that has been passed only by the 
House, whose funds have been authorized only by the House, whose block 
grant idea has already been rejected by the Senate, and incorporate it 
into the appropriations bill so it is passed and funded--all in one 
fell swoop.
  I will speak more about the 100,000 cops program in a minute, but let 
me note that, in addition, the bill would completely eliminate or 
severely restrict other programs set up by the 1994 crime law--programs 
like: the drug court system, the rural drug enforcement grant program, 
the law enforcement scholarship program, the SCAMS Program fighting 
telemarketing fraud against senior citizens, and tried and tested 
programs that fight youth violence, for example, by putting boys and 
girls clubs in housing projects.
  Under the 1994 crime law, these programs were targeted for separate 
funds in addition to the funds for the 100,000 cops program. But under 
the conference report, mayors would have only the amount of the block 
grant--out of which all efforts would have to be funded.
  The result will be that proven crime-fighting programs that the 
Congress voted to support last year would be effectively eliminated, 
all without any consideration by the Judiciary Committee or the full 
Senate as to the wisdom of these changes. And all with the strong 
opposition of the Nation's law enforcement community.
  Mr. President, if we are going to legislate by fiat like this, then 
we might as well do away with committees, with hearings, with 
subcommittee markups, with full committee markups, and with careful 
consideration of authorizing legislation.
  We could simply do all the Senate's business on appropriations bills.
  I, for one, happen to believe that's a terrible way to proceed and I 
believe 

[[Page S 18147]]
that's reason enough to oppose this bill. The American people are not 
well served when major policy changes are made under the time limits 
facing us on these appropriations bills.
  If the Republicans want to change the crime bill, they have the right 
to try--but let's do it the right way and then let's vote on it. Wiping 
out major pieces of the most significant anti-crime legislation ever 
passed by the Congress on an appropriations bill makes a mockery of our 
Senate process. The importance of the programs we are considering, not 
to mention the perception of our institution, demands better.
  But, given that we are here, I will insist on a full opportunity to 
debate with my colleagues the merits of last year's crime law programs 
affected by this bill.
  Before I do that, I first want to briefly point out that another 
Republican plan in this conference report is to drastically cut Federal 
law enforcement. This conference report cuts the FBI by $112 million 
below the President's request--so new FBI agents will not be hired; 
cuts the Drug Enforcement Agency by $5 million below the President's 
request; cuts interagency drug enforcement by $15 million below 1995 
and $19 million below the President's request; and cuts Federal 
prosecutors by $13 million below the President's request.
  Let me address these cuts to federal law enforcement. The president 
requested an increase of $337 million for FBI agents and other FBI 
activities--but the Republicans cut $112 million from that request.
  We frequently hear claims in Congress of how much we support law 
enforcement.
  But, as the saying goes, talk is cheap. Talk--without the commitment 
of dollars--is meaningless. The Republicans on the conference have 
failed to fund the President's request for Federal law enforcement, 
despite all the talk about being for law enforcement.
  Let's look at these cuts to Federal law enforcement: the conference 
report cuts $5 million from the $54 million boost requested for Drug 
Enforcement Agency agents by the President.
  Again, we hear a lot of talk about how we need to do more to fight 
illegal drugs, and there is much finger-pointing about how the 
administration should do more--but in the end it is the Congress that 
fails to fund the drug enforcement requested by the President.
  In yet another important area, let's review what has happened in 
inter-agency drug enforcement. The organized crime and drug enforcement 
task forces combine the efforts of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, 
U.S. Attorneys, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Marshals' 
Service, Customs Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Internal Revenue 
Service--all working together in 13 regional task forces to target and 
destroy major narcotics trafficking organizations.
  The President requested $378 million for this program--but the 
Republican conference cut this amount by $19 million. This means that 
we will cut this important drug-fighting capability below the 1995 
level.
  In other words, we are not talking about less of an increase--we are 
talking about cutting a significant part of this program.
  Let me also point out that the Republican conference report cuts the 
President's budget request for U.S. attorneys--our Federal 
prosecutors--by $13 million. The President requested an increase of $86 
million to boost Federal prosecutors, but the conference report backed 
away from this commitment.
  In short, this conference report cuts the President's request for 
Federal law enforcement. So our Federal effort against crime and drugs 
will be fought by--fewer FBI agents; fewer DEA agents; and fewer 
Federal prosecutors.
  What is one to conclude from the efforts of the Republicans to gut 
the 100,000 cops on the beat program and severely reduce Federal law 
enforcement? Is it that tax cuts to a few are more important than 
protecting the safety of average Americans?
  Now I'd like to return to the merits of the 1994 crime law.


                     The 1994 Crime Law is working

  The passage of the major $30 billion anticrime package last year 
capped a 6-year effort to launch a bold, comprehensive, and tough 
attack on violent crime and its roots in American communities.
  And as we pass the 1-year mark, it is already clear that the major 
programs of the bill are working even beyond expectation.
  Consider the 100,000 cops program. If this had been a typical grant 
program, the Federal Government would just now--at the end of the first 
fiscal year of funding--be preparing to issue the first awards.
  The better part of a year would have been consumed drafting 
regulations and preparing application forms before money could finally 
be disbursed at the end of the year.
  The implementation of the 1994 crime law stands in stark contrast to 
that typical scenario. Instead of requiring burdensome applications 
that often filled entire binders, one-page applications were developed. 
Instead of waiting until the end of the year to disburse the funds, the 
money was awarded in batches beginning only weeks after passage of the 
law.
  As a result, we find ourselves at the end of the first year with 
nearly all the fiscal year's money out the door--all of the funds have 
already on their way to the States--and with more than 25,000 out of 
100,000 cops already funded in every State in the Nation. In a word, 
the law is working.
  In addition to the new police, the law's provisions combating 
violence against women are also working.
  The first criminal has been tried and convicted under the new Federal 
violence against women statute, resulting in a life sentence for 
Christopher J. Bailey, who kidnaped and beat his wife nearly to death.
  In addition--charges have already been filed in another case.
  Every State has received a grant to increase police, prosecutors, and 
victim services to combat family violence.
  Rape shield laws have been extended to protect more victims.
  And women no longer have to pay for medical exams to prove they are 
raped--the victims of rape are finally being treated like the victims 
of any other crime.
  These long overdue measures mean that women are now being protected--
instead of further victimized--by the criminal justice system.
  Another major accomplishment under the 1994 crime law is the 
military-style boot camp prisons: crime law dollars are already at work 
helping 27 States plan, build, and run military-style boot camp prisons 
for non-violent offenders.
  Boot camp prisons allow States suffering from overcrowding problems 
to move non-violent prisoners into cheaper space--boot camps cost about 
one-third the price per bed than conventional prisons--thereby freeing 
up space for most violent offenders.
  Yet another effort that is already underway is the drug court 
program--a long overdue program to finally crack down on the 600,000 
drug-abusing offenders who are on our streets today, subject to no 
random drug testing, no mandatory treatment, and no threat of 
punishment.
  The Justice Department has already funded efforts to help local 
officials plan 52 new drug courts, begin 5 new drug courts, and to 
expand 8 other drug court programs (including one in my home State of 
Delaware.)
  Despite this concrete record of success, the conference report would 
eliminate the separately targeted $150 million drug court program and 
require states to fund drug courts, if at all, out of the money that 
could be spent on hiring cops on the beat. In real terms, this could 
mean that about 85,000 drug abusing offenders will not be subject to 
drug testing and mandatory treatment.
  Other provisions of the 1994 Crime Law that are not affected by this 
bill are also proving to be very effective in combating crime, such as 
the provisions against sexual offenders, the death penalty provisions, 
the Brady Law, and the criminal alien provisions.
  So, Mr. President, last year's crime bill has achieved an 
extraordinary measure of success during its first year in operation.
  Yet, despite all of these accomplishments under the 1994 Crime Law, 
the anti-crime law is still under attack by the Republicans. Just as 
the entire scheme of anti-crime initiatives is taking hold, they would 
eliminate or dismantle many of the law's critical programs and reverse 
the progress that is being made. 

[[Page S 18148]]

  So while it is important to note the success we are having in 
implementing the act, that is not enough.
  We must also review at this point why the 1994 Crime Law represents 
the right approach to reducing the problem of violent crime in this 
country and why Republican proposals would prematurely divert us off 
the right track and unwisely point us in the wrong direction.


                    The merits of the 1994 Crime Law

  During the six-year period it took to enact this law, we undertook a 
major study and evaluation of the current system to pinpoint the 
weaknesses in anti-crime approaches. And for the first time, the 
Federal Government made a major commitment to help states and 
localities--where 95 percent of crime occurs and is prosecuted--redress 
the greatest shortcomings of our system.
  In the course of the crime study, six key shortcomings of our current 
system became evident:
  1. Most importantly, we do not have enough police out on the streets 
and in our neighborhoods.
  2. We do not have enough prison cells for violent offenders --so they 
end up serving, on average nationwide, only 46 percent of their 
sentences.
  3. We have not come up with an effective response to criminals who 
abuse drugs.
  4. We do not treat family violence as serious crime.
  5. Our police are outgunned by criminals.
  6. And our nation's troubled children--who are growing up in a world 
of illegal drugs, guns, crime and violence--don't have safe places to 
go and lack positive activities to motivate them toward productive 
endeavors.
  The comprehensive anti-crime bill passed by the congress last year 
was designed to address each of these key shortcomings.
  This law is now providing an unprecedented infusion of Federal 
dollars to states and localities--to help them attack crime both at the 
back end--with more money for law enforcement and prisons; and at the 
front end--with more money for prevention programs that can help keep 
would-be criminals off the road to ruin in the first place.

  The Crime Law reflects the primary lesson learned over the last 
decade as we studied crime and law enforcement--that all of the 
shortcomings in our system must be addressed together, that correcting 
one without the others is futile--because crime offers no single, easy 
answer.
  I had hoped to spend this year watching over the smooth and speedy 
implementation of the law, while turning my focus to those substantial 
crime-related issues still before us--including a renewed fight against 
illegal drugs, and reform of our juvenile justice system as it 
struggles to deal with violent young criminals the current system was 
never designed to handle.
  But instead of building upon the success the crime law already is 
having and moving forward to critical new challenges, the Congress of 
the United States is in full retreat. The House has already dismantled 
the crime law, and now the Senate will decide whether it will follow 
suit.
  This premature about-face after finally putting in place the most 
comprehensive and carefully crafted set of anti-crime programs in our 
history is not only foolish but irresponsible.
  We owe it to the American people to follow through with the measures 
we promised them and which they demanded for the past several years.
  Let me address the merits of these programs.


                       The 100,000 police program

  Let me turn first to the central provision of the new law--the 
100,000 cops on the beat program that I will fight with all my might to 
preserve.
  I do not know a single responsible police leader, academic expert, or 
public official who does not agree that putting more police officers on 
our streets and in our neighborhoods is the best way to fight crime.
  Community policing enables police to fight crime on two fronts at 
once--they are better positioned to respond and apprehend suspects when 
crime occurs, but even more importantly, they are also better 
positioned to keep crime from occurring in the first place.
  I've seen this work in my home State of Delaware, where community 
policing in Wilmington takes the form of foot patrols aimed at breaking 
up the street-level drug dealing that had turned one Wilmington 
neighborhood into a crime zone.
  These efforts successfully put a lid on drug activity, without 
displacing it to other parts of the city. In practice, community 
policing takes many forms, but regardless of the needs of particular 
communities, the reports from the field are the same--it works.
  The 1994 crime law targets $8.8 billion for states and localities to 
train and hire 100,000 new community police officers over 6 years.
  Now, we all remember the criticism last year of the 100,000 police 
program. The cops program won't work, Republicans in Congress said. 
They got Charlton Heston to say in national television ads that it 
would never happen, that we would never see more than 20,000 cops.
  Well ``Moses'' could not have been more wrong. We already have 25,000 
new local police officers on the streets of America--after only 1 year 
under the new law. And because of the way we've set it up--with a match 
requirement and spreading out the cost over a period of years--the 
money will continue to work, keeping these cops on the beat and 
preventing crime in our communities far into the future.
  But that progress will come to a screeching halt if my Republicans 
colleagues get their way.
  They have proposed and incorporated into this conference report a new 
law enforcement block grant--which has loopholes so big that it would 
permit all the money to be spent without hiring a single new police 
officer. Not one.
  Read their proposal. Money is sent not to police but to mayors, and 
the money may be used not only for cops but also for other types of law 
enforcement officers or for many other purposes or initiatives. 
Moreover, the money could be used for other vaguely defined purposes 
such as ``equipment, technology and other material.''
  Let me repeat--under the Republican proposal the dollars can be 
diverted to prosecutors, courts, or other law enforcement officials.
  These may be worthy causes, but nothing in the Republican bill 
requires that even $1 be used to hire a single new police officer--and 
the one thing we know is that more community police officers means less 
crime.
  Look at the language of this bill. Not even one new cop is required. 
All it says is that ``recipients are encouraged to use these funds to 
hire additional law enforcement officers.'' That's it. Encouraged.
  Mr. President, American communities don't need our encouragement. 
They need more police.
  We should not encourage the States to keep the commitment this 
Congress made to the American people. We should keep our word.
  What this conference report does is take money that has been 
designated for cops on the beat and allows it to be used for a whole 
host of disparate purposes. That means only one thing for sure--the 
money will be wasted on things the Federal Government should not be 
funding. The great benefit of the 1994 crime law was that it gave 
States enough choice but also gave them enough direction. That 
direction is what differentiated this crime law from the failed crime 
laws of the past, yet that direction is precisely what this block grant 
throws out the window.
  That is the major flaw of the Republican block grant.
  I believe that the single most important thing our communities need 
when it comes to fighting crime is more police, and the current law 
guarantees our money will be used for just that purpose.
  We should not abandon it 1 year after enacting it. We must save the 
100,000 cops program to ensure that the money for police is used only 
for police.


                             Prison grants

  The second major shortcoming in the current system is prison space, 
and the prison program in the crime law we passed last year was 
designed to meet two goals:
  First, to help States increase--and then use to maximum advantage--
their supply of prison space; and second, to encourage States to adopt 
the kind of truth-in-sentencing system that has been instituted at the 
Federal level.
  Today, prison systems in 34 States are under court order due to 
overcrowding. 

[[Page S 18149]]

  Because there are not enough prison cells, many States are keeping 
violent criminals behind bars for only about half their sentences--46 
percent is the nationwide average.
  Worse yet, 30,000 offenders who, each year, are convicted of a 
violent crime are not even sentenced to prison.
  The 1994 crime law is helping States respond to this problem with a 
$9.7 billion grant program.
  Under the 1994 law, States can use the money to build and operate 
additional secure prison cells for violent criminals--or for boot camp 
prisons for non-violent offenders, thereby freeing up secure prison 
spaces for violent criminals.
  Let me tell you about these boot camps. Today, 160,000 young, 
nonviolent, minor offenders are behind bars in costly prison cells. 
That just does not make sense.
  So the law encourages States to make the most efficient use of 
existing prison cells--by putting violent offenders in the most 
expensive cells, and housing nonviolent, minor offenders at one-third 
the cost of conventional prison space in military-style boot camps.
  I am encouraged that the Republicans' prison proposal permits States 
to use this funding for boot camp prisons--that is an important change 
from the house-passed appropriations bill.


                Key problems with conference prison plan

  One key problem with the Republican prison plan is that the plan 
permits States only to build or expand prisons--leaving out the ability 
to spend these funds to operate prisons.
  This just does not make sense, when the 1994 prison provisions were 
written, we heard several States had already built prisons, but could 
not open these prisons because of a lack of operating funds.
  A close look at the fine print of this bill reveals what I believe is 
one of its most troubling aspects. While $617 million is appropriated 
for the prison grants in the conference report, the Republican 
conferees raided $200 million of that to fund prisons in just 7 or 8 
States.
  Let me explain--the bill directly funds $300 million to reimburse 
States for the costs of housing criminal aliens in State prisons. This 
was a provision included in the 1994 crime law, and I support this 
goal. But, on top of that $300 million in direct appropriations to 
reimburse States for incarcerating criminal aliens, language was 
slipped into the bill so that an additional $200 million was shifted 
from the general prison grants for all states to the criminal alien 
reimbursement program.
  So I point out to my colleagues--if you are not from Arizona, 
Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California, or 
Michigan--funds that should have gone to building prisons in your State 
have been stolen by this conference report.
  This is outrageous, I support the need to reimburse States for these 
costs, but the 1994 crime law recognized that crime is plaguing all 
states not just a few of our Nation's largest border States.


                      Fighting drug related crime

  The third major shortcoming of our current system is the failure to 
limit drug-related crime.
  The new law provides money for specialized drug courts to target low-
level drug offenders who are out on the streets breaking into cars and 
stealing to support their habits.
  In most communities, these offenders are now largely ignored by our 
system. They do not go to prison and they are not required to comply 
with drug testing or get treatment.
  Most are simply sent right back out on the streets on largely 
unsupervised probation--and they go right back to the cycle of drug use 
and crime to support their drug use.
  The heart of the problem is that, just like the prison populations, 
the probation and parole populations have exploded. More than 3.5 
million offenders--half of them drug addicts--are now living in their 
communities under the nominal supervision of courts or corrections 
officers.
  According to the Justice Department, of the roughly 1.4 million drug-
abusing offenders on probation, only 800,000 are subject to some drug 
testing or drug treatment. The remaining 600,000 drug-addicted 
offenders are on our Nation's streets each day, unsupervised, untested, 
with no fear of punishment. They are accidents waiting to happen.
  Many of these probationers are high-rate offenders. Hard-core addicts 
are estimated to commit up to 200 crimes a year to support their 
habits.
  As the number of probation officers has not kept pace with the growth 
in the probation population, probation caseloads now average 118 
offenders.
  In some areas, caseloads can exceed 200.
  With so many offenders, officers are able to conduct only minimal 
supervision at best--perhaps 15 minutes a week.
  We know who these people are. Judges and probation officers have 
their names and addresses. So why do we ignore them?
  Drug courts are designed to take these offenders and their crimes 
seriously--offenders face random drug testing and mandatory treatment. 
And, if they slip back into drugs--they go to jail.
  Yet the Republican proposal totally eliminates drug courts. The bill 
wipes out all funding. We must preserve the necessary money to fund the 
drug courts.


                          Prevention programs

  I turn now to 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 unapolo-
getically.
  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 simple 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.
  Prevention is also 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 we can't do it all after the fact.
  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: [B]y 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: [I]t's 
a lot less expensive to do things on the prevention side than on the 
police side.
  This unity among law enforcement was the force that drove the 
prevention programs into the 1994 crime law and into the appropriations 
bill as passed by the Senate just a few months ago. We need to give 
these programs a chance. If after a few years the prevention programs 
in the anti-crime law do not work, I will be first in line to change 
it.
  The 1994 crime law sets aside $5.4 billion to give States money--and 
flexibility--to implement many types of crime prevention programs that 
have proven track records of success.
  As part of that money, $30 million is allocated to fund crime 
prevention programs such as TRIAD and boys and girls clubs and other 
local initiatives.
  The TRIAD programs are the joint efforts of sheriffs, police chiefs 
and senior citizens--practical cooperation that helps combat crime 
against our elderly citizens.
  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 without 
clubs. 

[[Page S 18150]]

  Other local prevention programs are having great success as well. For 
example, 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, TX, a core of professionals provides one-on-one 
counseling, mentoring, tutoring, job training and crisis-intervention 
services to students at risk of dropping out.
  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 eliminated the separately targeted 
funding for these programs and thrown them into the block grant--a move 
some charge is cold-hearted and mean. But I say it's just plain dumb.
  The prevention money in the crime law is an investment in our future 
that we simply cannot afford not to make--not when we are spending $25 
billion to lock people up every year.
  And there are issues here even more important than money, because the 
commitment that we make today will define us as a nation tomorrow.
  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.
  That's why we need to restore the separate funding for these 
prevention programs, in addition to the funding for the 100,000 cops 
program.


                               Conclusion

  In concluding, I want to reiterate that in its breadth, the 1994 
anticrime law reflects the lessons learned over the last decade as we 
studied crime and law enforcement and worked on passing this law.
  And in its approach, as well as in many specifics, the law was the 
result of bi-partisan efforts.
  We should not retreat now on this tough but smart crime package that 
already is hard at work in preventing violent crime across the country. 
And we should not retreat on the 100,000 cops program that we insisted 
on just a few months ago.
  Let me also point out that the $30 billion crime law trust fund that 
uses the savings from cutting 272,000 Federal bureaucrats (160,000 have 
already left) pays for every cop, every prison cell, every shelter for 
a battered woman and her children that is provided for in the crime 
law--without adding to the deficit or requiring new taxes.
  That was the deal we made right here on the Senate floor 1 year ago. 
Yet now my Republican colleagues are trying to back out on the deal by 
refusing to write the checks for next year's funding of the crime law.
  I have tried today to outline my objections to the Republicans 
retreat--in this conference report--on the key provisions of the 
anticrime law enacted last year.
  So I urge my colleagues to consider very carefully whether this is 
the right forum and the right idea to dismantle these vital parts of 
the already successful and highly popular crime law.
  In the end, I suspect that the merits will speak for themselves and 
the american people will decide whether it is a good idea to debilitate 
the Crime Law just as it is showing clear signs of success.
  This program is a very bad idea. I expect we are going to get to 
debate this again. So in light of that, and in light of the fact I have 
no more time--I am sorry. My staff is now fired. They gave me a note 
saying before I had 3 minutes, and now I see it is 30 minutes. But I 
will yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.


          Cops on the Beat/Community Oriented Policing Program

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this conference report proposes to 
terminate the successful Cops on the Beat or the Community Oriented 
Policing [COPS] Program. This is one of the craziest things I've seen 
since coming to the Senate. I had always thought that getting more 
police on the streets was a rock solid conservative, and for that 
matter, a bipartisan value. If there was one thing I thought we all 
could agree on, it was our belief in local law enforcement.
  This attack on this police program comes as something of a surprise 
to me. I've looked back at the debate on last year's crime bill, and 
what I saw was statement after statement by Republicans attacking the 
authorization of crime prevention programs--not hiring police. As I 
recall, the only major argument against the Cops on the Beat Program 
was that some Republicans didn't think we could succeed in getting 
100,000 additional police out on the streets in America. Yet in 
statement after statement, they said they supported more police.
  Now, the tables have turned. The majority party is against police and 
the Cops on the Beat Program because we are for it. That is absurd. 
After 29 years in the Senate, I have finally cracked the code--as they 
say in the Pentagon. In the current Senate, if Democrats support a 
program, then the majority feels compelled to do the opposite. And they 
will do the opposite even when they are cutting off their noses in 
spite of their faces, as in the case before us.
  The lesson that I guess we as Democrats need to learn is that we 
apparently must do the opposite of what we think is right. Then the 
Republicans will do the right thing. So tomorrow, I guess I should call 
the President of the United States to suggest that he come out with 
both barrels blazing in a call to eliminate the Commerce Department. If 
he did, I have no doubt that the majority leader, the very next day, or 
one of the other Republican Presidential candidates would be holding a 
press conference attacking the President's position with an argument 
that it would be ludicrous to disband the only Cabinet Department that 
serves as an advocate for American industry.


                              Block grants

  Mr. President, when I look at this bill, I think it is a little block 
grant crazy. It kills the Cops on the Beat Program and says make it a 
block grant.
  I find this faddish obsession with block grants to be most 
interesting. It was just a little over 2 years ago that President 
Clinton submitted a $16 billion economic stimulus program. And I recall 
that it was the casualty of the 103d Congress' first filibuster in 
which Republican Member after Member attacked it for including block 
grants. Each speaker talked about the types of questionable projects 
that could be allowable under block grants. They talked about pork-
barrel swimming pools, parking garages and canoeing facilities. Of 
course, none of those things was actually in the bill. But, the 
flexibility and discretion provided by block grants enabled Governors 
and mayors to fund such projects. And so, my Republican colleagues 
stood for days on the floor and attacked the allowable uses of block 
grants. Predictably, there was a public outcry. In turn, they defeated 
that bill, not for what was in it, but because of the basic concept of 
block grants.
  Now, here we are with the 1996 Justice appropriations bill and we 
have a successful and effective program to hire and train tens of 
thousands of police officers and get them on the beat. And what is the 
opposition proposing? To kill the program and create a block grant that 
will send checks for Governors. Unbelievable.


                           Remember the LEAA?

  Now, Mr. President, this block grant idea is deja vu. Those of us in 
the Chamber that have been here awhile--those of us with an 
institutional memory--know that this notion of police block grants is 
nothing new. Back in the 1970's, we tried a block grant program for law 
enforcement and it was a miserable failure. Our experience with the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration, or LEAA, is worth reviewing.
  LEAA was ``sooey pig.'' It was a boondoggle. It was all those things 
that my Republican colleagues complained about in 1993. Communities 
across the Nation used their LEAA block grant funds to buy tanks, cars 
for mayors and even encyclopedias. LEAA funds were used to hire 
consultants who produced numerous plans that only were shelved to rest 
in peace. The LEAA was the Beltway Bandit's best friend. It was the 
same old story--Federal money was used to fund projects for which 
Governors or city councils were unwilling to use locally-raised funds. 

[[Page S 18151]]

  Quite simply, LEAA was a waste of taxpayer funds. By the time 
President Carter came to town, he had seen LEAA firsthand as a Governor 
in Georgia. And he knew of the program's Federal largesse and 
wastefulness. So he rightfully told Congress to kill the program.
  A good summary of our experience with the LEAA is in the 1982 edition 
of the Congressional Quarterly:

       Fourteen years after its creation, the Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Administration (LEAA) went quietly out of business 
     April 15, a demise ordered by Attorney General William French 
     Smith but preordained in the final years of the Carter 
     Administration.
       In its somewhat troubled life, the grant agency dispensed 
     nearly $8 billion to local law enforcement agencies for 
     programs such as improved police equipment, shelters for 
     homeless youth and special local task forces to prosecute 
     ``career criminals.'' In recent years, however, LEAA was 
     criticized for requiring too much red tape in its grant 
     program and for wasting money on Dick Tracy-type gadgetry.


                            Cops on the Beat

  Mr. President, for $8 billion we got nothing from these LEAA block 
grant programs. Compare that with the Cops on the Beat Program. We have 
spent $1.358 billion in 2 years. Already, we have gotten more than 
26,000 additional police officers funded to go on the beat in small 
towns and cities throughout America.
  I don't believe that I have ever seen a more effective program with 
less redtape. And if you want to hear about the success of this 
program, just talk with local sheriffs and police chiefs across the 
country.
  In South Carolina, the COPS program has funded more than 255 extra 
police to patrol communities. And it's working. Members of my staff 
have traveled extensively across South Carolina to meet with local 
police to find out about the program. As far as I know, there has not 
been a single negative comment about the program. In fact, most chiefs 
and sheriffs were extremely supportive of the program. Here are some 
typical comments we got about the program:
  ``This was the easiest Federal program I've ever seen,'' one chief 
said.
  ``There is no way we could have hired an additional officer without 
this grant,'' said another.
  ``The application form--just one page--was so simple. There is no way 
it could have come from Washington.''
  Finally, listen to what was said by the chief of police of Yemassee, 
a small lowcountry town in Beaufort and Hampton counties that is a few 
miles from Hilton Head Island. Administrators with the COPS program 
dealt directly with the Yemassee Police Department and expeditiously 
provided funding. The department was able to hire one additional 
officer, an ex-marine who recently left Parris Island. Jack Hagy, 
Yemassee's chief, told my staff that it is the first time in his career 
that the Federal Government ever did anything for Yemassee. The entire 
town is enthused. In a small town like Yemassee, one extra police 
officer has a tremendous impact.
  Quite simply, in South Carolina towns like Yemassee, Abbeville, 
Calhoun Falls, McCormick, and Mullins, and in larger cities like 
Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia, the COPS program has made a 
difference. Across the Nation, the successful addition of 26,000 more 
officers in just 2 years shows that we have a winner with the COPS 
Program. For once, Congress and the Administration got one right.
  Let's take a look at why. The COPS program is focused. It has 
measurable goals. It is all teeth and no fat. It's administrative costs 
are less than 1 percent. Compare that to the block grant proposal, 
which has administrative costs at 2.5 percent. No other federal program 
can match the COPS program's efficiency.
  In fact, part of the COPS program is specifically targeted to help 
smaller communities like Yemassee. This part, called COPS FAST, has no 
redtape. Instead, all that is required is a one-page application.
  Also, the COPS program has accountability. It's no giveaway. It 
requires a shared commitment and responsibility at the local level. 
Police and sheriffs' departments have to make a local financial 
commitment to be involved. They have to put up 25 percent in matching 
funds to participate.
  Furthermore, the COPS program has cut administrative overhead with a 
customer response center, personalized grant officers, and simplified 
procedures. The Justice Department is getting out funds to small 
communities within two months of application. And there are no 
middlemen. The program is fully competitive and non-partisan.
  Finally, the COPS program has been working with the Defense 
Department to initiate a ``Troops to Cops'' program to encourage the 
hiring of recently-separated members of the military, such as our 
friend in Yemassee.


                            The War on Crime

  Mr. President, the conference report before us adds funds to hire 
thousands of additional Border Patrol agents, FBI agents, federal 
prison guards, INS inspectors and DEA agents. These are the people that 
my sheriffs and police chiefs in South Carolina call ``the Feds.'' Now, 
maybe we could use more Feds. But, if we think that only they will 
really make a dent in the war on crime in America, we are fooling 
ourselves.
  That war is going on in every city and town across America. Crime 
generally is a local, not a federal, occurrence. What Americans fear 
most today is violent crime in their communities --murder, rape and 
robbery. Generally, those crimes are dealt with by local police, not 
the Feds. This COPS program is the best and most effective weapon that 
has been developed so far to assist state and local law enforcement 
officers in combatting these crimes. Unlike block granting, the COPS 
program does it right.
  Some have said that we in Washington shouldn't decide if local 
governments need more police. They claim that we should just give them 
a check, or as this conference agreement proposes, give checks to 
governors and mayors so that they have the ``flexibility'' to allow 
them to buy other things or establish prevention programs.
  Well, Mr. President, the last time I checked, 10 out of 10 people who 
call the police for help--are calling for a cop. They don't want to 
hear about a check or flexibility. They don't want to know about a tank 
or high-falooting, Dick Tracy gadgets. They want a police officer to 
come to their assistance.
  There is no higher need than putting foot soldiers out on the front 
lines to battle crime. If there are other law enforcement 
infrastructure needs, there are enough other existing federal programs, 
such as the popular Byrne grant program, to meet those local needs.
  Results speak for themselves. Some 26,000 police are out in local 
communities that weren't out there just two years ago. If we stick with 
the COPS program, that number will be more than 40,000 in just another 
year.
  Maybe that's the problem. Maybe my Republican colleagues want so 
desparately to kill the COPS program simply because it is so effective.
  Mr. President, I have received numerous letters from police and law 
enforcement groups across this nation that are pleading that we restore 
funding for the COPS program. Let me just quote from a few here:
  The Fraternal Order of Police (President Gilbert Gallegos):

       Since its inception in September 1994, the COPS program has 
     provided 26,000 state and local officers. These men and 
     women, and those who join them as the COPS program continues 
     to meet its goals, will play a vital role in the effort to 
     make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens. . .. On 
     behalf of the 270,000 rank and file officers who make up the 
     FOP, you have our thanks and support.

  National Association of Police Organizations--Robert Scully, 
Executive Director:

       The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) 
     representing over 185,000 rank and file police officers and 
     3,500 police associations . . . has been behind the COPS 
     program since day one. We oppose altering this successful 
     program to a block grant approach because we know that unless 
     the monies are given directly to law enforcement agencies to 
     hire more police officers, the funds will be diverted by 
     local bureaucrats with their own agendas. . . . (COPS) is the 
     single most effective crime program working to make our 
     streets safer and law enforcement sees no reason to change 
     it.

  Police Executive Research Forum--Chuck Wexler, Executive Director:

       Police Executive Research Forum members have spoken out 
     strongly against the proposed Senate block grant program 
     which, under this appropriations package, would replace the 
     COPS program. The replacement of the COPS program with block 
     grants would hinder PERF members' efforts to improve public 
     safety and address community problems. . . . this issue is of 
     ideal importance to 

[[Page S 18152]]
     the law enforcement community and the entire nation, it is imperative 
     that you and your colleagues understand and consider our 
     concerns.

  National Sheriffs' Association--Charles Meeks, Executive Director:

       On behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association, I am 
     writing in support of your amendment to the FY96 Commerce, 
     Justice, State Appropriations bill to continue the COPS 
     program. Because of the COPS program, over half of the 
     nation's sheriffs have hired over 1,300 deputies moving 
     toward increased law enforcement presence in our counties. 
     This program of police hiring, in conjunction with community 
     policing, will go a long way in helping to reduce crime in 
     our counties.

  The Law Enforcement Steering Committee--James Rhinebarger, Chairman:

       The elimination of the COPS program would hinder our 
     efforts and the progress made in community policing, and 
     would ultimately prove detrimental to the nation's public 
     safety. . . . This is an issue of vital importance to the law 
     enforcement community and the entire nation.


                  An Attorney General Who's Been There

  Mr. President, I have served with quite a few chief law enforcement 
officers since I came here in 1966. There are a lot of impressive names 
on that list--Ramsey Clark, Griffin Bell, John Mitchell, Elliot 
Richardson, Ben Civiletti, William French Smith, Dick Thornburgh, and 
Bill Barr. But, I have to say that I have never seen a better Attorney 
General than Janet Reno. She comes from local law enforcement and is 
from an area that has its share of crime, Dade County, FL.
  With Attorney General Reno, what you see is what you get. She is a 
no-nonsense leader who understands accountability. She understands 
firsthand what is needed to combat crime.
  This Cops on the Beat Program is her program. During a speech last 
year, she summed up why we need the COPS Program and why it is far and 
away the most important component to last year's crime bill. In 
addressing police groups in October of last year, she said:

       The truth is, criminals do not stand in awe of a piece of 
     paper or a bill or an Act. They look at results. Violence in 
     this country does not magically recede because we have a 
     piece of paper that says it should. Violence in this country 
     recedes and is reduced because of efforts of officers on the 
     front lines making a difference in their community, . . . and 
     of officers getting the resources they need to do the job.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. President, at this point we cannot really change what the 
Republican leadership has chosen to do to the COPS Program in this 
conference agreement. This agreement is in the nature of a substitute, 
and the COPS Program cannot be amended or voted upon separately. I, for 
one, do not believe that we should be rewriting the 1994 crime bill in 
this conference agreement.
  As I stated earlier, this conference report is going to be vetoed. 
Make no mistake about that. It is my hope that we can move 
expeditiously on to round two and develop a bill that can become law. 
And, as part of that process, I hope that my Republican colleagues will 
agree to restore funding for the Community Policing Program.
  Far too many issues become partisan this year. This is the craziest 
session of Congress that I have seen. Our support for police and 
sheriffs has always been bipartisan. Let's not change that. I hope that 
my Republican colleagues will listen to their local law enforcement 
officers, that they will support our men and women on the front lines, 
and that they will join me in supporting the Cops on the Beat Program 
when this Commerce, Justice and State bill comes back to the Senate.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to support this conference report 
and consider it a balanced approach in meeting the funding needs of the 
agencies and departments contained in the bill, and considering it 
within the context, of course, of the parameters of the budget 
resolution.
  Senator Gregg has done an excellent job picking up on the difficult 
task of bringing this bill through conference. I might just remind our 
colleagues that Senator Gregg came into this picture sort of like a 
little after halftime in the game to start quarterbacking this 
particular bill. I think he and his staff deserve a lot of credit for 
the product that is before the Senate today.
  I also want to compliment Senator Hollings for his dedication to this 
bill and its programs.
  This has not been an easy year for any of us here on this committee 
or within the Senate, but I think it has been made easier by the fine 
leadership of this subcommittee. And I might comment at this time that 
Senator Hollings and his staff have served with distinction on this 
subcommittee for almost a quarter of a century. His knowledge and 
expertise was a critical factor in framing the bill and bringing it to 
this point in the process.
  As you remember, the budget resolution passed by both the House and 
Senate called for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. I 
voted for the budget resolution and continue to support its goal of a 
balanced budget. This conference report does not eliminate the 
Department of Commerce. It does cut funding Departmentwise by 14.5 
percent. But it does nothing close to eliminating this Department.
  I should like to sort of make a sidebar comment here, which is that 
it is a bit ironic that the Republican Party seems to be the leading 
proponent of abolishing the Department of Commerce, with its 
headquarters being named the Herbert Hoover Department of Commerce 
Building, because probably the greatest Secretary of Commerce of all 
time, the man who really built the Department, was Secretary Herbert 
Hoover under the Harding-Coolidge administrations, and that Department 
never had a stronger leader, nor did it ever have a more important 
function in our Government.
  Having Senator Hollings in the Chamber at this time, having served 
with Mr. Hoover on the Commission for reorganizing the executive branch 
of Government, I remind my colleagues, in the wisdom of his youth, 
Senator Hollings was a Republican, a young Republican, and a great 
admirer of Mr. Hoover, as am I. And it is, as I say, a little ironic 
that he helped, along with others of this body, to help create a name 
for that Department, and there was only one name to ever consider, and 
that was Herbert Hoover.

  The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, 
voiced his frustration this morning about the pace of authorizing 
legislation. This is a serious problem because the budget resolution, 
in our efforts to balance the budget, loses a lot of its teeth in the 
absence of necessary authorizing legislation needed to enact the cuts 
in domestic discretionary spending contained in the resolution.
  We are in a situation, Mr. President, as members of the 
Appropriations Committee, where we are getting ``Hail Columbia'' from 
all sides in this particular dilemma that we face in this Congress. 
This has been the case for many years, because we do appropriate funds 
to hundreds of programs that lack authorization, expired or otherwise. 
We appropriate funds to programs and departments the Senate has voted 
to eliminate.
  As the President and the Congress continue to negotiate a road map to 
a 7-year balanced budget, our trip must include stops through the 
authorizing committees. The Appropriations Committee cannot shoulder 
the whole burden in reshaping, redesigning and eliminating programs and 
departments without guidance from the relevant authorizing committees 
of jurisdiction.
  This conference report includes critical funding for ongoing 
scientific research being conducted by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. While I would have preferred more funding 
for the NOAA operations, research and facilities, I am pleased that the 
Agency is very close to a freeze, at the level provided in 1995.
  For the Department of State, the operations accounts, including 
salaries and expenses, have been funded at a level adequate to address 
the many pressing demands of our Foreign Service officers. It may not 
mean for the programs we have committed to, and particularly 
peacekeeping activities, we are really underfunded.
  The conference report provides $348.5 million for the Economic 
Development Administration. This is a slight decrease from the 1995 
level and would allow the EDA to continue their worthy efforts.
  Also, on the issue of the Legal Services Corporation, I supported 
Senator 

[[Page S 18153]]
Domenici and worked with him in conference to get the funding at a 
higher level.
  While we ended up at the House level of $278 million, this important 
issue deserves further consideration in the second round after the 
expected veto of this bill.
  Negotiations are ongoing with the administration on this bill. This 
morning, we received a letter from the Office of Management and Budget 
which states that the President would veto this appropriations bill. I 
am hopeful that we can reach an accommodation with the administration 
on this bill and the other six appropriations bills that remain.
  Again, I thank Senators Gregg and Hollings and compliment the staff 
for their hard work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman 
of our committee. He and I have been in harness together since 1958 
when he was elected the Governor of Oregon and I the Governor of South 
Carolina, and you get saddened when you see all your good friends 
announce that they are leaving, and particularly this friend here 
because he has been absolutely fearless, has Senator Hatfield.
  It has just been a thrill to watch him at the gubernatorial level and 
then at the national level, a man of his own mind, absolutely ethical, 
of the highest integrity and most of all dedicated--I think I am 
dedicated to peace, but there is no doubt that some would say I would 
rather start a war than stop it --but no doubt about the Senator from 
Oregon, he wants to stop all wars. And he has really made history in 
that regard. That is why, as warlike and as contentious as I can be, I 
am trying to look with favor on the present proposition relative to 
Bosnia.
  But thanks should go to the distinguished chairman of our 
Appropriations Committee for his leadership. We had an awfully 
difficult time getting the bill to Senator Gregg for his leadership. He 
saved that bill two times when we were not going to have a bill. So I 
am particularly grateful for his overcomplimentary remarks about me.
  Incidentally, I was at the time, in 1953 and 1954, a Democrat. I was 
trying to start up as a Republican, but the late Senator Burnet Maybank 
grabbed me and said, ``What's the matter with you, boy?'' I said, 
``Well, I wanted to run here for the legislature.'' He said, ``You've 
got to run as a Democrat.'' I said, ``Yes, sir.''
  Mr. HATFIELD. Easy composure.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That was easy composure. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand 20 minutes were reserved 
for the Senator from Arkansas which have been yielded back, so I yield 
10 minutes of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I 
may not use the entire time, but I would like to pick up where I left 
off in the questioning with the Senator from Delaware. There is not 
anybody in America who has not become so aware--I think ``overwhelmed'' 
is a better term--by the level of violence that seems to consume this 
country at this time.
  I think it reached a new level of depravity with the story a few 
weeks ago when a woman was murdered and cut open so that her live fetus 
could be taken out by animals who somehow had the notion that it was an 
acceptable way to give someone else a live child. We are raising 
sociopaths in this country at a rate that ought to alarm every 
American. I think it does alarm them, and it somehow rings rhetorical 
alarm bells in Congress, but it just does not produce a response that 
is adequate.
  I think most Americans know that. I think most Americans understand 
that unless the 36 percent of children nationwide who are born out of 
wedlock, who have little prospect of anybody in their lives giving them 
some values, unless the prospect of those kids gaining some sense of 
what this country and civil behavior is all about increases, we are 
going to see a lot worse in the next 10 or 15 years.
  What astonishes me, Mr. President, is that every analysis by 
competent people, every criminologist, every researcher in the field of 
youth violence, is telling us that this Nation is going to see a wave 
of criminal activity among our young unless we do something about it.
  The response in this bill, notwithstanding good efforts by good 
people to take a minimal number of resources and shift them around, is 
just inadequate. It is simply inadequate when we know that we have one-
tenth the number of the police force we had 30 years ago--when people 
are scared to go out of their home at night--go to a part of town that 
they know may not be safe at night--when people are worried whether or 
not their car will be stolen when they go out.
  The greatest single message and deterrent in taking back the streets 
from that fear and from that kind of thug dominance are police 
officers. The Senator from Delaware said that 15 years ago--this is a 
fact we talked about many times--we had 3.5 police officers per violent 
crime in America. Today we have anywhere from 3.5 to 4.6 violent crimes 
per police officer.
  It is not rocket science to begin to understand the relationship 
between putting the police officer on the street and the ability to 
deter crime. Most thugs do not go out and walk into a 7-11 or a gas 
station when there is a cop standing 40 yards away or where there is 
someone that is on a regular patrol and they know the chances of being 
apprehended are pretty good.
  The problem in America is that over the last 10 or 15 years we have 
sent a message to people that the probability of being apprehended is 
not so good. In fact, Mr. President, two out of five people who commit 
murders in America will never cross the threshold of a police station, 
let alone a courthouse. We have also learned that in community after 
community after community where we have put police officers on the 
street in community policing, life has improved.
  Just this past week the Attorney General visited Lowell, MA, where we 
managed to get a Federal grant to help create a community policing 
entity in a part of town that had seen pimps and prostitutes and drug 
gangs take over the streets. The moment the police came in, the pimps 
and prostitutes and drug gangs disappeared and the stores on that 
street came back to life and seniors began to say, ``We can come out of 
our house again and walk to the store.'' It is basic.
  Here we have a bill that turns its back on the pleas of police 
officers, on the pleas of local communities and suggests that somehow 
we are going to be better off by creating a block grant where 
communities will now compete against all the other interests in the 
community in law enforcement rather than going to the priority that we 
chose--which is putting police officers on the street.
  I suppose block grants might be conceivable if you had the resources 
being dedicated in all the other areas so that you could make a 
difference. But the fact is, we do not have those resources in the 
other areas, and we know it. The police should not have to compete 
against the computers, against the cruisers, against the equipment, 
against floodlights for a jail, that we need. If they do then we are 
going to go back to where we started from--that prompted us to 
guarantee that there are well equipped police officers on our streets.
  Mr. President, about 11 percent of all our crimes in this country 
occur each year in our 85,000 public schools. It is estimated today 
that 1 out of 20 students brings a gun to school at least once a month. 
We understand that perhaps more than 200,000 students in America now 
pack weapons along with their lunches because of their fear of violence 
in and on the way to school. According to the National School Safety 
Center, nearly 3 million crimes are committed in, near, or around a 
school campus every year. That is one crime almost every 6 seconds that 
a school is in session.
  So, Mr. President, this is not a smart approach to the problems of 
increased criminal activity in this country. It is not enough. If this 
represents the best that we can do at a time when the country is in 
crisis, then we ought to be forced to go back to the drawing board and 
do better.
  Mr. President, violence is an epidemic in America that knows no local 


[[Page S 18154]]
or State boundaries. It is spilling over into thousands of communities 
across America. In September, in Massachusetts, a young prosecutor, 
Assistant Attorney General Paul R. McLaughlin, was gunned down by a 
hooded youth in a display of a level of gang violence and immorality 
unprecedented in this country. It was a brutal assassination of a 
public servant doing his job--the kind of violence we see in other 
nations, but not in America.
  Against that backdrop, it is ironic that I have to come to the floor 
of the U.S. Senate to plead with some of my colleagues to keep cops on 
the street--to plead for them to abandon ideology and their own 
political agenda and respond to do what is right, not what is 
expedient.
  I fear, Mr. President, that our head-long rush to balance the budget 
at any cost--even the cost of the life a young prosecutor--is 
irrational, irresponsible, shortsighted, and immoral.
  Now, I know that perhaps nothing could have stopped this brutal 
murder, but we have to ask ourselves today, what are our priorities. 
What kind of people are we if we chose the bottom line over the lives 
of public officials. If we rigidly hold to extremist dogma no matter 
who gets hurt and who suffers.
  Mr. President, let us bring this debate about Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations to where it belongs--with the will of people--the 
concerns of thousands of local police officials who came to Washington 
to testify year after year for us to give them directly the tools they 
need to fight crime on the streets.
  And almost 8-years later we are here virtually thumbing our noses at 
them and doing so in the same week that violence on the streets has 
reached a dangerous new level. The real issue before the Senate is not 
which formula we should adopt. Yes, there are real differences. The 
formula of the Republican bill allows much more discretion to State 
Governors, as to how the money will be spent. Last year we required 
that the money go directly to police departments, because we know the 
sorry history of police funding.
  From 1971 to 1990, as the country was literally drowning in a tidal 
wave of crime, and still is, our Governors and mayors and 
legislatures--indeed the entire political structure--engaged in a 
policy of unilateral disarmament.
  From 1971 to 1990, in the midst of this crime wave, we increased 
spending on lawyers and public defenders by over 200 percent. We 
increased prison spending by 156 percent. We increased spending on 
State and local police by all of 12 percent.

  So in last year's bill, we said, we are going to give control over 
this money, this relative pittance of Federal funding, directly from 
the Federal Government to the cops who need it. We said, ``We are going 
to require that the money be spent on police.''
  Now the new majority wants to take all the Federal money, and give it 
back to Governors to control. Perhaps, this time, they will in fact 
spend it all on police, and do so wisely. This will be a real test, and 
we will all be watching; not just those of us in the Senate, but the 
American people, suffering the ravages of crime and violence, all over 
America.
  That suffering, its magnitude, the utter disgrace it represents for 
every man and woman in this Chamber, that is the real issue before us.
  It is estimated that crime has increased by more than 600 percent 
since 1950.
  Communities have been ravaged by indiscriminate acts of violence. 
Such acts have been and are eating away at the core of our cities and 
towns, and the impact on our schools has been devastating. I do not 
believe that there has been a rural, urban, or suburban school that has 
escaped its grasp.
  Families have been destroyed, lawlessness has exploded, and many 
young people have watched first hand as their friends and relatives 
were killed in front of them. Such killings have left an indelible 
impact on the lives of these young people--an impression that will stay 
with each of them forever.
  Mr. President, the problems of crime and violence that we talk about 
today are not new, but have been at least 30 years in the making. 
During this time we have watched violence emerge as one of the leading 
public health epidemics in the United States.
  As the people of this Nation and the Congress prepare to do battle 
over whether and how to restructure our national health care system, 
let us not forget two important facts.
  First, the medical costs associated with gun violence in 1992 have 
been estimated at approximately $3 billion.
  Second, average charges for a young gunshot patient in 1991 equaled 
the cost of a year of tuition, room and board at a private college--
about $14,000.
  Mr. President, crime and violence have reached into every part of our 
daily lives and that of our children. No American, no matter what age, 
has escaped its wrath and its impact on education has been so severe 
that 10 percent or more of the Nation's largest school districts have 
installed metal detectors this year than last year. As shocking as this 
has become, even more alarming is why so many schools have been forced 
to do this.
  First, about 11 percent of all crimes occur each year in America's 
85,000 public schools.

  Second, it is estimated that one in 20 students bring a gun to school 
at least once a month.
  Third, it has been said that more than 200,000 students pack weapons 
along with their lunches because of fear of violence in, or on the way 
to school.
  Finally, according to the National School Safety Center, nearly 3 
million crimes are committed in or near a school campus every year--
about 1 every 6 seconds that a school is in session.
  Mr. President, as this Congress talks about the problems of crime and 
violence, the inescapable reality is that the conditions described 
above create an educational environment that thwarts the efforts of 
public school teachers to educate students; it impedes teaching and 
learning, and underscores one of the main reasons why more and more 
parents are refusing to send their children to public school.
  But before another member of this body stands up to criticize public 
schools and public school teachers, it is time each of us consider the 
environment many public school teachers find themselves trying to teach 
in. In urban America, that environment has been hostile not only to 
teaching, but to life itself. Students committing indiscriminate acts 
of violence against another student because of drugs, clothing, or 
simply because they wanted to. In fact, the arrest rate for juveniles 
aged 10-17 for weapon law violations increased 117 percent between 1983 
and 1992.
  It is no longer enough to say that you cannot teach a child who comes 
to school hungry. The problem today is well beyond the single issue of 
hunger that previously confronted public school teachers. Today's 
problems are multifaceted and to a greater degree than ever before, are 
compounded by crime and violence on the way to, during and after 
school.
  Public school teachers today must now serve not only as teachers, but 
as counselors and referees, while also fearing for their own safety.
  What is before us therefore is the fact that both approaches--both 
the Democratic bill and the Republican bill, the 1994 crime bill and 
the 1995 appropriation--both of these efforts are woefully, shamefully 
inadequate.
  We are like doctors who discover, at long last, that our patient has 
cancer; and we are prescribing aspirin.
  Just as to police: the President told us, and he is correct, that we 
now have one-tenth the effective police strength of 30 years ago. Did 
he ask us for ten times the police, to return us to the levels of 
security we once knew? No. He did not suggest 5 million new police. He 
did not ask us for 1 million. He did not ask us to, and we did, even 
double the police we now have.
  He asked us, we will remember, for funds to add perhaps 30,000 new 
police. We, in the Senate, last year, Democrats and Republicans, joined 
to increase the number to a possible 100,000. But we did not by that 
act begin to solve the problem, or meet the needs of the country.
  What do we need? The American people are already paying, out of their 
own pockets, for about 1.5 million private police--three times the 
number of police paid for by taxes, on public payrolls. They are not 
available to work where the real problems are. They are not trained to 
work the mean streets 

[[Page S 18155]]
where crime and criminal activity breed. They protect only enclaves. Is 
that to be our strategy, as in the Vietnam of long ago--to protect only 
the enclaves of the comfortable, and business, and leave the rest of 
our own fellow citizens alone and unprotected?
  In Vietnam, I saw a lot of wonderful men give their lives for this 
country: not for some abstraction, not for a piece of colored cloth. 
But for their families, and for their fellows, and for the children 
that too many of them never lived to see. Are we keeping faith with 
them? Are we protecting their children and grandchildren today? Are we 
doing our duty to preserve the country for which they, as so many 
before them in the history of the Nation, gave the last full measure of 
devotion?
  So let us vote these funds today. But let us understand that this 
bill is less than a beginning, less than a start. It is my 
understanding that there will be offered, later this year, a new 
substantive crime bill. At that time I intend to offer amendments that 
will substantially increase authorized spending assistance to State and 
local law enforcement, and to perhaps begin the debate we should have 
had long before this time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank the distinguished Senator.
  I now will yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I think what is one man's pork is another person's beef. I remember 
on the floor of this body, when the crime bill was first considered, 
the wonderful porker that the Senator from New York had drawn on a 
chart and had before this body. The contention was that the crime bill, 
and this particular aspect of it, was a porker.
  I want to say, it has turned out to be the beef of the crime bill. 
There is no question in my mind that the community policing part of the 
crime bill is the most popular part of the crime bill out there.
  ``If it isn't broke, don't fix it.'' The fact of the matter is, in my 
State, crime rates are going down in all of the jurisdictions because 
of the community policing aspect of this bill.
  So I am very disappointed--there are good things in this bill--but I 
am very disappointed by the fact that we take the discretionary aspect 
out of the community policing bill, make it a block grant program, give 
it to the local jurisdictions, but enable those local jurisdictions to 
use it for whatever they want to use it. They can use it for new squad 
cars. They can use it for some aspects, I gather, of police stations. 
They can use it for desk sergeants, if they want to. That defeats the 
purpose of the community policing aspect of this bill.
  What is that purpose? The purpose is really to show that a police 
force in a crime-troubled area with trained community police officers 
who know the communities and know the difference between the bad guys 
and the good guys are going to be more effective in making good arrests 
and, secondly, in retarding crime in that area.
  To date, the crime bill has targeted about $8.4 billion directly to 
States and localities.
  This program, as I said, is working. According to the Department of 
Justice, California has received sufficient funding to support the 
hiring or redeployment of 3,900 police officers from the crime bill 
COPS program. This is not pork. This is beef. These funds have gone to 
the larger and most troubled crime-plagued cities: Los Angeles, San 
Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, and, most recently, Oakland.
  As a matter of fact, beginning in March of next year, the Los Angeles 
Police Academy will be graduating 100 officers a month for 6 months, 
funded through the community policing aspects of this bill.
  Additionally, community policing funds have gone to smaller 
California cities--Selma, Victorville, Santa Cruz, Ojai, and Millbrae.
  It is no coincidence, then, that the crime rate in California's 
biggest cities dropped by 7 percent during the first 6 months of this 
year, compared to the same period last year, with double-digit 
decreases--double digit, that is more than 10 percent--in homicide, in 
rape and in robbery.
  California's Attorney General, Dan Lungren--a Republican, by the 
way--credited the intensified use of community-oriented policing by 
local police departments for this drop in crime. Attorney General 
Lungren said of community-oriented policing, and I quote:
  ``It should be utilized in every part of the State.''
  I could not agree more.
  So the COPS Program is working. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' 
It is putting cops on the streets. It is reducing crime.
  Second, my other concern with this bill is the drug courts. In 
America, we constantly have the debate: Do you fight drugs on the 
supply side or do you fight them on the demand side? I know, as a mayor 
for 9 years, that you have to do both and you have to do it well. 
America has never fought drugs equally on the supply side and the 
demand side.
  This crime bill was the first time that more moneys were put in for 
prevention and for rehabilitation to almost equal the amount for 
interdiction and enforcement. Drug courts were a relatively new aspect.
  About $1 billion dedicated to drug court programs over the next 6 
years is eliminated in this conference report. That is a mistake. A 
study by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs found 
that for every $1 spent on treatment for alcohol or drug abuse, $7 in 
savings is accrued. There are now evaluations coming out of drug 
courts. We are finding--surprise of all kinds--they are working. ``An 
Evaluation of the Oakland Drug Court After Three Years,'' by Judge 
Jeffrey Tauber of the Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Municipal Court, 
found the following results, which I quote:

       The data collected supports the conclusion that the 
     imposition of an immediate and intensive supervision and 
     treatment program substantially reduces the rate of felony 
     recidivism during a 3-year period following arraignment. It 
     is estimated that there were 44 percent fewer felony 
     arrests--

  That is 582 fewer felony arrests--

     for offenders in what is called the FIRST Program--fast, 
     intensive, report, supervision and treatment--than under the 
     previous program.

  California is expected to receive an estimated $119 million for drug 
courts, or enough for about 59,500 offenders over the next 6 years. By 
eliminating this program, this bill will deprive States of a tough 
program to get and keep nonviolent offenders off drugs and to unclog 
our courts of violators who would otherwise walk.
  Another problem I have with the bill is the cuts in the Commerce 
programs. I come from a State where 1.2 million people are out of work. 
The unemployment rate currently exceeds 7.8 percent. It exceeds the 
national rate by 2 points. This bill cuts EDA, which is the last 
remaining economic tool provided by the Federal Government since 
programs were developed in the 1970's to help cities.
  The program that is cut targets the defense conversion support. In my 
State, to cut defense conversion and its ability is to put people out 
of work, plain and simple.
  The bill also eliminates funding for the Advanced Technology Program 
which assists firms with new technology to provide new breakthrough 
products and processes. One of the things that California was assured, 
having gone through more than 30 base closures, with between 500,000 
and 1 million people who have lost their jobs so far because of defense 
downsizing, is that there would be an adequate program of defense 
conversion to help industries convert into nondefense pursuits. And now 
we find that these funds will be cut off by this bill as well. It is 
unfortunate.
  Let me conclude by saying, community police have reduced crime. 
Community policing works. The crime bill has worked. It is not pork; it 
is where the beef is.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before I yield time, I do think that a 
number of comments that have just been made both by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from California 

[[Page S 18156]]
deserve a quick response, because I do not believe that they accurately 
characterize the bill.
  It was ironic, in fact, that the Senator from Delaware came down here 
and excoriated us for approximately an hour and a half on the attitude 
this bill takes, specifically citing one of the programs, which is 
prison construction, where we have created the possibility of States to 
obtain approximately $0.5 billion in prison construction for illegal 
aliens.
  This was not done to benefit my State. My State does not have a whole 
lot of illegal aliens running around. This was done to benefit the 
State of California, the State of Texas, the State of Florida, and it 
was done at the expense, as was pointed out most vividly by the Senator 
from Delaware, at the expense of some of the smaller States, of which I 
happen to be a representative.

  So I find a certain irony when the Senator from California comes down 
and attacks this bill on the basis that it is not doing enough. I find 
equal irony when the Senator from Massachusetts comes to the floor and 
says we are not spending enough money, when this bill increases the 
spending in the crime area by 19 percent. To do that, it had to take 
the money from the State Department and the Commerce Department because 
we were assigned a certain allocation.
  So if the Senator from Massachusetts, or other Senators, wish to 
attack the nature of this bill and the amount of money being spent on 
crime prevention in this bill, which happens to be a 19-percent 
increase--a substantial increase considering the present climate--I 
believe they should tell us where they want to take more money from--
from Commerce or the State Department?
  On the issue of the drug courts, the fact is that under the block 
grant proposal, drug courts are not eliminated. They are an available 
option for any State that decides to expand and use drug courts. It is 
very much available under that block grant.
  There are other points on which I will probably have to reserve my 
right to put a written statement in the Record.
  I now yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee, Senator 
Thompson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, 
who makes some very valid points. One of them, essentially, is that it 
focuses on the crucial issue here, and that is whether or not law 
enforcement is a State and local function still, as it has always been 
in this country, or whether or not, basically, it is a matter for the 
Federal Government to attend to, given the Federal Government's 
wonderful track record in solving these problems historically.
  I think people realize, ultimately, that this money that flows down 
from on high to the State and local communities comes from their own 
pockets. It is not free money. I have often wondered how we got into a 
situation in this country where folks down where I grew up, in 
Lawrenceburg, TN, will get in their car and drive by the courthouse, to 
Nashville, past the State capital, and go out to the airport to get on 
a plane to fly to Washington, DC, and talk to me about how many cops 
they ought to have in Lawrenceburg. That is the situation we have 
gotten to in this country.

  While I do not think the conference report is the ultimate solution 
to this, I think more and more money ought to be left in the pockets of 
the people on the local level and let them solve the problems. It is 
certainly better than any alternative we have.
  The conference reports reflects what those of us who are new to this 
body were elected to do. Its provisions reflect the reality that there 
is not always a Washington-based solution to every problem. The 
Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government. Crimes, 
traditionally, in this country are not a national problem, with 
exceptions, but it is primarily a State and local problem. By 
eliminating the COPS Program, the conference report respects the proper 
role of the States and the people under our constitutional system.
  The COPS Program shows insufficient respect for our system of 
federalism. With the COPS Program, citizens of States and localities 
are taxed by the Federal Government. The tax money is returned to the 
States, minus the cost of a Federal bureaucracy, and with the addition 
of many strings on their own money.
  The formula for allocating the money is peculiar. COPS funds go to 
communities without regard to their crime rate. The COPS office 
knowingly gave $75,000 to one town for the police chief to leave the 
office for the street, supposedly. He wound up reading stories to 
second graders. How does that serve any Federal purpose? Two officers 
were sent to a low-crime Chicago suburb, whereas a poor Chicago suburb, 
whose crime rate tripled, received only one simply because it had fewer 
officers than the wealthier suburb.
  The strings on localities make even less sense, Mr. President. The 
money can be spent only on putting police on the street. Rural areas 
may not find community policing appropriate to their sparse population, 
but with the COPS Program, that is the only option. It is said on the 
floor of this Chamber that, my goodness, they might spend it on police 
cars, equipment, or do something else with the money.
  My question to that is: What is the problem? Have we in this body 
achieved such expertise on the details of law enforcement in the small 
communities across the Nation that we are in a position of supplanting 
our judgment for the people whose responsibility it is?
  The President complains that police are outgunned by criminals, but 
under the COPS Program, localities are prohibited from spending grants 
on guns and ammunition, equipment, technology, training, or other 
purposes that actually correspond to the needs of the citizens where 
the police will actually serve. The District of Columbia, with an 
enormous crime problem, refused to apply for a COPS grant because the 
police chief says that the District has all the police it needs. What 
it lacks is appropriate technology and equipment. If the Federal 
Government does not even know what is best for Washington, DC, how can 
it know what is best for communities around the rest of the country?
  Of course, the monetary rules are the COPS Program's worst 
infringement on State's rights. COPS funds officers at $25,000, but the 
Justice Department's own figures show that the average police officer 
costs $50,000. When a locality receives a COPS grant, it is also 
receiving a Federal order to spend another $25,000 that the community 
might wish to spend on other law enforcement functions, or even other 
desirable local functions, or even tax relief.
  Sunnyvale, CA, which the Clinton administration hailed in its 
Reinventing Government campaign, returned its COPS grant because it was 
required to spend an enormous amount of its own money and to comply 
with numerous Federal strings as a condition of Federal funding.
  Moreover, the COPS Program is political. Applicants are required to 
indicate the locality's congressional district. The COPS office is 
duplicative. The Justice Departments's Bureau of Justice Assistance 
career civil servants already dispensed law enforcement grants to State 
and localities. By contrast, COPS funds are allocated by political 
appointees in a separate office. That office has a budget of $28 
million, much more than the $16.3 million of COPS grants that Tennessee 
has received, for example.
  By contrast, the conference report replaces the COPS Program with 
block grants. Local officials will best determine how to meet local 
needs, without the interference, or even the existence of a Federal 
bureaucracy. It would have been better if the conference report had 
gone further, in my opinion--eliminating block grants and simply 
letting localities make their own law enforcement decisions, and 
leaving the money there for them to do it with. Then, municipalities 
would be responsible for decisions made, and we would have a little bit 
more accountability in our governing process. When multiple layers of 
Government are involved with street crime, each level can pass the buck 
to another, and the citizenry will not know who to hold accountable.
  The differences between Congress and President Clinton are clear. 
President Clinton may well veto the conference report over the COPS 
Program. He may 

[[Page S 18157]]
feel he wants to take a stand on something. If he wants to take a stand 
for a Federal, bureaucratic, inefficient, and inflexible program, so be 
it. The conference report's approach is local, flexible, and efficient. 
In fact, it is so efficient, Tennessee will not only receive more than 
twice as much money under this approach than under the COPS Program, 
but it will not have to comply with the whims that come from out-of-
touch bureaucrats. I am sure many other States will find themselves in 
the same position. Therefore, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  I yield back any time I may have remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement accompanying H.R. 2076, the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  The conference agreement provides $27.3 billion in budget authority 
and $19.1 billion in new outlays for the programs of the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, State, the judiciary, and related agencies.
  When adjustments are made for prior-year outlays and other completed 
actions, the bill as adjusted totals $27.3 billion in budget authority 
and $26.6 billion in outlays.
  Under very difficult funding contraints, this is a bill that honestly 
and straightforwardly sets forth funding priorities while staying 
within the subcommittee's revised 602(b) allocation. The final bill is 
less than $1 million in budget authority and $2.4 million in outlays 
below the revised 602(b) allocation.
  I commend the new chairman of the subcommitee, Senator Gregg, for the 
fine job he did in conference on this bill. This bill provides dramatic 
increases in our front-line law enforcement and the Border Patrol as 
well as increased flexibility for States in developing their crime 
fighting strategy through the new State and local law enforcement 
assistance block grant. A total of $1.9 billion will be provided to 
States and local governments for the hiring and equipping of law 
enforcement personnel, updated technology, and crime prevention 
programs.
  There are a few items for which I would like to express particular 
appreciation to the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee. One is the $4 million provided for the Women's Outreach 
Program under the Small Business Administration, another is the 
flexibility for States to fund drug court programs under the law 
enforcement block grant, and lastly, the agreement to preserve the 
Legal Services Corporation.

  With regard to the Legal Services Corporation, I must say that I am 
not pleased with the final funding agreement of $278 million. I realize 
the House was concerned about passing the conference report and felt it 
necessary to remain at the House funding level.
  However, it is highly likely that the President will veto this bill. 
When we revisit this issue, I and a number of my colleagues will insist 
on a higher funding level.
  This bill retains the Legal Services Corporation but significantly 
restructures its activities. I believe the Corporation should withstand 
scrutiny from even its harshest critics. Tough new restrictions on the 
uses of LSC and non-LSC funds are in place and enforceable through the 
independent office of the inspector general, rather than through the 
Corporation itself.
  The funds will be targeted toward basic legal services for low income 
individuals ensuring equal access to justice. Within 6 months, the 
Corporation will be out of the more controversial business activities 
that have brought so much criticism in the past.
  Finally, I note that the conferees have continued bipartisan support 
for the Fulbright Exchange Program recommending $102.5 million to 
continue the program in fiscal year 1996.
  Since the Fulbright Program was signed into law in 1946, nearly 
230,000 Fulbright grants have been awarded to U.S. citizens and to 
nationals of 150 other countries. These scholars go abroad to study, 
teach, or conduct research and foreign nationals come to the United 
States for the same purpose.
  For every $100 the U.S. Government spends on Fulbright exchanges, the 
Fulbright Program attracts $44 from foreign governments and from in-
kind support and private contributions both here and abroad attesting 
to its international stature.
  Non-U.S. Government support for the Fulbright Program increased by 20 
percent from 1993 to 1994 alone, a strong indication of the program's 
prestige throughout the world.
  I am pleased that the Congress will support the Fulbright Program in 
its 50th anniversary year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the 
Budget Committee scoring of the conference report accompanying the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the judiciary appropriations bill be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    COMMERCE-JUSTICE SUBCOMMITTEE, SPENDING TOTALS--CONFERENCE REPORT   
               [Fiscal year 1996, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget               
                                                 authority     Outlays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense discretionary:                                                  
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed..................................  ...........           92
  H.R. 2076, conference report................          151          125
  Scorekeeping adjustment.....................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal defense discretionary............          151          217
                                               =========================
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed..................................  ...........        6,561
  H.R. 2076, conference report................       22,659       17,177
  Scorekeeping adjustment.....................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary.........       22,659       23,738
                                               =========================
Violent crime reduction trust fund:                                     
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed..................................  ...........          826
  H.R. 2076, conference report................        3,956        1,286
  Scorekeeping adjustment.....................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal violent crime reduction trust                              
     fund.....................................        3,956        2,112
                                               =========================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed..................................            2           20
  H.R. 2076, conference report................          503          480
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs                              
   with budget resolution assumptions.........           27           25
                                               -------------------------
    Subtotal mandatory........................          532          525
                                               =========================
Senate subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary.......................          151          218
  Nondefense discretionary....................       22,659       23,739
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..........        3,956        2,113
  Mandatory...................................          532          525
                                               -------------------------
    Total allocation..........................       27,298       26,595
                                               =========================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary.......................  ...........           -1
  Nondefense discretionary....................           -0           -1
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..........           -0           -1
  Mandatory...................................  ...........  ...........
                                               -------------------------
    Total allocation..........................      -27,298      -26,595
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest that in times when we do 
not have all the money in the world, the appropriation process, in my 
humble opinion, has a very, very specific job to do and that is to 
prioritize where the money will be spent. If there is not enough money 
for what everybody wants in a bill, then it is the responsibility of 
those who lead the committee to look at the spectrum of things they are 
supposed to be considering and say, ``Which are most important?''
  Frankly, under our new chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, ably assisted by 
the ranking member, Senator Hollings, who has chaired this subcommittee 
before, they have done just that, as it pertains to the No. 1 issue in 
the United States of America: crime.
  If you ask the American people what they would want us to spend their 
taxes on in this bill, they would say pay for crime prevention, and 
U.S. attorneys who are prosecuting, and for prisons that are holding 
prisoners, and for U.S. marshals who make sure they are taken into 
custody, and pay for FBI and DEA, and, lo and behold, add to that the 
entire Department of Justice criminal apparatus. Funding for these 
kinds of programs went up 19.2 percent.
  Frankly, I come to the floor to congratulate the chairman and ranking 
member for that. They have added one other area that definitely needs 
improvement, because if you ask Americans what else they are very 
worried about, they will say, ``Illegal immigration.'' They will say 
``our borders are 

[[Page S 18158]]
not our borders any more. They are sieves,'' and they will say, ``What 
can you do to improve it?''
  In this bill, in a dramatic way, we have increased the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service, the INS. The American people would vote 
``aye'' for that. They would say yes.
  Frankly, there are a lot of other things in this bill that are 
secondary. If we had all the money in the world we ought to fund them. 
I want to lodge a complaint and a concern because we did not have 
enough money, but if we ever get back to the table and are producing 
another bill, I am a strong advocate of giving legal services to poor 
people who need a lawyer. I am not an advocate of Legal Services taking 
on all kinds of causes. I want them to pay for individual poor 
Americans who are being sued or have a lawsuit, so they have access to 
a lawyer.
  I believe Democrats and Republicans alike ought to be for that. This 
bill contains prohibitions against the Legal Services Corporation that 
they can live with and still provide services for the poor. It does not 
have enough money but there is not enough to continue providing the 
most critical services.
  This bill may not see the light of day. It may be vetoed. Who knows 
what the budget negotiations might bring? I came to the floor to say I 
believe we are about $60 million below the Senate-passed level for 
Legal Services, and I hope at some point we can make that up.
  I close these remarks once again by saying if ever there was a 
subcommittee that saw what America truly needs from its Federal 
Government, and where our people would like their taxes spent, this 
subcommittee did it, because they have increased every legitimate bona 
fide area of crime prevention that the U.S. Government is in by a 
significant amount. I laud them for it. I hope we can eventually get 
this new money into these programs and these activities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. First, I wish to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his 
generous comments. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I congratulate the authors for an excellent piece of 
legislation. I come to the floor quite often complaining about wasteful 
spending earmarks and other pork barrel projects and find this 
legislation largely devoid of that. I want to express my appreciation 
to both the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I hope we can continue that practice and indeed expand it. I 
have seen it in 2 of the 13 appropriations bills, and I hope that we 
will be able to continue to make progress in that area.
  Mr. President, the reason why I came to the floor, and I will not use 
my full time, is that every time I come to the floor to talk about our 
relationship with Vietnam I hope it is my last. Unfortunately, I have 
been given one more opportunity.
  The bill before us conditions funds in an unacceptable manner for 
expanding diplomatic relations with Vietnam on our efforts to gain the 
fullest possible accounting of American servicemen. The President has 
made clear in his statement of policy on this bill that he will veto 
it. Among the reasons he listed for doing so is his objection to this 
particular provision.

  This being the case, I will not take a long time to discuss the 
issue. But I do want to point out one simple fact: The President of the 
United States has normalized diplomatic relations with Vietnam. That is 
a fact. The Senate has managed to at least grasp this reality. Just 
over 2 months ago it supported the President's decision by voting 
against an amendment prohibiting normal economic relations with 
Vietnam. As for the other body, the language which has made Vietnam an 
issue in this bill at all was approved without a recorded vote.
  Mr. President, to state the obvious, the President must have the 
authority to conduct our foreign relations. Whether I agree or disagree 
with the President of the United States--in this case I happen to 
agree--I know that elections have consequences. For better or for 
worse, President Clinton was elected to conduct our Nation's foreign 
policy.
  He is the President of the United States and he has decided it is 
time to move forward in our relationship with Vietnam. Again, this is a 
fact.
  He will veto this bill, as is also within his constitutional 
authority, and we will begin again. I hope the next time the conference 
committee considers the issue of United States-Vietnam relations it 
will dispose of it in a manner that allows us to put the issue behind 
us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the compromise 
language that was worked out by the House and Senate conferees with 
respect to an expansion of our diplomatic presence in Communist 
Vietnam. I also take vigorous exception to the remarks made by the 
Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in opposition to the work done by 
the conferees. I would say to my friend from Arizona that this language 
is so reasonable, that there is no way the House is going to back down 
on it, and I intend to use every means at my disposal to prevent any 
weakening of the approved language. Moreover, while I respect the 
Senator from Arizona's right to raise his objections, I must say that I 
am extremely disappointed that he would make such a statement with 
respect to this specific provision on Vietnam worked out by the 
conferees.
  I would note that, in addition to a majority of the House-Senate 
conferees, this provision is supported by the majority leader, the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, the chairman of the Asian/Pacific Subcommittee, the 
chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, as well as the 
House chairman of the International Relations Committee and the 
National Security Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Moreover, four of 
our major national veterans organizations--the American Legion, the 
Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and Vietnam Veterans of America--
support this language, in addition to the National League of POW/MIA 
Families and the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families. In short, there 
is broad support for this provision, notwithstanding the remarks by the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The fact is, Mr. President, that all Congress has asked for from the 
President in this provision is his assurance that Vietnam is fully 
cooperating on the President's own established criteria for measuring 
progress by Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue. Let me repeat, so there can 
be no misunderstanding: all the Senate and House conferees have asked 
for is the President's assurance that Vietnam is fully cooperating on 
the President's own established criteria for measuring progress by 
Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue. If Vietnam is not fully cooperating, then 
I would think most of my colleagues would agree that perhaps we need to 
take a closer look at the administration's policy toward Hanoi and 
whether it is working. If the President says Hanoi is fully 
cooperating, then it is full steam ahead with Vietnam relations.
  I am both confused and amazed that the Senator from Arizona does not 
like the term fully cooperating. All year long we have heard rhetoric 
praising Vietnam's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue from the 
administration and certain Members of the Senate using every adjective 
in the book--words like ``superb,'' ``splendid,'' ``unprecedented,'' 
``undiminished,'' ``great,'' ``outstanding''--that is what we've been 
told, Mr. President. But now, when we ask the administration to put 
their assurances in writing, with words that have real meaning, some 
people up here get nervous and we see the kind of statement we heard 
earlier. Ironically, I think the remarks made earlier may cause the 
American people to wonder whether they have been deliberately misled by 
the President in order to allow the normalization of full taxpayer-
funded relations with Communist Vietnam. I find it very troubling that 
my friend is raising a red flag on such a reasonable provision.
  Mr. President, should the Senator from Arizona or any other Senator 
want an extended debate on this issue, I would put them on notice right 
now that they will get such a debate from this Senator if they try to 
weaken this language in the coming days.
  The reason many of the wounds from the Vietnam war have yet to heal 
has 

[[Page S 18159]]
to do with things like honesty, commitment, and priorities. That is 
what this debate will be about, because that is what the House and 
Senate conferees are seeking from the administration with the 
certification on POW/MIA cooperation in this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the referenced 
provision on Vietnam be printed in the Record immediately following my 
remarks in order that my colleagues may see how reasonable a provision 
it really is. I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Bill Language Agreed to on Nov. 27, 1995, by the House-Senate 
 Conference on H.R. 2076, the Commerce/Justice/State and the Judiciary 
               Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1996:

       Sec. 609. Limitation on the Use of Funds for Diplomatic 
     Facilities in Vietnam.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to pay for any cost incurred for:
       (1) opening or operating any United States diplomatic or 
     consular post in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was 
     not operating on July 11, 1995;
       (2) expanding any United States diplomatic or consular post 
     in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was operating on 
     July 11, 1995; or
       (3) increasing the total number of personnel assigned to 
     United States diplomatic or consular posts in the Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam above the levels existing on July 11, 
     1995,

     unless the President certifies within 60 days, based upon all 
     information available to the U.S. Government, that the 
     Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is fully 
     cooperating with the United States in the following four 
     areas:
       (1) resolving discrepancy cases, live-sightings, and field 
     activities,
       (2) recovering and repatriating American remains,
       (3) accelerating efforts to provide documents that will 
     help lead to the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIA's,
       (4) providing further assistance in implementing trilateral 
     investigations with Laos.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, momentarily the Senator from Delaware, 
who I understand has substantial time left, will come to the floor.
  Let me agree with my distinguished chairman relative to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service whereby we cut not only New 
Hampshire, we cut the State of South Carolina and other small States to 
the tune of $500 million--half a billion bucks out of the prison fund, 
out of prison construction, so that we could set up this imprisonment 
of immigration violators in the States of California, Texas, Florida, 
and otherwise.
  So there should not be any criticism on that score. There should be 
thanks to the Senator from New Hampshire and the committee that has 
done its work in that particular regard.
  Otherwise, Mr. President, let me emphasize one more time the advance 
technology program while I have a few minutes. We started that in our 
Commerce Committee after a series of over 2 years of hearings, and we 
were trying our dead-level best to get America back on top of its own 
technology in the context of yes, we were leading in the research but 
never in the development.
  Specifically, down in Houston on the superconductor we had Nobel 
Prize winners there, but the competitor, Japan, orchestrated some 22 
entities and markets and wins and profits. We win the prizes. They win 
the profits. We wanted to get on top of that particular problem and 
with the advance technology program whereby they pick the winner--not 
the Government--and it is picked by them coming with at least 50 
percent of the funds and thereafter reviewed, peer reviewed by the 
National Academy of Engineering, that the award is made.
  It is has worked very successfully. The industry, particularly the 
electronics industry, the computer industry and otherwise, came to us 
and the Council on Competitiveness under President Bush, John Young of 
Hewlett-Packard testified on behalf of this program.

  I dovetailed the program, having chaired the hearings otherwise on 
the trade bill back in 1988. It was not in the budget. Thereafter, 
President Bush did pick up and submit a request for it.
  Now, over on the House side they have the bit in the teeth relative 
to winners and losers, industrial policy, all kinds of nonsensical 
pollster slogans--are you for the Washington Government picking winners 
and losers? You hear some of that, and of course carried to its logical 
conclusion about the best government is the least government, and we do 
not have to wait for Washington. Just do away with the county and State 
government and let the township operate and forget about Washington, 
too.
  These are good arguments on the campaign trail but the fact of the 
matter is we have an ongoing program that should never be abolished, to 
maintain the development, not just the research, but the development of 
our technology.
  At the end of World War II we had 50 percent of the work force in 
America in manufacturing; 10 years ago it was down to 26 percent; 
today, it is 13 percent.
  I used to go to the factories in New Hampshire campaigning.
  There are very few factories left in New Hampshire. I can find up on 
the highway, 128, I think it is, going up from Nashua to Boston, Wang 
and some of the others, Wheeler, Beta, Frye--oh, I had a good time.
  I mentioned earlier, the Governor of North Carolina, there, after 
Secretary of Commerce Hodges, he had been the national president of the 
Rotary, and his widow, now a resident of your home State, made sure I 
was introduced to all Rotary Clubs up there. It was a tremendous 
pleasure. Otherwise, when referred to on the Hoover Commission by our 
distinguished full chairman, Senator Hatfield of Oregon--yes, we served 
on that Hoover Commission back in 1953 and 1954, investigating the 
intelligence activities.
  I have, again, the same reverence he has for former President Herbert 
Hoover. He is the one who, incidentally, started the telecommunications 
bill that we are trying to conference. It had a very interesting 
beginning, that particular program, you might say, in law. It was back 
in 1912, at the sinking of the Titanic, whereby David Sarnoff, working 
in the store Wannamakers, in Philadelphia, selling wireless sets, went 
up on the roof and contacted survivors and nearby ships in the rescue 
and orchestrated the rescue effort. He stayed up there 3 days and 
nights. The crowds gathered below.
  But, thereafter, then everybody wanted a wireless, and, by 1924, 
under Secretary Hoover, the industry asked to be regulated. They had 
jammed the airwaves and you could not reach anyone. They said, ``For 
Heaven's sakes, we need the National Government to come and regulate 
us.''
  So, those who are now running around, deregulate, deregulate--we want 
to. We want to catch up the law with the technology, which is far ahead 
of us here in the Congress. But, in so doing, we want to make certain 
it is done on a competitive basis rather than a noncompetitive basis. 
We do not want to extend the monopoly.
  So, that being the case, I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
conference report on the Commerce, Justice, and the State Department 
appropriations bill for fiscal 1996.
  While this agreement is an improvement in some respects over the bill 
that passed the Senate earlier this fall--most notably in the funding 
for the Economic Development Administration--it still fails to provide 
adequately for many programs which are absolutely essential to 
promoting economic and business development, investing in research and 
development and protecting American consumers.
  I want to underscore some of the most egregious provisions in this 
conference agreement.
  First, this bill proposes to eliminate the President's Community 
Policing Program, one of the most successful and popular anticrime 
initiatives ever enacted. Communities throughout the Nation have 
already benefited enormously from the Federal resources made available 
under this program. There are today over 25,000 new police officers on 
the street battling violence and drug-related crime. In my own State of 
Maryland, 365 new officers are on the beat in urban and rural 
communities creating a new sense of security and adding to the quality 
of life for all of our residents. The conference agreement's proposal 
to replace this program with a block grant program would defeat the 
entire premise of community policing by shifting money 

[[Page S 18160]]
away from providing new police officers to communities in need. Lumping 
COPS grants in with other law enforcement and prevention programs would 
instead allow States to use the money for numerous other intentions 
ranging from prosecutors to housing code inspectors.
  Second, the conference agreement has proposed to significantly reduce 
funding in important programs and laboratory upgrades for the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology. I would zero out the Advanced 
Technology Program which assists businesses large and small in 
developing high-risk/high-impact technologies for the 21st century. The 
ATP is fast becoming a key mechanism accelerating the pace of 
commercial technology development. In its first 5 years of operation, 
ATP has already shown tremendous potential for enhancing economic 
growth--especially during this time of intensifying investor pressure 
to cut costs and spend limited research funds. Even though ATP is 
relatively new, it is already helping researchers in 38 States. The 
conference agreement would eliminate not only future grant initiatives, 
but also suspend funds for projects already in progress. This program 
has truly been a success and must be continued.
  I am also particularly concerned about the rescission of $75 million 
in prior year unobligated balances and reduction of $10 million in the 
fiscal 1996 request for the modernization of NIST's 35-year-old 
laboratory facilities in Gaithersburg and Boulder, CO. Without these 
funds, NIST will be unable to proceed with its construction of the much 
needed Advanced Technology laboratory, the centerpiece of NIST's 
upgrade and construction program. As the only Federal laboratory whose 
explicit mission is developing scientific standards and providing 
technical support for U.S. industry's competitiveness objectives, NIST 
must have modern infrastructure--the laboratories, equipment, 
instrumentation, and support--in order to maintain a viable scientific 
research program and to keep our Nation on the cutting edge of science 
and technology as we move into the 21st century.
  Third, Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the funding level 
for the Legal Services Corporation in this conference agreement. The 
agreement would provide significantly less funding than provided in the 
Senate bill, which would have reduced substantially the funding for 
legal services from the fiscal year 1995 level of $400 million.
  For more than two decades, the Legal Services Corporation has been at 
the forefront of our efforts to give real meaning to the words 
emblazoned in stone above the portals of the Supreme Court: ``Equal 
Justice Under Law.'' The Legal Services program has provided critically 
needed services to millions of poor, elderly, and disabled citizens who 
otherwise would not have access to the American legal system and the 
protection it affords the many basic rights we enjoy in this country.
  Maryland's Legal Aid Bureau, which receives by far the largest 
portion of its total funding from the Legal Services Corporation, has 
done an outstanding job of representing Maryland citizens living in 
poverty. With the funding received from LSC, the 13 legal aid offices 
located throughout Maryland provide general legal services to 
approximately 19,000 families and individuals annually, assisting 
Marylanders in such routine legal matters as consumer problems, housing 
issues, domestic and family cases, and applying for and appealing the 
denial of public benefits.
  I am very concerned that the significant reduction in funding in this 
conference report for legal services would seriously impair the ability 
of legal services organizations like Maryland Legal Aid to provide 
these vital services.
  Fourth, the conference report cuts $43 million from the 
administration's fiscal 1996 budget request, funding that is absolutely 
essential for the Bureau to gear up for the 2000 census. These cuts 
would seriously endanger the Census Bureau's ability to collect and 
process periodic economic data. This data is essential for businesses 
and policy makers to understand what is happening in the economy. A 
recent editorial in the Washington Post underscores the importance of 
this funding for the Census and I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record immediately following my statement.
  For these and other reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in 
rejecting this legislation.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 7, 1995]

                     Counting the Cost of Counting

       Measured by the product created for the money spent, the 
     U.S. Census Bureau is one of the most valuable agencies of 
     government. Data from the Census Bureau are vital to 
     business, to academia, to transportation planners, to those 
     who assess future housing demand and to many others. Census 
     numbers are also among the country's most important political 
     numbers, determining how legislative seats are allocated and 
     where billions in federal dollars will go.
       The Census Bureau, like every other agency, is caught up in 
     the battle for a balanced budget. The bureau is unusual among 
     federal agencies because its costs do not go up along a 
     straight line; they peak toward the end of one decade and the 
     very beginning of the next, because of the bureau's central 
     mission: to conduct a national head count every 10 years. The 
     misfortune for the Census Bureau is that the cuts needed to 
     achieve a balanced budget between now and 2002 fall right in 
     the middle of its biggest spending years.
       The Census Bureau itself agrees with its various critics 
     that its needs to figure out how to produce better data for 
     less money. If the census in the year 2000 were conducted 
     exactly as the 1990 census was, the estimates are that its 
     cost would grow from $2.6 billion to $4.8 billion. The bureau 
     wants to come in at well under that. But to do so, it may 
     have to rely on various sampling techniques that many 
     Republicans are leery of. Some of the biggest costs the 
     census faces are in going back and finding those who do not 
     reply to the census form. Sampling would cut those costs. So 
     a key question is whether Congress is willing to accept 
     sampling methods in the interest of saving money. If the 
     savings came instead from less intensive efforts to find 
     those who do not answer the census initial query--many of 
     them are poorer than average, members of minority groups, 
     immigrants and city dwellers--the biases that already creep 
     into the data would deepen.
       Many in Congress suggest that costs could be cut and 
     response rates improved if the census shortened the 
     questionnaire of its ``long form,'' which goes to about one 
     American in six. A shorter long form would save some money, 
     but at the cost of data lost to government, business and 
     researchers of all kinds. If ever there was a place for one 
     of those cost-benefit analyses the new Congress seems so fond 
     of, this is it.
       For the next fiscal year, the Clinton administration had 
     asked for $193.5 million for the census, and the Senate went 
     right along. But the House appropriated only $135 million. 
     The conference committee has settled on $150.3 million. For 
     the short term, it's not clear to us that the census is the 
     best place to look for that much in savings, especially since 
     the bureau is now spending on technological improvements and 
     research designed to save money when the big bucks start 
     getting spent around the year 2000. The test should be 
     whether small cuts now would risk larger cost increases 
     later. Even more important is for Congress to face up to the 
     underlying policy issues, since the goal of a cheaper census 
     could be at odds with some of Congress's other objectives.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senate had proposed a 20-percent cut 
in the budget of the International Trade Commission. The conference 
report restored most of the International Trade Commission's budget. 
Various trade reorganization proposals have been advanced. Any attempt 
at trade reorganization must also encompass the reorganization of the 
International Trade Commission. It is my firm belief that the 
Commission flaunts the will of the Congress with regard to enforcement 
of our trade laws. Furthermore, the Commission is rife with internal 
conflict. At this time I ask for unanimous consent that memorandums 
written by the Chairman and various Commissioners be printed in the 
Record. Mr. President, these memos speak for themselves, and they speak 
volumes for the need to reform the ITC.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: The Commission.
     From: Chairman Peter S. Watson.
     Subject: Attempted override of direction to issue press 
         release re study in Inv. No. 332-TA-344.
       Earlier today I learned from the Director, Office of Public 
     Affairs, of a purported decision by four Commissioners to 
     override my direction to her to issue a press release in the 
     form that I had approved.
       Section 1331, of course, provides that any of my 
     administrative decisions ``shall be subject to disapproval by 
     a majority vote of all the commissioners in office.'' But 
     that section does require a vote. As our own General 

[[Page S 18161]]
     Counsel has advised: ``While the statute clearly provides that the 
     Commissioners shall have the right to vote on the question of 
     disapproval, it is silent with respect to voting procedure. 
     We know of only two ways in which the Commission and other 
     collegial bodies vote on matters--by notational voting (e.g. 
     action jacket) and by vote in the course of a meeting. The 
     Commission utilized both forms of decisionmaking at the time 
     Congress was considering the amendments to section 331, and 
     we presume that Congress intended that disapproval votes 
     could occur in either manner.''
       The reason for such voting is to allow all Commissioners a 
     say in any business before the Commission--in other words, it 
     enforces some minimal deliberation by the entire body, 
     whether in writing or orally.
       This advice was confirmed to me late today by the Inspector 
     General. I continue, therefore, to direct the issuance of the 
     press release as originally drafted.
       Per Administrative Order 94-26, ``any Commissioner may 
     request that an item, other than an outstanding action 
     jacket, be placed on the agenda for a public meeting of the 
     Commission.'' If any of my colleagues wish to do so, they 
     may.
                                                                    ____

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Peg O'Laughlin.
     From: Peter S. Watson.
     Subject: Press Release for Inv. 332-TA-344.
       I direct you to issue the attached press release 
     immediately. The authority of me to direct the release of the 
     same, over the objections of certain Commissioners; is 
     contained in CO70-S-066, a copy of which I attach. As there 
     has been no legally recognized override of my direction to 
     you, the press release is to be issued without any delay.
       Using the same authority, I direct you, or any subordinate 
     of yours, not to release any other press release concerning 
     this investigation unless authorized by me in advance, in 
     writing.
       Attachment.


     itc releases study on the economic effects of antidumping and 
          countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements

       The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) 
     today released the results of its investigation Economic 
     Effects of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders and 
     Suspension Agreements (Investigation No. 332-344). The 
     report, which also reports on the economic effects of the 
     dumping and subsidy practices that such orders and agreements 
     address, was forwarded to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey 
     Kantor, who requested study.
       The investigation was originally requested by former USTR 
     Carla Hills in January 1993. Ambassador Kantor resubmitted 
     the request in June 1993 with a broadened investigative 
     scope. The ITC instituted the investigation in July 1993. Two 
     days of public hearings were held in September 1994 as part 
     of the ITC's full investigative process.
       The ITC report Economic Effects of Antidumping and 
     Countervailing Duty Orders and Suspension Agreements 
     (Investigation No. 332-344, USITC Publication No. xxxx, June 
     1995) can be ordered without charge by calling 202-205-1809 
     or by writing to the Office of the Secretary, Publications 
     Branch, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436 (FAX: 202-205-
     2104).
       The report will also be available on the ITC's Internet 
     server at http://www.usitc.gov or ftp://ftp.usitc.gov.
 ____

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Director, Office of Public Affairs.
     From: Vice Chairman Nuzum, Janet Nuzum, Commissioner Rohr, 
         Commissioner Newquist, and, Commissioner Bragg.
     Subject: Press Release in Inv. No. 332-344.
       We are very concerned about the events of Friday, June 30, 
     surrounding the issuance of a press release that had been 
     disapproved by a majority of the Commission. You work for the 
     entire Commission, and may not carry the instructions of a 
     single Commissioner, including the Chairman, if those 
     instructions conflict with the direction of a majority of 
     Commissioners.
       In the future, we expect that you will take actions 
     consistent with the views of the Commission majority. If you 
     encounter what you believe are unfair tactics or intimidation 
     by a single Commissioner attempting to thwart the will of the 
     majority, please advise the remaining Commissioners promptly 
     and take no action until so authorized by a majority of 
     Commissioners. We will not tolerate such behavior by our 
     colleagues and have advised them that we will take 
     appropriate action if it occurs. In the case of a career 
     employee threatened with termination or other adverse 
     personnel action for refusing to follow instructions that 
     violate the will of a majority of the Commission, we note 
     that the Chairman does not have the authority to terminate a 
     supervisory employee at or above grade GS-15 without the 
     express approval of a majority of the Commission. 19 U.S.C. 
     1331(a)(2)(A). In the case of other adverse personnel action, 
     the Commission majority can and would take action to override 
     any such adverse action under these circumstances.
       Press releases concerning Commission determinations or 
     reports require the approval of the Commission. Contrary to 
     the Chairman's characterization in his memorandum CO70-S-066 
     (June 30, 1995), the issuance of such press releases is not 
     an administrative decision subject to override by a majority 
     of the Commission within the scope of 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1). 
     Rather, as described in the attached memorandum from the 
     General Counsel, the issuance of a press release regarding a 
     Commission response to an Executive Branch request is a 
     substantive matter involving external relations, and as such 
     requires majority approval by the Commission. This is 
     precisely the reason that such press releases are routinely 
     circulated by the Office of Public Affairs to all 
     Commissioners' offices--for approval by the Commission, not 
     approval by the Chairman. The Commission did not approve the 
     press release that you issued on June 30; in fact, a majority 
     of Commissioners disapproved it, and instead indicated its 
     approval of a revised press release. thus, issuance of that 
     press release was improper.
                                                                    ____

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Chairman Watson.
     From: Vice Chairman Nuzum, Commissioner Rohr, Commissioner 
         Newquist, Commissioner Bragg.
     Subject: Press Release in Inv. No. 332-344.
       We strongly object to your action of Friday, June 30, in 
     directing the issuance of a press release that had been 
     disapproved by a majority of the Commission. We are disturbed 
     by your heavy-handed tactics regarding issuance of a 
     Commission press release, which before your actions of that 
     Friday had been an uncomplicated collegial process. We also 
     disagree with both the premise and substance of your 
     memorandum CO70-S-066 (June 30, 1995).
       The premise of your memorandum is incorrect: the issuance 
     of a press release concerning a Commission study is not an 
     administrative decision within the Chairman's authority under 
     19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(1), but rather a substantive matter 
     involving external relations, for which Commission approval 
     is required. In this case, a majority of Commissioners 
     disapproved the press release in favor of a revised press 
     release. Thus, when you directed the issuance of a press 
     release that had been disapproved by a majority of the 
     Commission, you acted outside of your authority.
       Although this was not a case of an attempted override, you 
     are incorrect in suggesting that a vote to override an 
     administrative action by the Chairman can only be 
     accomplished by means of an action jacket or by vote in the 
     course of a public meeting. The courts have upheld various 
     means of notational voting, including the separate expression 
     of views to an office compiling the views. In this case, four 
     Commissioners expressed their disapproval of the press 
     release and their concurrence in a revised text, both to the 
     Director of Public Affairs and to your office, orally and by 
     means of electronic mail. This would have been sufficient for 
     an override, had this been an override situation.
       Your action further contravenes 19 U.S.C. 1331(a)(3) which 
     states: ``No member of the Commission, in making public 
     statements with respect to any policy matter for which the 
     Commission has responsibility, shall represent himself as 
     speaking for the Commission, or his views as being the views 
     of the Commission, with respect to such matter except to the 
     extent that the Commission has adopted the policy being 
     expressed.''
       You directed the issuance of a press release to the public 
     with the knowledge that it did not represent the policy of 
     the Commission. In fact, there was a majority consensus on 
     what the policy of the Commission would be regarding this 
     study and the public's access to its contents, but you did 
     not agree with it. Instead, you made your own determination 
     on what that policy should be, and you represented to the 
     public that policy as being the Commission's position, 
     knowing that it was not. Thus, in our view, you improperly 
     represented yourself as speaking for the Commission by 
     ordering the issuance of this release as a Commission 
     document.
       Your actions in this matter are rendered even more 
     egregious by the ``management by intimidation'' tactics that 
     you employed. It is highly inappropriate for the Chairman to 
     threaten career government employees with adverse personnel 
     action if they fail to follow his personal instructions that 
     violate the clearly-expressed position of a majority of the 
     Commission. We are very concerned about your use of such 
     tactics, which place the entire Commission at risk for 
     employee grievances, sexual harassment lawsuits, and 
     resulting potential liability. To the extent that we are 
     required to do so by law, we hereby serve notice that we do 
     not condone such behavior and will not hesitate to take 
     appropriate action should it occur in the future.
                                                                    ____

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Vice Chairman Nuzum, Commissioner Rohr, Commissioner 
         Newquist, Commissioner Bragg.
     From: Peter S. Watson.
     Subject: CO69,64,67 & 71-S-001 dated July 12, 1995, Press 
         Release in Inv. No. 332-344.

       Thank you for the above-referenced joint Memorandum and the 
     Memorandum GC-S-295 attached thereto, both dated July 12, 
     1995.
       The submissions are interesting insofar as they reflect 
     creative interpretation and writing. Yet, as entertaining as 
     your submissions might be, I do not find them compelling. 
     
[[Page S 18162]]

       Instead, I find the interpretation of Commission voting 
     procedure the GC set forth in GC-L-047, and in which the IG 
     orally concurred, to be compelling. Accordingly, I continue 
     to be directed by it, and I will expect relevant Commission 
     employees to do the same. For the same reason, the validity 
     of my original action stands.
       What I found less amusing was the assertion that my conduct 
     ``place [note: not may place] the entire Commission at risk . 
     . . sexual harassment lawsuit''. A separate communication 
     will be forthcoming on this particularly serious, and totally 
     groundless, charge.
                                                                    ____

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Chairman Peter Watson.
     From: Vice Chairman Janet Nuzum, Commissioner David Rohr, 
         Commissioner Don Newquist, Commissioner Lynn Bragg.
     Subject: Clarification of our memo of July 12.
       In light of your comments in CO70-S-070 of late yesterday, 
     we wish to clarify our statements in the last paragraph of 
     our memorandum of July 12. We were not, and are not, alleging 
     that you have engaged in sexual harassment, and regret any 
     inference of such. Our concern is the use of intimidating 
     tactics and the possibility of grievances or lawsuits being 
     filed by staff should such treatment persist. Obviously, we 
     would not welcome such filings; besides the obvious legal 
     costs, there would be serious repercussions to morale within 
     the agency. We need a Chairman who leads by respect, not 
     threat. We hope you agree. In bringing these concerns to your 
     attention now, it is our sincere hope that you will 
     appreciate these concerns and that we can all avoid this 
     situation from escalating.
                                                                    ____

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Vice Chairman Janet Nuzum, Commissioner David Rohr, 
         Commissioner Don Newquist, Commissioner Lynn Bragg.
     From: Peter S. Watson.
     Subject: CO69, 64, 67, & 71-S-003 of July 14, 1995.
       I am in receipt of the captioned Memoranda. In respect to 
     your actions that I took issue with in the last paragraph of 
     my Memorandum CO70-S-070, knowledgeable counsel has advised 
     me that, upon a review of the facts and applicable law, he 
     believes actionable libel was committed by each of you (and 
     perhaps others, yet to be identified) in respect to the same.
       Adlai Stevenson once observed that it is often easier to 
     fight for principles than to live up to them. I have no 
     lessons to learn from those who would presume to piously 
     school me while simultaneously publishing and disseminating 
     the insidious and odious language referred to. I am, however, 
     prepared to accept the unconditional retraction of, and 
     apology for, the language that you issued as an end of your 
     role in this most regrettable matter.
                                                                    ____

                                  Washington, DC, August 11, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: The Commission.
     From: Peter S. Watson.
     Subject: Request for hiring authorizations.
       The purpose of this memo is to seek comment on action I am 
     considering on several requests for authorization to hire. As 
     you know, I instituted a hiring freeze this past April 
     (Administrative Order 95-13) that allows exceptions for 
     demonstrated critical staffing needs. Because all hiring 
     decisions made before the end of FY 95 will affect our budget 
     planning for FY 96, I believe it is important that the 
     Commission be advised of my decisions in that regard and 
     given the opportunity to comment on the same.
       I recently received a request (OP-S-028) dated July 21, 
     1995, from the Director of Operations regarding certain 
     critical staffing needs. Attached for your review and 
     information is Mr. Rogowsky's July 21, 1995 memorandum, other 
     memoranda related to requests for hiring authority, and 
     background information on the ITC's Cooperative Education 
     Program.
       Upon review of these memoranda and after numerous 
     conversations with staff, I have decided that it is sagacious 
     to authorize Office of Industries (OI) to convert three co-op 
     employees to permanent status (authorization to hire into the 
     co-op program granted 12/27/94 by this Office) and to 
     authorize the Office of Information Systems (OIS) to announce 
     and hire a computer specialist. I have concluded that it is 
     in the ITC's best interest to fill these positions despite 
     the possibility that the Commission's FY 96 appropriation may 
     necessitate a reduction in force. At this time, I do not 
     expect to grant any other hiring authorizations in FY 95.
       We may estimate that the Commission will have approximately 
     425 full-time permanent employees on board at the close of FY 
     95 (if the aforementioned positions are filled). This number 
     is based on several considerations including the assumption 
     of a conservative attrition rate during FY 96. The last 
     transaction report (AD-S-175 dated August 7, 1995) indicates 
     that the Commission has approximately 423 funded permanent 
     position filled. This number would change as follows: 1) 
     the Commission is currently expecting to hire a Director 
     of Administration and a Director of Economics (+2); 2) 
     four more voluntary early retirements will occur by 
     September 30th (-4); 3) replacing Andy Fontaine in OIS and 
     approving the conversions of the three co-op employees 
     would add four (+4). The net result under this scenario 
     would be 425 permanent employees. I recognize that 
     staffing in Commissioners' offices may fluctuate slightly 
     as well.
       It is, or course, useful to ask whether the Commission 
     could sustain 425 full-time permanent employees under 
     different budget scenarios. Based on Mark Garfinkel's 
     estimations, if we are funded at $44.5 million, the 
     Commission would be able to support 425 positions. If we are 
     funded at $43.5 million, a furlough appears to be required to 
     avoid a RIF. If, however, we are funded at $42.5 million or 
     below, a RIF would become necessary even with a furlough. All 
     of these scenarios assume a non-personnel expenditure 
     reduction of 10% (not including rent) and some attrition in 
     FY 96. We also expect some savings from reducing leased space 
     to be realized in FY 96. \1\
       With the departure of Andy Fontaine in OIS, there exists a 
     critical need for additional technical computer support in 
     that Office. The only other OIS employee that has a technical 
     experience is Wally Fullerton. While OIS may be currently 
     over-staffed, existing employees cannot be trained to fill 
     Andy's position. It is important to note that the positions 
     currently filled by Andy and Wally Fullerton would likely be 
     placed in a separate ``competitive level'' from other staff, 
     preventing those positions from competing in a RIF targeted 
     at OIS.
       The Office of Industries is operating at a level well below 
     its current ceiling of 125 full-time permanent positions. The 
     co-op conversions will still leave industries six positions 
     below its ceiling and fill important or critical needs in OI 
     divisions. I am mindful that a significant investment in the 
     program and these particular employees has already been made. 
     The Commission would be hiring highly productive individuals 
     at a GS-9 level (average entry level is GS-11/3) who have 
     already been trained. I note that precedent exists to convert 
     co-op personnel during a hiring moratorium. Although the 
     Commission does not have a legal obligation to hire co-op 
     employees on a permanent basis, it makes sense to do so with 
     successful candidates if we are going to continue to embrace 
     the program. \2\ It is my understanding that the Office of 
     Personnel does not believe an extension of their temporary 
     status is possible. Moreover, they would not have health 
     insurance unless converted. Because the co-op employees, if 
     converted, would likely be among the first to go in a RIF 
     targeted at Industries, I would advise them in advance of 
     their questionable job security.
       Please provide me with your comments in writing by the 
     close of business August 16, 1995.
                                                                    ____

                                  Washington, DC, August 17, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     From: Peter S. Watson.
     To: David B. Rohr.
     Subject: Use of title: ``Senior Commissioner''.
       I am in receipt of your Memorandum CO64-S-055 dated August 
     14, 1995. Upon a thorough review of the entire matter it is 
     clear that the only relevant activity of disseminating 
     misleading information relates to your persistent and ongoing 
     public use of the non-existent title ``Senior Commissioner''. 
     It is a matter of public record that you are the longest-
     serving Commissioner. However, it is obvious from the style 
     and context of your use of the term ``Senior Commissioner'' 
     that the same connotes a formal and legal title, and does not 
     merely indicate relative length of tenure.
       The correspondence attached to your Memorandum indicates 
     that you have on at least three occasions formally and in 
     writing represented yourself with the title ``Senior 
     Commissioner''. The record reflects that you sent two letters 
     to the Financial Times and one letter to Inside U.S. Trade 
     using this non-existent title. This self-appointed title 
     apparently misled the Letters Editor of the Financial Times 
     who indeed addressed you with the title ``Senior 
     Commissioner'' in his response to you dated August 1, 1995.
       Please note that the term ``Senior Commissioner'' does not 
     appear as a title designating a position in any statute 
     relating to the Commission, or in any Commission regulation, 
     directive or administrative order. See the attached OGC 
     Memorandum LMS-S-041.
       Your use of non-existent title is, at the least, a profound 
     embarrassment to the Commission and especially to yourself. 
     Moreover, I am concerned that any continuing use of the same 
     might bring about a situation that results in a claim that 
     use of the title in question is in violation of law. In this 
     context one should note 18 USC Section 912 entitled ``Officer 
     or employee of the United States'' which states:
       ``Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or 
     employee acting under the authority of the United States or 
     any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such. 
     . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
     than three years, or both.''
       In that context, the Supreme Court case of United  States  
     v.  Barnow, 339 US 74, 60 1 Ed 155, 36 Ct 19 (1915) supports 
     the obvious conclusion that 18 USC Section 912 is to be read 
     broadly to include the false representation as to some office 
     or employment which has no legal or actual existence. As the 
     Court notes ``. . . the mischief is much the same. . . 
     whether the pretender names an 

[[Page S 18163]]
     existing or non-existing office or officer. . .''.
       Since the entire Commission is now on notice of your 
     continuing use of the said title and of possible claims 
     arising from ongoing use thereof, I hereby direct you to 
     immediately and permanently cease and desist in the use of 
     the same.
                                                                    ____

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1995.

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: The Chairman.
     From: The General Counsel.
     Subject: ``Senior Commissioner''.
       This is in response to your request for a review of whether 
     the term ``Senior Commissioner'' appears as a title 
     designating a position in any statute relating to the 
     Commission, a Commission regulation, a directive, or an 
     administrative order. We have found no such usage in statutes 
     (both current provisions and those applicable in 1996) 
     relating to the Commission, the Commission's Rules of 
     Practice and Procedure, directives, or administrative orders.
                                                                    ____

                                  Washington, DC, August 22, 1995.
     To: Chairman Peter S. Watson.
     From: David B. Rohr.
     Subject: Your memorandum CO70-S-082 (use of term ``Senior 
         Commissioner''); My memorandum CO64-S-055 (Title VII 
         Study, Investigation No. 322-334).
       I have seen your August 17, 1995 memorandum, CO70-S-082. I 
     note that you take issue with my use of the term ``Senior 
     Commissioner,'' but avoid the important matter raised by my 
     memorandum CO64-S-055, the circulation of misleading 
     information to the media on our Title VII investigation and 
     report.
       Your views regarding the use of the term ``Senior 
     Commissioner,'' while interesting, reveal a surprisingly 
     deficient research effort. Rather than merely parse the 
     statute, you could have researched Commission custom and 
     tradition, precedent that is important in matters such as 
     these. Such research would have revealed the use of the title 
     by other Commissioners at appropriate periods of their 
     tenures. I recall, in those cases, the Senior Commissioners 
     were accorded courtesy and respect by their colleagues, 
     qualities that are, indeed, in short supply within the 
     current Commission.
       Also on the ``Senior Commissioner'' issue, I must point out 
     that the letterhead I use clearly shows the statutorily 
     designated title of ``Commissioner'' in the upper left hand 
     corner. My use of the term ``Senior Commissioner'' is 
     subordinate to this statutory designation. The term 
     ``Senior'' in ``Senior Commissioner'' is merely an adjective, 
     reflecting my seniority of tenure among the current 
     Commissioners, a fact that even your memorandum acknowledges. 
     Seniority of tenure is statutorily referred to in section 
     331(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. I am 
     merely using the title as it has been customarily used at 
     this agency, and, in my case, perhaps, also as a reference 
     to chronological age.
       I am very disappointed that you have chosen to ignore the 
     purpose of my memorandum CO64-S-055, which was to call your 
     and our colleagues' attention to what I believe to be 
     misleading publicity regarding the Title VII report. My 
     concern is heightened by a second letter from the Financial 
     Times, received on Friday, August 18 (copy attached), which 
     states in paragraph 2 that ``Nancy Dunn's original story . . 
     . was based upon information supplied by the ITC.'' (emphasis 
     added). This suggests very strongly that the June document 
     ``Release of U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Study 
     on Economic Effects of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
     Orders and Suspension Agreements,'' which included the $16 
     billion dollar cost figure, actually originated in and was 
     disseminated from this agency with some sort of deliberate 
     intent that it be mistaken for a Commission-sponsored 
     document.
       I think we all should be very concerned about the 
     appearance (at least) of dishonesty and lack of integrity at 
     the Commission if, indeed, such information originated here 
     and was disseminated as though it were a Commission 
     publication. I believe the information disseminated was, in 
     fact, wrong. I documented this in my previous memorandum. 
     Regardless, however, of how the information is characterized, 
     it appears to have been disseminated as though it were from 
     the Commission. This is the critical misrepresentation--not 
     that the information was wrong--but that it was apparently 
     deliberately misrepresented to be from the Commission.
       Therefore, I renew my request for your thoughts and those 
     of my colleagues about any actions that we might take to shed 
     light on this case and assure that similar occurrences are 
     precluded in the future. I will have to assume that continued 
     silence by you or any other Commissioners is a lack of 
     interest and concern.
       I also renew my request for your communications with the 
     Financial Times related to the Title VII study.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would just like to make a few comments 
with respect to Senator Biden's remarks.
  First, Senator Biden remarked that the process by which this bill was 
brought to the floor was problematic. I agree, the process was 
imperfect. I would rather have brought the authorizing language through 
the normal process. I would note, however, that we have already held 
more hearings on the authorizing language in this bill than the 
Judiciary Committee held on the entire 1994 crime bill. I think it's 
tough to argue about the process by which this bill was sent to the 
floor.
  Second, I would like to address the so-called cuts to Federal law 
enforcement. Federal law enforcement is increased nearly 20 percent 
over 1995 levels. And I would note that since 1990, the only real cut 
to Federal law enforcement came in the President's first budget. 
Indeed, Congress actually restored the President's cuts.
  For example, the Commerce, Justice, State conference report funds INS 
at an increased rate of $2,557,470,000.
  The conference report provides over a 23.5-percent increase of fiscal 
year 1995 enacted levels. This increase provides funds to better 
control our borders and to stem illegal immigration.
  The conference report provides funds for 800 new border patrol 
agents, 160 support personnel, and allows for better INS efficiency by 
redeploying interior agent positions to locations where the illegal 
immigration problem is most severe, the border.
  The report also increases, by 1,400 positions, personnel dedicated to 
apprehend, locate, detain, and deport illegal aliens. Funding is also 
provided for over 2,800 detention beds and funding for antismuggling 
units.
  Construction funds are provided for a triple fencing pilot project in 
southern California and funds to renovate a naval base for use as an 
INS satellite training facility.
  Although the FBI does not receive quite the funding that I would like 
it to, it nevertheless receives a substantial increase over 1995.
  The conference report represents over a 9.8-percent increase compared 
to fiscal year 1995 enacted levels. This increase provides resources 
enabling the FBI to address many projects and initiatives. These 
initiatives include: Personnel to staff the FBI Command Center; FBI 
legal attaches; safe streets task forces; FBI laboratory equipment and 
personnel; emergency response teams; upgraded databases on 
gangs; State, local, and Indian tribal law enforcement training; 
aviation maintenance and equipment; and wireless radio communications.

  Construction funds are provided to renovate the FBI Command Center, 
to modernize the FBI Training Academy for use by Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement officers, and to begin work on a new FBI 
laboratory facility.
  The conference report does not include a $29 million request relating 
to the full annualization of personnel that could have been hired in 
fiscal year 1995. In light of this hiring delay, however, the full 
personnel funding request is not necessary.
  The report provides significant funding for U.S. attorneys offices as 
well. The $925,509,000 in the conference report represents over a 8.5-
percent increase compared to the fiscal year 1995 enacted levels. 
Funding will support expedited deportation of denied asylum applicants, 
Federal victims counseling under the Violence against Women Act and 
increased demands for criminal prosecution and related activities.
  The conference report also pays for security upgrades at U.S. 
attorneys offices, increased prosecutions of immigration laws, and 
funds to maintain attorney and support personnel levels for the 
prosecution of violent crime.
  The DEA also received an increase in this bill, as it should. Drug 
use is the scourge of America, and it needs to be combated.
  I fought for $60 million in trust fund money for the DEA during the 
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. I appreciate the Appropriations 
Committee taking my funding recommendation into account and providing 
DEA with $60 million of trust fund money.
  The conference agreement provides over a 6.4-percent increase 
compared to fiscal year 1995 enacted levels. This provides to the DEA 
funds to improve its infrastructure and to better support investigative 
efforts.

  The conference report includes program increases for the DEA's legal 
attache program, contract linguist support, advanced telephony, office 
automation, new agents for domestic heroin enforcement, mobile 
enforcement teams, and wireless radio communications.
  The conference report does not include $15 million requested relating 
to 

[[Page S 18164]]
full annualization cost of personnel that could have been hired in 
fiscal year 1995. In light of this hiring delay, however, the full 
request personnel is not necessary.
  The marshal's service is also adequately funded under the bill.
  The conference report provides over a 12.9-percent increase compared 
to fiscal year enacted levels. This agreement provides funds to upgrade 
security at existing courthouses. Additionally, it provides additional 
security personnel, equipment, and communications funds for new and 
expanded courthouses.
  As for today, we are trying to balance the Federal budget. The 
President's request for Federal law enforcement was not made in the 
context of balancing the Federal budget. He has the luxury of not 
balancing the budget.
  I would certainly like to put more money back into Federal law 
enforcement, but where will that money come from?
  I would ask if we do not balance the budget now, then when will we do 
it? Where should we take the money from?
  The plain truth is, this bill is an increase to Federal law 
enforcement--an increase of 20 percent. The only budget passed here in 
recent years that cut Federal law enforcement was Fiscal Year 1994--The 
first full Clinton budget.
  I would also like to comment on the Prison Grant Program Senator 
Biden mentioned. The Department of Justice has engaged in what might be 
charitably characterized as a campaign of misinformation about the 
prison grants provisions contained in the conference report. For 
example, while committee staff was working on the details of these 
provisions, the staff solicited and received informal comments from the 
Department's Office of Policy Development. The Department's comments 
contained numerous factual errors.
  For example, I was quite surprised to receive a letter on behalf of 
the American Society of Corrections Administrators [ASCA] which 
parroted, errors and all, the Department's informal comments. These 
comments were apparently transmitted to corrections departments in 
every State. As the corrections director of my State of Utah, who 
serves as the legislative committee chairman of ASCA, noted in a 
followup memorandum to the association's executive director:

       These informal comments appear to be designed to sidetrack 
     or block any congressional attempts to revise the 1994 crime 
     bill in any way as the administration admittedly does not 
     want any revisions to this Bill.

  Recently, the Department has been circulating a series of 
spreadsheets containing data purporting to demonstrate how many of our 
States would suffer under the conference report as compared to the 1994 
crime bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that two of the analyses to be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. The problem is, the numbers they use are unreliable, and 
are based on assumptions which are either unprovable, or simply untrue.
  Indeed, an early Department criticism of this grant program stated 
that:

     [t]he way the funds are divided among qualified States 
     prohibits the determination of grant amounts until all States 
     applications are submitted and reviewed for compliance, and 
     grant decisions are made.

Yet the figures being bandied about purport to be exactly such 
determinations.
  There are several sets of numbers floating around. Apparently, the 
Department would run figures based on any assumption given them. In 
such a case, one really can use statistics to prove anything.
  As just one example of the wildly varying sets of numbers released by 
the Department, under one set, my State of Utah would receive no money 
in fiscal year 1996, in another it would qualify for $2,324,958, and 
under a third scenario, Utah would receive $4,350,000. There is even a 
fourth analysis, under which Utah receives more than $7.3 million. I 
understand that a fifth analysis exists that gives Utah nearly $6 
million. At this rate, eventually the Department will be reporting that 
all of the money will go to Utah. While my State, like each of our 
States, can certainly use prison grant assistance, this only highlights 
the spurious nature of these so-called analyses. Each of these analyses 
presumably are evaluating the same program.
  As an example of assumptions used in the analyses that are simply 
untrue, the Department has repeatedly assumed that the grant program 
would be funded at a level of $500 million in fiscal year 1996. Yet the 
conference report which the Department purports to be evaluating 
clearly appropriates $617 million for the program.
  Moreover, several of the Department's analyses assumes that all $500 
million assumed appropriated pursuant to the 1994 crime bill would be 
applied directly to grants, while it assumes that under the conference 
report, only $300 million would be applied to grants. With such a 
starting assumption, it is hardly surprising that the analyses would 
conclude that States will receive less funding under the conference 
report.
  The problem is, the premise simply isn't true. While the conference 
report admittedly utilizes $200 million of the $617.5 million 
appropriated to provide extra assistance to truth-in-sentencing States 
with high numbers of criminal aliens, there is absolutely no reason to 
believe that Congress would not do the same thing if no other change 
were made to the prison grant program. Implying otherwise to arrive at 
the desired result is disingenuous.

  Some of the Department's results may be skewed on political grounds. 
Some of the results look peculiar indeed. For instance, one analysis 
purported to show which States would qualify for truth-in-sentencing 
grants, which would qualify for the less-lucrative general grants, and 
how much each State would receive under the conference report. Perhaps 
it is only a coincidence, but among the 28 general grant States in this 
analysis were 16 States that are represented in the Senate by 18 
Senators who sit on either the Judiciary Committee or the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee.
  There is much more one could say about the numbers being bandied 
about by the Department of Justice on this issue. I will say no more 
about them, except to comment that this debate should involve policy 
arguments, not political scare tactics. The bottom line is that I 
believe that, if it is administered in an unbiased manner, all our 
States will receive a fair share of funds under this bill--a share that 
is proportionate to their crime rate and to their efforts to keep 
criminals off the streets. If a problem with the language does exist we 
will certainly fix it on the next round.
  This bill is not perfect. But it has its priorities right, and 
devotes significantly more resources to the incarceration of violent 
prisoners than the fiscal year 1995 appropriation bill did. That bill 
appropriated only $24 million of an authorized $175 million. I believe 
that we can do better, and this conference report does so. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Furthermore, my friend from Delaware has also criticized the 
indeterminate sentencing provisions in the conference report.
  I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. I am 
certain that it was not his intent to imply that this provision was 
designed to harm other States.
  The truth is, 34 States practice some form of indeterminate 
sentencing. In many instances, violent prisoners can be kept in jail 
longer in these States than in determinate-sentencing States. For 
instance, in Delaware, even if they keep a prisoner in jail 10 years, 
he could be out in 9. In a system like Utah's, the same criminal could 
be sentenced to 5 to 15 years. Using criteria very similar to the 
Federal sentencing guidelines, the Utah Parole Board can keep the 
prisoner in for 5 more years.
  This bill does nothing more than level the playing field for 
indeterminate States that keep violent thugs locked up.

[[Page S 18165]]


                               Exhibit 1

                                               CRIME SUBCOMMITTEES                                              
                                     [Grant amounts in thousands of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Truth in     Percent 
                                                                                          sentencing    change, 
                                                                                            grants     comparing
                                                                     Current               under the    awards  
                               State                                   law        S. 3    conference   under the
                                                                      grants     grants      bill     conference
                                                                                           including    bill to 
                                                                                           that INA     current 
                                                                                            awards    law awards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total for formula grants........................................   $495,000   $495,000    $405,600          -0
  Total awarded...................................................    495,000   $387,060    $195,707         -20
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................................................      5,571          0          NA        ----
Alaska \1\ \2\....................................................      1,495      1,592           0        -100
Arizona...........................................................      8,617      7,817      13,188          53
Arkansas..........................................................      7,954      2,768         ***        ----
California........................................................     94,034     74,780     139,511          48
Colorado\3\.......................................................      3,822          0           0        -100
Connecticut.......................................................      3,038      2,819       5,102          58
Delaware \3\......................................................      1,632      1,914           0        -100
Dist. of Columbia.................................................      3,328      2,962         ***        ----
Florida...........................................................     48,636     37,432      29,429         -37
Georgia...........................................................     14,880      5,950         ***        ----
Hawaii \3\........................................................      1,273      1,758           0        -100
Idaho \2\.........................................................      1,278      1,761           0        -100
Illinois..........................................................     31,927     25,948      20,007         -37
Indiana...........................................................      8,681      7,573       6,170         -28
Iowa..............................................................      2,179          0          NA        ----
Kansas............................................................      4,300      4,223       4,900          14
Kentucky \2\......................................................      3,422          0           0        -100
Louisiana.........................................................     13,456     11,421       7,621         -43
Maine \1\ \2\.....................................................      1,060      1,824           0        -100
Maryland \3\......................................................      8,176      6,907           0        -100
Massachusetts\3\..................................................      8,004      5,805           0        -100
Michigan..........................................................     11,958      8,182      12,038           1
Minnesota.........................................................      3,013      2,804       5,088          89
Mississippi.......................................................      3,998      3,964       4,818          21
Missouri..........................................................     11,516      9,975       3,874         -87
Montana\2\........................................................      1,040      1,618           0        -100
Nebraska..........................................................      2,329          0         ***        ----
Nevada............................................................      4,188      1,584       4,873          16
New Hampshire.....................................................      1,248          0         ***        ----
New Jersey........................................................      8,152      5,894      10,732          32
New Mexico........................................................      3,050      2,828           0        ----
New York..........................................................     54,953     44,051      34,924         -38
North Carolina....................................................     13,892     11,765       7,750         -44
North Dakota\1\...................................................        963      1,599       9,917         307
Ohio..............................................................     18,313     13,088       8,488         -45
Oklahoma..........................................................      3,884          0         ***        ----
Oregon\1\.........................................................      5,048      2,847           0        -100
Pennsylvania......................................................     14,768      5,875       8,006         -48
Rhode Island......................................................      1,416          0       4,204         107
South Carolina....................................................     11,150      9,808       6,937         -18
South Dakota......................................................      1,040          0         ***        ----
Tennessee.........................................................      6,617      4,071         ***        ----
Texas.............................................................     21,224     13,762         ***        ----
Utah\3\...........................................................      1,550      1,985           0        -100
Vermont...........................................................      1,001      1,544          NA        ----
Virginia..........................................................      7,514      6,749       8,858         -22
Washington........................................................      8,312      7,577         ***        ----
West Virginia.....................................................      1,382          0         ***        ----
Wisconsin\3\......................................................      2,797          0           0        -100
Wyoming...........................................................      1,191        173         ***        ----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: Data are not available to determine eligibility for conference bill truth in sentencing grant awards for    
  Alabama, Iowa, and Vermont.                                                                                   
----No grant is made under S.3, hence percent difference is meaningless; or it is unknown if the State is       
  eligible for a general grant under the conference bill.                                                       
* Totals include projected 1998 award funds based on estimated 1995 distributions for Truth in Sentencing and   
  the Immigration and Nationality Act (TIS/INA) diverted from prison grants under Section 20110(b) and does not 
  reflect direct SCAAP appropriations.                                                                          
Dollar amounts listed indicate the estimated award for truth in sentencing grants. Zeroes indicate that the     
  state failed to meet the necessary requirements as stated in the conference bill for both general grant awards
  and truth in sentencing grant awards.                                                                         
*** State is ineligible for truth-in-sentencing grant awards under the provisions of the conference bill.       
  Sufficient data are not available to determine eligibility for conference bill general grant awards at this   
  time.                                                                                                         
Assumptions                                                                                                     
Under all scenarios, total appropriation is $500,000,000.                                                       
Current Law (Column 1): Current law assumes all formula grant funds are awarded because of ``reverter clause.'' 
  One percent for administrative costs has been taken off the top, but none for technical assistance or         
  discretionary funding.                                                                                        
S.3 Grants (Column 2): Under S.3, 1% is taken off the top for administrative costs.                             
Truth in Sentencing Grants Under the Conference Bill (Column 3):                                                
1. The Attorney General uses no program funds for housing Federal prisoners in non-Federal institutions.        
2. From the initial $500 million appropriated for truth in sentencing and general grants, Section 20109(a)(1)   
  allocates 0.3% ($1.5 million) for payments for the incarceration of offenders under Indian tribe jurisdiction.
  Administrative costs are set at one percent ($5 million) to be comparable with other formulas.                
Direct SCAAP appropriations comprises $300,000,000. The conference bill requires that the difference between the
  initial authorization for prison grants ($500 million) and direct SCAAP appropriations ($300 million) be      
  diverted from prison grants to awards under the Immigration and Nationality Act.                              
Footnotes From the Table                                                                                        
\1\ These states are expected to be ineligible for both types of prison grants under the conference bill--      
  general grants and truth in sentencing grants. The states are not eligible for general grants because they    
  fail to meet the parameters established by Section 20103(a)(2), which requires that states ``increase[d] the  
  average prison time actually to be served in prison'' since 1993 for part 1 violent crimes. According to the  
  1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, ``Violent Offenders in State Prison: Sentences and Time Served,''   
  (p.4) the average minimum time for violent offenders to serve before release has not increased since 1993 for 
  the indicated states.                                                                                         
\2\ These states are expected to be ineligible for both types of prison grants under the conference bill--      
  general grants and truth in sentencing grants. The states are not eligible for general grants because they    
  fail to meet the parameters established by Section 20103(a)(3), which requires that states ``increase[d] the  
  average percentage of time of the sentence to be actually served in prison'' since 1993 for part 1 violent    
  crimes. The above BJS report indicates that the percent of the average maximum sentence to be served for      
  violent offenses has not increased since 1993 for these states.                                               
\3\ These states are expected to be ineligible for both types of prison grants under the conference bill--      
  general grants and truth in sentencing grants. The states are not eligible for general grants because they    
  fail to meet the parameters established by Section 20103(b)(2)(B), which requires that states ``increase[d]   
  the average time served in the state for the offenses of murder, rape, and robbery'' since 1993. The above BJS
  report indicates that the average time served for violent offenses has not increased above 1993 levels for the
  indicated states.                                                                                             


     COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL STATE AWARDS UNDER CURRENT CRIME ACT PRISON GRANTS, S. 3, AND NOVEMBER 28 CONFERENCE BILL AT $500 MILLION--PRELIMINARY     
                                                         [Grant amounts in thousands of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Percent difference*              Percent difference   
                                                                 Truth in               --------------------------------------- excluding TIS/INA grants
                                                                sentencing    TIS/INA     Compared to current law              -------------------------
               State                 Current law  S. 3 grants     grants      awards**  --------------------------  Conference                          
                                        grants                  under the      (1998                   Conference  bill + TIS/   Conference   Conference
                                                                conference  projection)  S. 3 grants  bill + TIS/   INA vs. S.    bill vs.   bill vs. S.
                                                                  bill*                                   INA           3       current law       3     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total for formula grants.........     $495,000     $495,000     $293,500     $200,000           -0           -0           -0          -41          -41
  Total awarded....................      495,000      367,060      195,765      200,000          -26          -20            8          -60          -47
Alabama............................        5,671            0           NA  ...........         ----         ----         ----         ----         ----
Alaska \1\ \2\.....................        1,405        1,802            0  ...........           27          100          100          100          100
Arizona............................        8,617        7,617        6,085        7,000          -12           52           72          -30          -20
Arkansas...........................        2,954        2,769          ***  ...........           -6         ----         ----         ----         ----
California.........................       94,034       74,780       29,979      108,000          -20           47           85          -68          -60
Colorado \3\.......................        3,822            0            0  ...........         -100         -100            0         -100            0
Connecticut........................        3,038        2,819        5,117  ...........           -7           68           81           68           81
Delaware \2\.......................        1,532        1,914            0  ...........           25         -100         -100         -100         -100
Dist. of Columbia..................        3,326        2,962          ***  ...........          -11         ----         ----         ----         ----
Florida............................       46,535       37,432       16,625       12,000          -20          -38          -24          -64          -56
Georgia............................       14,680        5,950          ***  ...........          -59         ----         ----         ----         ----
Hawaii \3\.........................        1,273        1,758            0  ...........           38         -100         -100         -100         -100
Idaho \2\..........................        1,279        1,761            0  ...........           38         -100         -100         -100         -100
Illnois............................       31,927       25,946       12,744        7,000          -19          -38          -24          -60          -51
Indiana............................        8,561        7,573        6,180  ...........          -12          -28          -18          -28          -18
Iowa...............................        2,179            0           NA  ...........         -100         ----         ----         ----         ----
Kansas.............................        4,300        4,223        4,897  ...........           -2           14           16           14           16
Kentucky \2\.......................        3,422            0            0  ...........         -100         -100            0         -100            0
Louisiana..........................       13,455       11,421        7,307  ...........          -15          -46          -36          -46          -36
Maine \1\ \2\......................        1,060        1,624            0  ...........           55         -100         -100         -100         -100
Maryland \3\.......................        8,175        5,907            0  ...........          -28         -100         -100         -100         -100
Massachusetts \3\..................        8,004        5,805            0  ...........          -27         -100         -100         -100         -100
Michigan...........................       11,958        8,182        9,659        2,000          -32           -3           42          -19           18
Minnesota..........................        3,013        2,804        5,122  ...........           -7           70           83           70           83
Mississippi........................        3,996        3,984        4,838  ...........            0           21           21           21           21
Missouri...........................       11,616        9,975        6,964  ...........          -14          -40          -30          -40          -30
Montana \2\........................        1,040        1,618            0  ...........           56         -100         -100         -100         -100
Nebraska...........................        2,329            0          ***  ...........         -100         ----         ----         ----         ----
Nevada.............................        4,188        1,564        4,853  ...........          -63           16          210           16          210
New Hampshire......................        1,248            0          ***  ...........         -100         ----         ----         ----         ----
New Jersey.........................        8,162        5,894        7,737        2,800          -28           29           79           -5           31
New Mexico.........................        3,050        2,826          ***  ...........           -7         ----         ----         ----         ----
New York...........................       54,953       44,051       18,873       15,000          -20          -38          -23          -66          -57
North Carolina.....................       13,892       11,765        7,565  ...........          -15          -46          -36          -46          -36
North Dakota.......................          963        1,599        3,956  ...........           66          311          147          311          147
Ohio...............................       16,313       13,668        8,287  ...........          -16          -49          -39          -49          -39
Oklahoma...........................        3,884            0          ***  ...........         -100         ----         ----         ----         ----
Oregon \2\.........................        5,046        2,847            0  ...........          -44         -100         -100         -100         -100
Pennsylvania.......................       14,756        5,975        7,901  ...........          -60          -46           32          -46           32
Rhode Island.......................        1,415            0        4,221  ...........         ----          198          100          198          100
South Carolina.....................       11,150        9,608        8,767  ...........          -14          -39          -30          -39          -30
South Dakota.......................        1,040            0          ***  ...........         ----         ----         ----         ----         ----
Tennessee..........................        6,617        4,971          ***  ...........          -25         ----         ----         ----         ----
Texas..............................       21,224       13,752          ***  ...........          -35         ----         ----         ----         ----
Utah...............................        1,650        1,985        4,350  ...........           20          164          119          164          119
Vermont............................        1,001        1,544           NA  ...........           54         ----         ----         ----         ----
Virginia...........................        7,514        6,749        5,778  ...........          -10          -23          -14          -23          -14
Washington.........................        8,312        7,377          ***  ...........          -11         ----         ----         ----         ----
West Virginia......................        1,302            0          ***  ...........         -100         ----         ----         ----         ----

[[Page S 18166]]
                                                                                                                                                        
Wisconsin \3\......................        2,797            0            0  ...........         -100         -100            0         -100            0
Wyoming............................        1,191          173          ***  ...........          -85         ----         ----         ----         ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: Data are not available to determine eligibility for conference bill truth in sentencing grant awards for Alabama, Iowa, and Vermont.                
* Dollar amounts listed indicates the estimated award for truth in sentencing grants. Zeroes indicate that the state failed to meet the necessary       
  requirements as stated in the conference bill for both general grant awards and truth in sentencing grant awards.                                     
** Totals include projected 1996 award funds based on estimated 1995 distributions for Truth in Sentencing and the Immigration and Nationality Act (TIS/
  INA) diverted from prison grants under Section 20110 (b) and does not reflect direct SCAA appropriations.                                             
*** State is ineligible for truth-in-sentencing grant awards under the provisions of the conference bill. Sufficient data are not available to determine
  eligibility for conference bill general grant awards at this time.                                                                                    
---- No grant is made under S. 3, hence percent difference is meaningless: or it is unknown if the State is eligible for a general grant under the      
  conference bill.                                                                                                                                      
See next page for assumptions and notes.                                                                                                                
Assumptions:                                                                                                                                            
Under all scenarios, total appropriation is $617,000,000.                                                                                               
Current Law (Column 1): Current law assumes all formula grant funds are awarded because of ``reverter clause.'' One percent for administrative costs has
  been taken off the top, but none for technical assistance or discretionary funding.                                                                   
S. 3 Grants (Column 2): Under S. 3, 1% is taken off the top for administrative costs.                                                                   
Truth in Sentencing Grants Under the Conference Bill (Column 3):                                                                                        
1. The Attorney General uses no program funds for housing Federal prisoners in non-Federal Institutions.                                                
2. From the initial $500 million appropriated for truth in sentencing and general grants, Section 20109(a)(1) allocates 0.3% ($1.5 million) for payments
  for the incarceration of offenders under Indian tribe jurisdiction. Administrative costs are set at one percent ($5 million) to be comparable with    
  other formulas.                                                                                                                                       
Direct SCAAP appropriations comprise $300,000,000. The conference bill requires that the difference between the initial authorization ($500 million) and
  direct SCAAP appropriations ($300 million) be diverted to awards under the Immigration and Nationality Act/TIS provision.                             
Truth in Sentencing/Immigration and Nationality Act Awards (Column 4):                                                                                  
These states fulfill truth in sentencing provisions and are therefore eligible to receive additional funds under the Immigration and Nationality Act.   
Footnotes from the Table:                                                                                                                               
\1\ These states are expected to be ineligible for both types of prison grants under the conference bill--general grants and truth in sentencing grants.
  The states are not eligible for general grants because they fail to meet the parameters established by Section 20103(a)(2), which requires that states
  ``increase[d] the average prison time actually to be served in prison'' since 1993 for part 1 violent crimes. According to the 1995 Bureau of Justice 
  Statistics report, ``Violent Offenders in State Prison: Sentences and Time Served,'' (p.4) the average minimum time for violent offenders to serve    
  before release has not increased since 1993 for the indicated states.                                                                                 
\2\ These states are expected to be ineligible for both types of prison grants under the conference bill--general grant and truth in sentencing grants. 
  The states are not eligible for general grants because they fail to meet the parameters established by Section 20103(a)(3), which requires that states
  ``increase[d] the average percentage of time of the sentence to be actually served in prison'' since 1993 for part 1 violent crimes. The above BJS    
  report indicates that the percent of the average maximum sentence to be served for violent offenses has not increased since 1993 for these states.    
\3\ These states are expected to be ineligible for both types of prison grants under the conference bill--general grants and truth in sentencing grants.
  The states are not eligible for general grants because they fail to meet the parameters established by Section 20103(b)(2)(B), which requires that    
  states ``increase[d] the average time served in the state for the offenses of murder, rape, and robbery'' since 1993. The above BJS report indicates  
  that the average time served for violent offenses has not increased above 1993 levels for the indicated states.                                       


  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, when this bill was originally on the Senate 
floor, and Senator Domenici offered his amendment to preserve the Legal 
Services Corporation, I supported Senator Domenici's effort but 
expressed some grave reservations about the restrictions that were 
being placed on recipients of LSC funds.
  I hoped that the conference might come to understand the folly of 
these restrictions and report out a bill that would provide the LSC 
with sufficient funds to fulfill its important mission of ensuring that 
our most needy citizens have equal access to our system of justice--a 
promise written in stone on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, the product of the conference with respect to the LSC 
is entirely inadequate.
  Under the conference report, LSC funding would be cut from $400 
million in fiscal year 95 to $278 million, a reduction of over 30 
percent.
  The bill would place 19 separate restrictions on recipients of LSC 
funds. These restrictions control not only how legal services 
organizations may use their Federal grants but also how they may use 
funds derived from the States, bar associations, and private donations.
  Under this bill, legal services organizations and the skilled 
attorneys that work for them are precluded from testifying at a 
legislative hearing, commenting on a public rulemaking, or 
communicating with Federal, State, or local officials that operate 
programs for the indigent.
  At a time when we are authorizing the States to operate welfare, 
Medicaid, and a host of other programs with less Federal intervention, 
we are depriving them of the advice and expertise of some of the most 
knowledgable poverty law attorneys in the country.
  And, at a time when we are trying to reduce the intrusiveness of the 
Federal Government, we are imposing new Federal mandates on how private 
organizations--such as Maine's Pine Tree Legal Assistance and the 
Voluteer Lawyer Project--may use their own money.
  The bill also fails to provide the Corporation with sufficient 
administrative funds to properly perform the competitive bidding and 
monitoring requirements that this bill creates.
  I realize that there are many in the other body that wish to 
eliminate LSC in its entirety and see these measures as the first steps 
in that process. But there were over 60 votes in the Senate to preserve 
LSC and those votes should not be ignored.
  I understand that the President intends to veto this legislation, so 
I expect that the issue of the funding and structure of LSC will be 
before this body again. I agree that LSC must share in the budget belt-
tightening that is being experienced throughout the entire Government. 
And some new restrictions may be in order to ensure that LSC funds are 
targeted at the most critical needs of our indigent citizens.
  But in the end, the Corporation must be provided funds sufficient to 
guarantee the continued operation of its programs and restrictions that 
hinder legal services organizations from promoting the interests of 
their clients must be eased. I will continue to work toward this result 
with the President and members of the Appropriations Committee on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief 
comments on the conference report to H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 
spending bill for the Department of Commerce, State, Justice and 
related agencies.
  I appreciate the diligent work of the respective House and Senate 
subcommittees to craft a conference report that seeks to maximize 
funding that will be allocated to the Department of Commerce, 
Department of State, the Department of Justice and the 18 other 
agencies included in this appropriations measure. It has been made 
clear from the development of H.R. 2076, that this measure would be 
subject to a Presidential veto. Today, as we debate this conference 
report it is apparent the President will follow through to veto this 
measure.
  While I will support the conference agreement today, because it 
contains vital funding for very meritorious programs, I want to express 
my serious reservations with legislative language included in this 
measure that may seriously undermine the ability of law enforcement 
officials to effectively address crime in their respective States and 
cities.
  As you know, I have been a strong supporter of the 100,000 cops 
program. This program, which passed with widespread bipartisan support 
as part of the 1993 crime bill. In that bill, Congress authorized funds 
to go directly to where the problem exists: that is the shortage of law 
enforcement personnel. This important program would be administered in 
a block grant under the legislation now being considered.
  I am concerned that scarce dollars would be spend by some mayors on 
anything that can arguably be construed as law enforcement under a 
block granting scheme.

[[Page S 18167]]

  Also, I want to once again, reiterate my strong support for drug-
court funding. In Denver, our drug court is a tough, law-enforcement 
oriented solution to society's drug problem. It has already begun to 
show success. It would be a mistake to eliminate this valuable tool for 
enforcement of our drug laws.
  Understanding this bill will be vetoed by the President, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to reach a middle ground in a 
subsequent appropriations bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the 1996 
Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations conference report, I wanted 
to focus my colleagues' attention on the need to obligate substantial 
resources to combat the devastating increase in drug use among our 
children. Let me take this opportunity to describe one such effort.
  In its annual survey of drug use by junior and senior high school 
students, the National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education 
[PRIDE] reported significant increases among teenagers for crack, 
cocaine, heroin, LSD, non-LSD hallucinogens, inhalants, and marijuana.
  The PRIDE survey found that 33 percent of our high school seniors 
smoked marijuana in the past year, and 21 percent smoked monthly. Since 
the 1990-91 school year, annual reported use of marijuana in junior 
high school has risen 111 percent and has risen 67 percent in high 
school. There has been an alarming 36-percent increase in cocaine use 
by high school students since 1991-92, which was the period of lowest 
use in recent years. If we allow this trend to continue, teenage drug 
use will reach the U.S. all-time high of 54 percent, in less than 2 
years. Let me restate, we will have more kids in high school who are on 
drugs than are not.
  Despite these alarming trends, surveyed teenagers report only one-
third of nearly 200,000 parents talk to their children frequently about 
the dangers of drug use. Yet the study shows that parental involvement 
could significantly deter drug use, even among older teenagers. Among 
high school students whose parents never talk about drugs, 34 percent 
smoked marijuana, versus 24 percent who said their parents speak about 
drugs a lot--a relative decrease of 29 percent. Drug use declines 
sharply among students whose parents frequently discuss drugs with 
them.
  According to the president of PRIDE, Dr. Thomas J. Gleaton, the most 
effective drug prevention program in the world--parental intervention--
is used far less than we think.
  Since last March, PRIDE has devoted a great deal of attention to the 
question of how we, as a nation, can again capture the necessary level 
of parental involvement that successfully drove down teenage drug use 
in the previous two decades. By active involvement in the antidrug 
movement, parents were successful in driving down drug use by teenagers 
from the all-time high of 54 percent in 1979 to just 27 percent by 
1992.
  PRIDE has proposed a grassroots plan focused on a renewed parent 
movement in the fight against teenage drug use. The goal of this effort 
is to educate parents and involve them in programs that will prevent 
and reduce drug abuse by their children. PRIDE's volunteer-based 
approach will allow parents to create a drug prevention program most 
suitable to the needs of their community. I feel strongly that the best 
solutions are found closest to the problem, which in this case, is the 
local level. I believe PRIDE's proposal is a valiant step toward 
preventing drug use among our Nation's most vulnerable targets--our 
children. Putting an end to drug use among teenagers is a key component 
in winning the war against the drugs.
  In closing, I urge the Attorney General to ensure that adequate 
resources are available to combat teenage drug use. In addition, I 
encourage the Department of Justice to make available discretionary 
grant funds through justice assistance and juvenile justice programs to 
support PRIDE's efforts to establish programs involving parents in our 
fight against teenage drug use.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this 
conference report.
  Mr. President, before I discuss my views on the conference report, 
let me begin by commending the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, Senator Hollings, for their hard work on this legislation. 
Senator Gregg in particular has managed to get up to speed on the 
intricacies of this legislation after Senator Gramm left the 
subcommittee. That's not an easy thing to do, and he deserves real 
credit for his efforts. Similarly, Senator Hollings, as always, has 
demonstrated his expertise on the programs covered in this legislation, 
and he also deserves credit for his work.
  Mr. President, given the hard work of these two Senators, I rise to 
oppose the conference report with some reluctance. However, I have 
serious concerns with the final product, and so I am left with little 
choice.
  I am especially concerned about the complete elimination of funding 
for the Community Policing Program.
  Mr. President, this body previously voted to fully fund the COPS 
Program reaffirming our commitment to putting 100,000 new police 
officers on the streets.
  Unfortunately, we apparently have now backed down in the fact of 
opposition from the House. And this conference report would completely 
eliminate the COPS Program.
  Mr. President, the Community Policing Program is a program that 
works. I can attest to that because I've seen it first hand. A few 
months ago, I was in Plainfield, NJ, and I saw what the Community 
Policing Program has meant for that town. The results have been 
dramatic.
  Crime has been reduced. The relations between the police and the 
community have improved. And the whole city has benefited.
  I've seen similar results in several New Jersey cities.
  Mr. President, community policing works largely by preventing crime 
before it happens. Under the program, officers are encouraged to get 
out of their cars and onto the streets. There, they go to know the 
people of the community and their problems. In the process, they also 
gain citizens' trust and confidence.
  The improved relationship between the police and their community has 
several payoffs. Perhaps most importantly, officers are able to 
identify and resolve conflicts early on--before they erupt into 
violence. Community police officers often know when tensions are 
building between rival gangs, or between a husband and a wife. And they 
can take steps to defuse these tensions in a constructive way.
  By contrast, officers who don't get out of their patrol car may have 
no idea that violence is about to erupt until it's too late to do 
anything about it--or after the fact.
  Community policing also makes citizens feel more safe. People tell me 
that it's very reassuring to see an officer walking the beat, available 
to help out if a problem arises. This increased sense of security can 
make a huge difference in the quality of peoples' lives. It allows them 
to go out at night, to take their kids for a walk in the park, to get 
to know their neighbors.
  These are the kind of things that Americans should be able to take 
for granted. But they can't in today's climate of fear.
  Another benefit of community policing is that it helps to involve the 
police in the daily lives of young people.
  As you know, Mr. President, many teenagers today are growing up 
without fathers, and without responsible adults who can set them on the 
right course. Community policing officers can help fill that void. 
Although no policeman can substitute for a father, officers can help 
instill a sense of values, and can lead young people away from lives of 
crime and drugs.
  But they can't do that if they're just sitting in their patrol cars, 
isolated from the community.
  Mr. President, a broad range of law enforcement officials have 
recognized the value of community policing. In fact, a national poll 
found that a clear majority of chiefs and sheriffs surveyed called 
community policing the most cost-effective strategy for fighting crime.
  In addition, national law enforcement organizations, including the 
Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Fraternal 
Order of Police, 

[[Page S 18168]]
all have come out strongly in support of the COPS Program. These are 
the people at the front lines in the battle against crime. And they 
know what works.
  Mr. President, it would be a serious mistake to eliminate the 
Community Policing Program in favor of a whole new bureaucratic 
mechanism that does not now exist, and has no track record of success.
  Unlike the Community Policing Program, which was worked out in 
lengthy negotiations during last year's crime bill debate, the new 
block grant program in this bill hasn't been subject to serious review. 
We don't know whether it will work.
  There also are serious questions about how State politicians will use 
this money. Under the terms of the block grant, Governors could choose 
to fund building code inspectors, parking meters, bullhorns, or even 
carpets for courthouses. They wouldn't have to hire a single new police 
officer.
  Mr. President, there is no need to deal with these kind of questions, 
and the variety of other problems that are involved in creating a whole 
new program. The Community Policing Program has an established track 
record. It's been up and running for some time. And we know it works. 
I've seen the results myself. And I am sure many of my colleagues have 
seen similar successes.
  So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will not abandon our national 
commitment to providing 100,000 new police officers. Community policing 
will make a real difference in reducing crime, if we stick to it. Yet 
this conference report proposes to eliminate the program altogether. 
And that would be a serious mistake.
  Mr. President, another serious problem with this conference report is 
that it virtually eliminates crime prevention programs.
  Mr. President, it's a cliche, but it's also true that an ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure. And there has never been a more 
urgent need to help ensure that young people, especially, are given 
positive alternatives to lives of crime. Arrest rates for violent 
crimes by juveniles have risen by nearly 100 percent in the last 
decade. And these arrest rates are expected to double again in the next 
15 years.
  We need to do more to reverse these trends. And yet the conference 
report largely ignores this need.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern 
over the cuts in programs in the Commerce, State, Justice 
appropriations conference report.


                       CUTS IN COMMERCE PROGRAMS

  Let me turn first to cuts in the Commerce portion of the bill. Most 
of us agree that we must balance the budget, but let us avoid the trap 
of being penny wise and pound foolish in this process of making 
cutbacks. In our efforts to effectively balance the budget, we should 
make smart cuts, and protect investments that will improve our quality 
of life, will provide high-wage, high-skilled salaries and will 
maintain U.S. leadership in the global economic marketplace. Afterall, 
these are the reasons we are trying to balance the budget in the first 
place.


                 Background of Overall Technology Cuts

  In a recent talk to directors of Federal laboratories, the House 
Speaker listed three priorities for his view of our technology future: 
We should be on the cutting edge of defense and knowledge, We should 
systematically bring science to Government, and we should maximize the 
speed by which we move from science to product. He is right about this 
agenda. Even though it is singled out in this bill for elimination, 
Commerce's Advanced Technology Programs [ATP] fits the Speaker's agenda 
perfectly. This cut comes against a background of deep R&D Program cuts 
this year. The American Association for the Advancement of Science 
estimates that Congress' current course will cut Federal R&D by 30 
percent.
  Three recent comprehensive technology reports explain the need for 
Government involvement in technology investment such as the ATP 
program. An October National Institute of Science and Technology 
planning report in October entitled, ``Technology and Economic Growth: 
Implications for Federal Policy,'' points out that ``technology is the 
single most important determining factor of long-term econmic growth''; 
it demonstrates why Government investment in science and technology 
programs leverage similar investments in the private sector.
  The Council of Economic Advisers has just released a report entitled, 
``Supporting Research and Development to Promote Economic Growth: The 
Federal Government's Role,'' and it tells us just how damaging cuts in 
R&D will be. In November, the administration released a white paper on 
technology and economic growth that underscores this point. It reviews 
the role that Government has played on a bipartisan basis in supporting 
innovative technologies that create high-wage job markets, to provide 
our citizens with higher standards of living and to maintain U.S. 
leadership in the global economy.
  The CEA report points out that U.S. Government support in research 
and development has yielded a rich history of innovation, from Samuel 
Morse's original telegraph line in 1842, to discovery of DNA and the 
creation of Internet. Investments in research and development have high 
rates of economic return for the Government--a stunning 50 percent 
social return and a 20 to 30 percent private rate of return.
  The effect of Government technology investment on the American people 
is clearly illustrated in the aerospace industry. Even as recently as 
the late 1980's, Federal investments were as high as 80 percent of the 
total for aerospace research and development. Today, this industry is a 
critical U.S. economic sector, employing many thousands of Americans, 
and exporting billions of dollars worth of American-made products. 
Aerospace R&D investments have brought a huge rate of return for the 
taxpayer. This sector illustrates that investing in innovative 
technologies has been a keystone to the Nation's economic growth.
  Until now, Presidential and Congressional support for Government 
investment in R&D has been bipartisan. In 1960, President Eisenhower 
announced in his State of the Union Message,

       We now stand in the vestibule of a vast new technological 
     age--one that, despite its capacity for human destruction, 
     has an equal capacity to make poverty and human misery 
     obsolete. If our efforts are wisely directed--and if our 
     unremitting efforts for dependable peace begin to attain some 
     success--we can surely become participants in creating an age 
     characterized by justice and rising levels of human well-
     being.

  President Eisenhower understood science and technology and its 
relationship to Government. He supported a great expansion of R&D 
investment including the growth of the research university and the 
creation of ARPA, the great Defense Department R&D innovator. In 1961, 
Eisenhower noted that:
       The free university, historically the fountainhead of free 
     ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution 
     in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs 
     involved, a Government contract becomes virtually a 
     substitute for intellectual curiosity.

  In other words, the old stereotype of the brilliant tinkerer, 
laboring away in his basement, making a great technological 
breakthrough with no help from the outside world is an engaging, but 
out-of-date image today. Individual inventors, or even private 
businesses acting on their own, do not have the resources necessary to 
keep America at the forefront of technological innovation.
  I am concerned, however, that the majority in Congress this year is 
now reversing their historic course and now plans to sacrifice the 
techology investment that made the United States a global economic 
leader. I admire the goal of balancing the budget in 7 years, and I 
have supported legislation to reach that goal. But I do not support 
some of the means; including this conference report, that the majority 
has chosen to reach that end. Cutting technology investment is akin to 
throwing the lifeboats overboard to reduce the ballast of a rapidly 
sinking ship. Cut technology funding, and you cut the heart out of our 
efforts to promote economic growth, trade, job creation. Yet that is 
what the majority's budget will do by slashing research and development 
funding by one-third by the year 2002, at a time when other 
industrialized countries--our competitors--are increasing their 
technology budgets. 

[[Page S 18169]]


  Some like to say that Government should run more like a private 
business. Well, imagine you are the head of AT&T, and you see MCI 
pouring millions into R&D. Do you say, ``Great. Let us cut our R&D 
budget, and that will improve our bottom line?'' If you did that, the 
board of directors would have your head.
  The Japanese Government, one of our chief competitors, intends to 
double its technology investment in the coming years. And we are going 
to respond to that challenge by cutting our technology investment? I 
fear that these discrepancies in investing trends will do real harm to 
U.S. exports and to our economy as a whole. According to the Office of 
Technology Policy, the American high-technology trade balance, after 
being a key factor for years in U.S. economic growth, is now 
deteriorating rapidly, with an abrupt shift from a surplus of $26.6 
billion in 1991 to a deficit of $4.3 billion in 1994. With severe 
budget cuts in technology and a diminishing trade performance, America 
will loose its footing on the high-technology global market ladder.
  In his book, ``Blindside: Why Japan Is Still on Track to Overtake the 
U.S. by the Year 2000,'' Eamonn Singleton lists technologies that have 
been commercialized and are the chokepoints that Japanese industries 
now control in the electronics industry: flat panel displays, compact 
disc players and CD-ROM drives, notebook computers, semiconductor 
materials and equipment, cellular phones and pagers, fax machines and 
laser printers. A Japanese technology expert notes that the ``silicon 
revolution promises as big a transformation in the world economy as all 
of the other technologies developed since the 18th century put 
together.'' These are all technologies where the initial advances 
originated in the United States. Outside of the electronics field, 
Japan's technology advantage has enabled it to take a lead in a long 
series of economic sectors including auto parts, auto industry 
manufacturing machinery, molds and dyes, cameras, medical and 
scientific instruments, musical instruments, and construction 
equipment. This is not the moment to cut back on U.S. R&D.
  The Council of Economic Advisers report reveals that the United 
States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in its cumulative nondefense 
research expenditures as a percentage of GDP for the past 20 years. 
More serious, the CEA study shows that the United States by the end of 
the decade will also be behind Japan in actual annual funding spent on 
nondefense R&D. This is a dangerous development in an area where the 
United States has long relied on a comparative economic advantage. 
Though we are leaders in telecommunications, semiconductors, and 
computers now, we well may soon stand behind other industrial countries 
if they continue to put their money where the jobs are and if we begin 
to pull our money back.
  Historically, the private sector moves in the same direction as the 
Government sector with regard to R&D investments. Trends in Federal 
research and development support cycles correlate closely with private 
R&D as Federal investment expands, the private sector responds with a 
subsequent increase in R&D spending. So the Federal investments 
leverage private sector investments. The CEA study warns, therefore, 
that the upcoming cut in Federal R&D will likely lead to corresponding 
reductions in private sector R&D.
  The administration's white paper on R&D investments points out that 
``the Republican budget puts American technological and economic 
leadership at grave risk'' and ``this is exactly the wrong time to cut 
investment in R&D.'' The white paper argues that we must protect key 
investments in research, education and technology while balancing the 
budget.


                                  ATP

  In 1991, Alan Bromley, the science adviser during the Bush 
administration, developed a list of critical long-term, high-risk 
technologies which should receive Government and industry attention and 
support. From these initial ideas, ATP was established to provide a 
cost-sharing mechanism to support new, world-class products, services 
and industrial processes projects valuable to Government users, that 
would also stimulate U.S. economic growth. These industry-government 
partnerships evolve from industry-proposed ideas for viable new, 
innovative technologies which are managed by industry, involve 
significant university participation and are cost shared with NIST. ATP 
equals industry-driven, fair competition, partnership, and evaluation. 
ATP does not fund product development initiatives. Tax credits are not 
a substitute for the ATP. Without government cooperation, these types 
of precompetitive projects would otherwise be ignored or developed too 
slowly to effectively compete in the global environment.
  ATP programs have already begun to establish niches in the 
marketplace creating new jobs for Americans, including the small- to 
medium-sized business sectors. For example, in my State of Connecticut, 
CuraGen Corp. has received two 3-year, ATP awards in 1994 for unique 
ideas that are designed to combat serious illness as well as to 
diagnose and prevent disease. Edward Rothberg, the chair of the board 
of Laticrete International, Inc.: wrote to me saying that

       The greatest benefit of this (ATP) program is the 
     development by CuraGen . . . to provide the means to attack 
     and eventually cure serious illnesses that result in a high 
     number of deaths from cancer, and hundreds of billions of 
     dollars spent for drugs to control illness. A few million 
     invested in research to prevent illnesses will save a 
     hundredfold the investment in drugs that only maintain, 
     but do not cure them.

  According to Gregory Went, the vice president of CuraGen, these two 
awards have ``created over 19 new jobs during 1995 directly related to 
the ATP programs, with 15 in Connecticut, and will create scores of 
additional jobs in Connecticut and the United States.'' Since the R&D 
will provide a foundation for products that can be commercialized. He 
adds that companies like CuraGen would not be effective players in the 
global market competition without the support of ATP.
  Edward Dohring, the president of Lithography Systems, Inc., in 
Wilton, CT, wrote to me in support of ATP, emphasizing the merits of 
the fair selection process which is entirely based on technical and 
business merit. He adds:

       Half of all ATP awards and joint ventures fo went to small 
     business directed partnerships * * * and quality proposals in 
     pursuit of ATP funds far outstrip the funds available. 
     Without ATP, the technological opportunities would be slowed, 
     or ultimately forfeited to foreign competitors more able to 
     make key investments in longer term, higher risk research, 
     such as is the focus of ATP.

  ATP stimulates economic growth by developing high-risk innovations 
and by enabling technologies through proposed and cost shared by 
industry. U.S. Government investment in research and development is in 
peril at a time when our competition is increasing its support. Cuts in 
R&D are bad news for America's future. Last month, the Congress 
approved conference reports that reduced both the Department of 
Transportation's research, development, and technology programs and the 
Department of Energy's alternative energy R&D programs by 30 percent 
from the President's budget request. The CEA report confirms that 
Federal investments in R&D have a significant impact on high-wage jobs 
and maintaining U.S. leadership in the global economy. Now is not the 
time to drop out of the global R&D race and wander down a path toward 
technology bankruptcy. We need to protect our R&D investments, maintain 
our strong base and build upon our technology infrastructure so that 
America will remain an economic world leader. Eliminating ATP, as this 
conference report proposes, is a grave error.


                     Other Technology Program Cuts

  This bill also contains large cuts in the National Information 
Infrastructure grants program which helps supply community services 
with advanced communications equipment to promote better health care, 
local government efficiency, and education services. Funding for the 
GLOBE Program which promotes understanding of science and environmental 
science in schools would be zeroed out in this bill. Commitments made 
to the joint projects of the United States-Israeli Science and 
Technology Commission by Commerce's Technology Administration would 
also be hampered by the reductions in this bill. Two other programs: 
the Manufacturing Extension Program and the Economic Development 
Administration Defense Conversion program will also be compromised if 
this bill is passed. 

[[Page S 18170]]



                        CUTS IN JUSTICE PROGRAMS

  The conference report also undoes much of the good work we 
accomplished in passing the 1994 anticrime bill. It takes the COPS 
program--an extraordinarily successful program that has been putting 
thousands more police on the streets of our communities quickly and 
efficiently--and turns it into a smaller, State block grant program. 
There are no guarantees under the conference report that States will 
use those dollars to put more police on the streets. As I understand 
it, they have discretion to put these Federal dollars to use for 
general law enforcement purposes. Experience tells us that fewer police 
will be funded under such an approach. And every study tells us, and my 
constituents certainly have let me know, that what we need to feel 
safer and be safer in their communities is more police walking beats. I 
am strongly opposed to drastically altering this program, and 
particularly doing so on an appropriations bill.


                        CUTS IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

  The bill also does not adequately fund foreign affairs functions 
essential to American engagement in the world and pursuit of our 
interests abroad. While the funding levels are higher than in the 
original bill, they remain inadequate, funding for State Department 
operations--American diplomacy and services for American citizens and 
companies around the world--is set below last year's levels. The 
President had requested an increase in order to keep necessary foreign 
posts open, replace antiquated computer equipment and maintain U.S. 
assets.
  The funding levels for international organizations are grossly 
insufficient to meet our obligations and our national interests. The 
United Nations, NATO, and other organizations carry out activities--
from peacekeeping and nonproliferation to control of epidemic diseases 
and protection for human rights--which directly serve America's 
national interests.
  Many of these international organizations need management reforms 
similar to the reinventing Government exercise which Vice President 
Gore is leading within the U.S. Government. But our diplomats cannot 
effectively pursue these reforms, and reduce the expenditures of these 
organizations, if the United States is not a responsible member. For 
some functions, such as U.N. peacekeeping, U.S. arrearages have already 
impeded sound management and cost-efficient procurement. The United 
States must be a responsible member of the international community. We 
should pay our debts. It does not make sense to build up arrearages to 
the U.N. and other organizations which we will need to pay off in the 
coming years as we move toward a balanced budget.
  Public diplomacy programs are also severely underfunded in this bill. 
The international broadcasting programs managed by USIA are critical 
for U.S. leadership, since they reach people around the world living 
under repressive governments or in emerging democracies. I was also 
disappointed to see support for the National Endowment for Democracy 
reduced even modestly.
  World leadership is a responsibility which is not free. But the 
financial cost for effective American diplomacy, formal and public, is 
a reasonable price to pay for the continued U.S. leadership in the 
world which is so important to the safety and prosperity of every 
American.
  I cannot support this Commerce, State, Justice conference report. It 
strips funds needed to fight the war on crime, to develop the 
technology that will be a keystone to our economic future, and to 
undertake basic foreign policy tasks.


   restricting the united states government growth of united states-
                           vietnam relations

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one provision in the Commerce, Justice, 
State appropriations bill that I oppose is the language that prohibits 
the Department of State from spending any funds to expand our 
diplomatic relations with Vietnam until the President certifies that 
Vietnam is fully cooperating with the United States in four areas 
relating to POW/MIA's: First, resolving discrepancy cases, live 
sightings and field activities; second, recovering and repatriating 
American remains; third, accelerating efforts to provide documents that 
will help lead to the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIA's; and 
fourth, providing further assistance in implementing trilateral 
investigations with Laos.
  I must say that I am somewhat dumbfounded as to why we would include 
this provision. In fact, the President certified these four criteria 
this past summer, when he made the decision to move forward on full 
diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
  I certainly understand that there are many who disagree with that 
move, but the fact is that as President, he has the authority to 
conduct foreign affairs, and it is not appropriate for us to try to 
undercut him.
  Shortly after the President moved forward with full diplomatic 
relations, a vote was taken in the Senate on whether additional 
sanctions should be imposed against Vietnam. By an almost 2-to-1 
margin, the Senate voted that no, we should not implement any more 
sanctions on Vietnam. Let me repeat that. By nearly 2-to-1, we in the 
Senate said ``no more sanctions on Vietnam.''
  The President made the right decision in moving forward with full 
diplomatic relations. This provision would threaten those new relations 
without in any way helping to meet its goal of resolving MIA cases. 
Moving forward with relations and increasing bilateral contacts is the 
best way of achieving that goal.
  It appears almost certain that this bill is headed for a veto, which 
means we will have another opportunity to address this topic. I urge 
conferees to reconsider this provision and to eliminate this 
unnecessary and unhelpful encroachment on the President's power to 
conduct foreign policy.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the language 
included in this conference report which reprograms money to establish 
a Border Patrol training facility at the Charleston Naval Base. This 
announcement was made back in July of this Year after the Department of 
Justice completed a competitive evaluation of several active and former 
Department of Defense facilities. In August, Congress approved the 
reprogramming request that was sent by the Department of Justice for 
this facility. During conference on this appropriations measure, the 
committee voted by an overwhelming majority of 11 to 1 to put the 
Border Patrol training facility in Charleston.
  It is expected that this facility will train up to 2,400 agents over 
the next 3 years. Also, approximately 60 full-time instructors will be 
employed to conduct the training. Mr. President, Charleston is an ideal 
location for this facility. It is only about 2 hours from Glynco, GA, 
where the Border Patrol has its main training facility, and the naval 
base has readily available and convertible facilities to use for this 
project. The facilities, climate, and friendly community make 
Charleston an ideal location for the Border Patrol School.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the conference report the Senate is 
currently considering does some weighty damage to the 1994 Violent 
Crime Prevention Act passed by a bipartisan Congress last year. It 
would dismantle the Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] 
Program, block grant it, and combine it with the crime prevention block 
grant into one big block grant. It would also cut funding for the 
resulting block grant. Along the way it destroys funding for child 
safety centers. The bill does fully fund the Violence Against Women 
Act, also known as VAWA, and for that I am grateful.
  Mr. President, I want to begin my statement by focusing on the 
positive, and by congratulating my colleagues for deciding to fully 
fund VAWA. The conference report restores the $76 million for VAWA that 
the House would have cut. VAWA funds are of vital importance to this 
nation. VAWA funds training for police, prosecutors, and victims 
advocates to target family violence and rape; programs to reduce sexual 
abuse and exploitation of young people; training for judges and 
prosecutors on victims of child abuse; training for State court judges 
on rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases, and programs to 
address domestic violence in rural areas.
  Last year, $240 million was promised by Congress for the Violence 
Against Women Act [VAWA] programs for fiscal year 1996--$176.7 million 
for VAWA 

[[Page S 18171]]
programs administered by the Department of Justice, and $61.9 million 
for VAWA programs administered by the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  All of this is funded out of $4.2 billion provided by the Crime Trust 
Fund in 1996. Funding in the Crime Trust Fund comes from eliminating 
123,000 Federal jobs and cutting domestic discretionary spending. Full 
funding of the Violence Against Women Program has no effect on the 
budget deficit and requires no new taxes. Now, I want my colleagues to 
clearly understand what this all means. Last year, we as a country 
decided that addressing crime was a top priority. We decided that 
savings from streamlining the Federal Government and cutting other 
domestic programs would go to fight crime.
  As a country we made a commitment to breaking the cycle of violence 
and see that a person's home is the safe place that it should be. As of 
today, we are still living up to that commitment, by supporting this 
program.
  I must also commend my colleagues on the Appropriation Subcommittee 
on Labor/HHS for their efforts and wisdom in fully funding the Violence 
Against Women Act program under their jurisdiction.
  We must remember all the programs in the Violence Against Women Act 
are a package. Senator Biden and others worked for 5 years on this 
piece of legislation. All the pieces of it fit together. They all must 
be in place for it to work effectively. For example, we can encourage 
arrests by police officers but if they are not properly trained to 
understand the dynamics of domestic violence, an arrest could make the 
situation more explosive. Likewise, if more batterers are being 
arrested but judges are not trained to understand or take domestic 
violence seriously, batterers are likely to go free or be charged with 
lesser offenses.

  Violence Against Women Act programs deserve the funds we are giving 
them. Anything less would have resulted in a betrayal of the bipartisan 
promise Congress made. Domestic violence must continue to be a priority 
for national crime-fighting efforts.
  We know all too well that violence in the home seeps out into our 
streets. If we do not stop the violence in the home we will never stop 
it in the streets. We knew this when we passed the crime bill last year 
and it is still true today.
  As I travel and meet more and more women and children who are victims 
of domestic violence, I become even more outraged that a woman's home 
can be the most dangerous, violent, or deadly place she can be; if she 
is a mother, the same is true for her children. It was with the passage 
of the Violence Against Women Act that Congress said, loud and clear, 
it is time to stop the cycle of violence, it is time to make homes safe 
again, and it is time to help communities across the country deal with 
this crisis.
  I thank my colleagues for protecting this program. I wish that the 
rest of the conference report reflected such concern on the part of my 
colleagues for preventing crimes.
  Unfortunately, the conferees have decided to block grant COPS and to 
combine it with local community crime prevention block grants. There 
are may serious problems with this approach.
  In passing the crime law last year, Congress authorized $75.9 million 
for local community crime prevention block grants for fiscal year 1996, 
and $1.85 billion for COPS. Instead of fully funding both individual 
programs, the conference report that is before us creates a single 
block grant, combining both the COPS program and the prevention block 
grants and funding the result, the local law enforcement block grant, 
at $1.9 billion, about $25 million less than the two programs would 
have cost individually.
  First of all, I believe that this block grant approach would open the 
door to funding anything under the sun that a governor determines is 
law enforcement or crime prevention. And it effectively could eliminate 
all crime prevention that was envisioned by the 1994 crime bill. For 
when law enforcement is pitted against crime prevention efforts, law 
enforcement always wins. The only specifically earmarked crime 
prevention money left is now the Violence Against Women Act. Out of an 
allocation for the Department of Justice of $14.5 billion dollars, only 
$175 million is directly targeted to the prevention of crimes.
  This, I say to my colleagues, turns the clock back on the commitment 
we made last year to help communities which are both fighting and 
trying to prevent crime.

  While I am on the subject of ignoring our commitments, in addition to 
gutting prevention programs, the conference report guts the very 
centerpiece of the 1994 crime law--COPS, which provides money for 
hiring, over 5 years, 100,000 more police officers to patrol our 
Nation's streets. To date, under this program, more than 25,000 police 
officers have been hired--in Minnesota alone, 354 new cops have been 
funded, and Minnesota has applied for 128 more. Importantly, each of 
these officers were hired to be on the beat, not in the office.
  At a time of very tight budgets, the money for both the COPS Program 
and the crime prevention block grant come from savings achieved by 
reducing the Federal bureaucracy. None of these new police officers or 
crime prevention programs are adding an additional burden on the 
taxpayer. We as a Congress, and indeed a country, made fighting crime a 
top priority last year when we decided to use the savings from 
streamlining the Federal Government and from cutting some domestic 
programs for fighting crime.
  The COPS Program is a good program. It is reaching and helping 
communities. It is very flexible. Local jurisdictions can work with the 
Justice Department to meet their particular needs. The Justice 
Department has acted swiftly, has minimized the paperwork, and has 
staffed 800 numbers for immediate assistance. It is not surprising, 
therefore, that approximately 200 Minnesota jurisdictions have 
participated in this program. What's more, Attorney General Janet Reno 
has created a new effort at the Department of Justice to target some of 
these new cops on the beat to help address domestic violence.
  Having more cops involved in community policing fighting crime means 
less crime. It is as simple as that. In only a short time the COPS 
Program is already delivering on its promise of providing more police 
officers in a very cost effective, flexible manner. Not surprisingly 
those on the frontline in the fight against crime have only praise for 
this program. Police chiefs, sheriffs, deputies, and rank-and-file 
police officers all support this effort to put more police in 
communities.
  But now this very successful and popular crime-fighting program is 
under attack by Republicans who have converted its funding into a block 
grant. The conference report block grant plan does not stipulate that 
the money must be spent on hiring cops. Instead, the money can be 
redirected to fund restaurant inspectors, parking meters, radar guns--
and any other of a host of things.
  The money ought to be spent the way it was intended and the way law 
enforcement officials want it spent: to hire police officers. The 
Nation's major police enforcement organizations all agree on this 
point.
  We all know that crime is one of the great plagues of our 
communities. People in the suburbs and people living downtown are 
afraid--they are afraid to go out at night, they are afraid to venture 
into the skyways, they are afraid to leave their cars parked on the 
street. We also all know that having a larger police presence helps 
deter the very crimes that people fear the most. Buying more parking 
meters, radar guns, or hiring more restaurant inspectors does not 
address this plague nor address peoples' legitimate fears.

  It is peculiar that the party that claims to be tough on law and 
order is proposing as one of their first steps to change a successful, 
cost-effective law and order program--one that ought to have broad, 
bipartisan support.
  Crime prevention was also an essential element of the crime bill. 
Despite the fact that at each step of the way in passing the crime bill 
prevention programs got watered down, in the end we decided that crime 
prevention had to be part of that bill.
  Two years ago, when Congress began consideration of the crime bill, 
we started with a substantial portion of the crime bill addressing 
prevention; after all, prevention is crime control, stopping crime 
before it ever happens. 

[[Page S 18172]]
It, by the way, included something that I think is extremely 
important--supervised visitation centers. A model that I brought from 
Minnesota to help families with a history of violence, which I will 
discuss in a moment.
  Ultimately, we ended up with a crime bill that included a block grant 
to the States for prevention programs--the local community crime 
prevention block grant. And, funding was not even authorized until 
fiscal year 1996. We haven't even given it a chance to work and get 
into communities--the only provision in the crime bill other than VAWA 
that was intended to prevent crime, one of the few provisions that was 
not funded until next year.
  The local crime prevention block grant, like the COPS program, was 
supposed to provide a lot of flexibility to the States and communities. 
Under this block grant communities could have determined what types--
within a general list of about 14 different ideas--of prevention 
programs to fund, and which prevention plans fit their community the 
best. But this block grant was for prevention, nothing else. And, as I 
stated earlier, it had not even had a chance to be implemented. This 
coming year would have been the first year funding would actually go to 
help communities.
  But instead these 14 programs are now left to compete for funds with 
police stations and mayors' offices and jail. The money will never make 
it to community prevention efforts.
  If we were to listen to people in the communities that are most 
affected by the violence, they would tell us that money has to go to 
prevention. You have to put some resources toward making sure our young 
people have opportunities. How interesting it is that those who would 
essentially eliminate these prevention programs do not come from those 
communities, do not know the people in those communities, and I do not 
think asked the people in those communities at all what they think 
should be done.
  Mr. President, I can just tell you that in meeting with students, 
students that come from some pretty tough background--students at the 
Work Opportunity Center in Minneapolis, which is an alternative school, 
young students who are mothers and others who come from real difficult 
circumstances, all of them said to me: You can build more prisons and 
you can build more jails, but the issue for us is jobs, opportunity. 
You will never stop this cycle of violence unless you do something that 
prevents it in the first place.

  Then I turn to the judges, the sheriffs, and the police chiefs, and I 
call them on the phone in Minnesota, and I ask them what they think. 
And they say yes we need community police and yes we need the other 
parts of the crime law, but they all say, if you do not do something 
about preventing crime, if these young people do not have these 
opportunities, if we do not get serious about reducing violence in the 
home, do not believe for a moment that we are going to stop the cycle 
of violence.
  Mr. President, I believe that a highly trained police, highly 
motivated, community-based, sensitive to the people in the communities, 
can make a difference. They are wanted and they are needed. But the 
conference report we are considering today will do nothing to prevent 
the criminal of tomorrow. And indeed without more cops on the beat it 
may not do much to fight the criminals of today.
  Every 5 seconds a child drops out of school in America. This is from 
the Children's Defense Fund study. Every 5 seconds a child drops out of 
a public school in the United States of America. Every 30 seconds a 
baby is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a baby is born with a low 
birthweight. Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no 
prenatal care.
  Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-related crime. 
Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for selling drugs. Every 2 hours a 
child is murdered. Every 4 hours a child commits suicide, takes his or 
her life in the United States of America. And every 5 minutes a child 
is arrested for a violent crime.
  Mr. President, if we do not continue to be serious about the 
prevention part, we are not going to stop the cycle of violence.
  All too many young people are growing up in neighborhoods and 
communities in our country where if they bump into someone or look at 
someone the wrong way they are in trouble, where there is too much 
violence in their homes, where violence pervades every aspect of their 
life. And people who grow up in such brutal circumstances can become 
brutal. And that should not surprise any of us.
  Prevention and law enforcement--both essential elements of any crime 
fighting effort. These two should not have to compete with each other 
for funding, nor should funding be cut for either.
  Which brings me to the most painful part of my statement today. This 
new block grant takes away funding for child safety centers. By 
discarding local community crime prevention block grants, which would 
have provided funding for child safety centers specifically as one of 
its 14 prevention programs, the conference report discards this program 
as well.

  Child safety centers were created by the Child Safety Act, which 
became law in 1994 as part of the crime bill. It authorized funds to 
create supervised visitation centers for families who have a history of 
violence.
  The prevalence of family violence in our society is staggering. 
Studies show that 25 percent of all violence occurs among people who 
are related. Data indicates that the incidence of violence in families 
escalates during separation and divorce. Many of these assaults occur 
in the context of visitation.
  Supervised visitation centers would:
  Provide supervised visitation for families where there has been 
documented sexual, physical, or emotional abuse.
  Provide supervised visitation for families where there is suspected 
or elevated risk of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, or where 
there have been threats of parental abduction of the child.
  Provide a safe and neutral place for parents to visit with children 
who have been put in foster care because of abuse and neglect.
  Provide a safe location for custodial parents to temporarily transfer 
custody of their children to non-custodial parents.
  Serve as an additional safeguard against children witnessing abuse of 
a parent or sustaining injury to themselves.
  The Child Safety Act would have supported the establishment and 
operation of approximately 30 centers across the United States. The 
Child Safety Act requires grant recipients to submit an annual report 
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the volume and type of 
services provided at the supervised visitation center. Twenty percent 
of the grants made under the Child Safety Act would support the 
establishment of special visitation centers created to study the 
effectiveness of supervised visitation on sexually and severely 
physically abused children. These centers would be staffed with 
qualified clinicians and would have enhanced data collection 
capabilities. From the reports submitted by grant recipients, the 
Secretary would prepare and submit a report to Congress on the 
effectiveness of supervised visitation centers.
  Mr. President, because this program is unenumerated it doesn't stand 
a chance in competition with other, established entities under the 
conference report's block grant. Mr. President, there is nothing that 
will replace this program. There is no one who will step in and take 
care of these children. There is no one who will try to make these 
families whole. The communities trying desperately to repair themselves 
will get no help from us.
  Mr. President, for this and the other reasons I have discussed today, 
I have severe reservations regarding this conference report.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2076, the 
Conference Report Making Appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice and State. This bill would eliminate the Community 
Oriented Policing Program [COPS] and replace it with a block grant 
program. By gutting a program that has proven effective in putting 
police officers on the streets to interact with community residents, 
Congress is reneging on a promise that was made to the American people 
last year to aggressively attack the epidemic of crime.
  In August of last year, Congress passed the $30.2 billion Violent 
Crime 

[[Page S 18173]]
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the largest, most 
comprehensive piece of legislation in the history of this country. The 
centerpiece of the crime bill is the Community Oriented Policing 
Services Grant Program [COPS], a six year, $8.8 billion crime fighting 
program designed to put 100,000 law enforcement officers on the 
streets. I provided a jumpstart for the community policing initiative 
in the crime bill when I introduced a bill in March of 1993 that 
authorized a major new expansion of community policing.
  Mr. President, in 1 year, roughly 80 percent of the police 
departments in the country have been authorized to hire or redeploy 
almost 26,000 officers for community policing. To date, Mr. President, 
over 300 New Jersey jurisdictions have received more than 670 
additional cops to walk the beat. Over the next 5 years, New Jersey can 
expect to receive a total of about $250 million in community policing 
grants to hire approximately 2,800 officers on the beat.
  Mr. President, community policing involves establishing a close 
relationship between community residents and the entire police 
department. This enhanced relationship will result in better law 
enforcement by putting more cops on the beat to stop trouble before it 
turns into violent crime. Community policing also will improve the 
overall quality of life of community residents by involving all police 
personnel in community activities.
  In my talks with the citizens and law enforcement officers in New 
Jersey, I have been told that the Community Policing Program is 
improving the quality of life by making neighborhoods and communities 
safer. For example, in Woodbury, NJ, Chief Carl Kinkler has reported 
that the one police officer hired under the COPS Program has made a 
tremendous difference in the quality of life in the city. The hiring of 
the officer has allowed the department to deploy two officers to patrol 
a problematic community where open air drug dealing has been prevalent. 
During the last 3 months, 11 major drug arrests have taken place and 
open air drug dealing has declined by 90 percent. According to Chief 
Kinkler, deploying cops on the beat has allowed the city of Woodbury to 
allow the residents of this community to take control of their 
neighborhood.
  In Newark, NJ, the community policing program has been enormously 
successful. Officers patrol neighborhoods on foot, and in those areas 
requiring acute attention, Neighborhood Stabilization Units have been 
set up. These units are literally mobile police stations, in which 
police officers in a specially equipped van drive into an area and set 
up a police station in the community.
  In addition to solving and deterring crime, Newark police indicate 
that officers on the beat have been instrumental in dealing with 
quality of life issues. The officers solicit from citizens problems 
that merit attention, such as prostitution, illegal dumping, and loud 
music which creates a public nuisance. The officers then solve the 
community problems. The cops on the beat also handle citizen concerns 
that traditionally fall outside the realm of police activity, such as 
repairing streets, towing abandoned cars, and razing abandoned 
buildings. The police department reports that community policing has 
have a significant impact on providing citizens with safer communities 
and an enhanced confidence in the police force.
  Mr. President, this legislation provides that the block grant funding 
can be used for basic law enforcement functions, which can include 
prison guards, meter maids, file cabinets and parking meters. There is 
no guarantee that one police officer will be hired to stand with 
community residents to fight crime. I am reminded that when Congress 
debated the crime bill, critics of community policing argued that it 
was impossible to put 20,000 police officers on the streets over the 
life of the crime bill. However, in approximately one year, almost 
26,000 cops have been deployed to walk the beat and rid communities of 
crime. Mr. President, a year ago a promise was made to put 100,000 
police officers on the streets within 6 years. We are well on the way 
to fulfilling this promise. However, if Congress kills the community 
policing program--a program that has proven hugely effective in 
combatting crime--the guarantee that Congress will make to the American 
people is that their security is no longer a priority issue.
  Mr. President, Congress has had past experience with block grants in 
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Program. I would like to 
remind my colleagues that this program had to be terminated because of 
waste. We should not make the same mistake today by eliminating a 
highly successful program that to date has funnelled Federal money 
directly to approximately 80 percent of police departments around the 
country to enable those departments to deploy officers on the beat to 
form a partnership with community residents to fight crime.
  Mr. President, the community policing program has been immensely 
successful and is supported by the law enforcement community, including 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order 
of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, the National Organization 
of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Troopers Coalition, 
the Police Executive Research Forum and the Police Foundation. In 
addition, 65 percent of the American people support funding for more 
police officers. I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people 
in opposition to this bill and preserve the community policing program.


                   gender bias studies in the courts

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the 
remaining barriers to equal justice in our State and Federal judicial 
proceedings--bias by judges and court personnel, and in particular, 
gender bias. I, and my colleagues from Massachusetts and Delaware, 
Senators Kennedy  and Biden, strongly believe that funds appropriated 
for the Federal judiciary, as set out in title III of the fiscal year 
1996 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations conference report, should be 
used to study bias in the courts, if any, and to educate judges and 
court personnel about this barrier to equal justice in the courts.
  As enacted, the Violence Against Women Act includes a provision--the 
Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act--that authorizes and 
encourages each of the Federal judicial circuits to conduct studies of 
the instances, if any, of gender bias in the courts and to implement 
appropriate reforms. These studies were intended to examine the effects 
of any differential gender-based treatment in areas such as the 
treatment of litigants, witnesses, attorneys, jurors, and judges, the 
services and facilities available to victims of violent crime and 
the selection, retention, promotion, and treatment of employees.

  In addition to authorizing the circuit studies, the act also requires 
the Administrative Office of the United States to act as a 
clearinghouse to disseminate any reports and materials issued by these 
gender fairness task forces. The act also requests the Federal Judicial 
Center to include in its educational programs, such as training 
programs for new judges, information related to gender bias in the 
courts.
  These circuit-by-circuit studies were included in the act after the 
Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously accepted an amendment that I had 
offered. In passing the Violence Against Women Act, Congress recognized 
the need for research of this kind and the importance of disseminating 
the results of such research throughout the judicial system.
  The importance of these studies extends well beyond their actual 
results. For example, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which I authored 
and which President Bush signed into law in 1990, requires the Justice 
Department to collect data on crimes based on race, religion, 
ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Oversight hearings on the 
implementation of that act demonstrated that one of its many benefits 
was to dramatically increase the awareness and sensitivity of the 
police about hate crimes. In this case, requiring circuit courts to 
study gender bias would have the same beneficial effect of increasing 
the awareness and sensitivity of judges and court personnel about 
gender bias.
  While some of my colleagues may disagree, I strongly hope that, as 
authorized by Congress, the Federal judiciary will issue the reasonable 
funds appropriated under this act to fulfill 

[[Page S 18174]]
the purposes of the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act and 
achieve the ultimate goal of our Federal judicial system--equal justice 
for all.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his remarks, with 
which I fully agree. There should be no disagreement on the need to 
take steps to identify and eliminate any gender- or race-related bias 
in our judicial system. We must not tolerate any barriers to equal 
justice in our State and Federal judicial proceedings. More than 40 
State and Federal court systems have conducted studies of gender bias 
in their courts. In part in reaction to some of the State court 
studies, the 1990 report of the Federal Courts Study Committee 
supported educational programs on bias for judges and court personnel. 
The Study Committee found that many task force studies at the State 
level revealed the presence of gender bias in State judicial 
proceedings. The 1990 report concluded, ``[w]e believe education is the 
best means of sensitizing judges and supporting personnel to their own 
possible inappropriate conduct and to the importance of curbing such 
bias when shown by attorneys, parties, and witnesses.''
  The Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed the need 
for gender bias studies three times. In 1992, the conference adopted a 
resolution noting that ``bias, in all its forms, presents a danger to 
the effective administration of justice in Federal courts'' and 
encouraging each Federal circuit not already doing so to ``sponsor 
education programs for judges, supporting personnel and attorneys to 
sensitize them to concerns of bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, 
age, and disability, and the extent to which bias may affect litigants, 
witnesses, attorneys, and all those who work in the judicial branch.'' 
In 1993, the conference's ``Resolution on the Violence Against Women 
Act,'' endorsed the gender bias studies provision as having great 
merit. And earlier this year, the conference approved a report of its 
Court Management Committee that encouraged the study of gender and race 
bias by the Circuit Judicial Councils.
  When we passed the Violence Against Women Act last year, we 
encouraged such studies, a policy that remains in force unless it is 
repealed or altered by a subsequent statute. But even without our 
encouragement, the judiciary retains inherent authority to investigate 
bias in the courts. It strikes me as an inappropriate intrusion into 
the internal affairs of a coequal branch of government for Congress to 
prohibit such studies.
  As the national debate on the O.J. Simpson trial made clear, many 
minorities are skeptical that they will be treated fairly in the 
justice system. Many women harbor similar doubts. The bias task forces 
are one way through which the judiciary can address legitimate 
problems. The judicial branch, independent of the Violence Against 
Women Act, is obligated to ensure the fair administration of justice, 
and investigations of bias in the courts are consistent with that 
important goal.
  Mr. BIDEN. I wish to thank the Senators from Illinois and 
Massachusetts for their remarks on this important subject. The Violence 
Against Women Act is the first comprehensive measure aimed at making 
our Nation's streets, college and university campuses, and homes safer 
for women. Following extensive hearings, the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously approved the act, and Congress passed this landmark 
legislation.
  Subtitle D of the act, entitled ``Equal Justice for Women in the 
Courts,'' was an important part of that legislation. As described by my 
colleagues, this provision encourages the circuit judicial conferences 
to conduct studies of gender bias within their respective circuits and 
to disseminate their results.
  By enacting this provision, Congress intended to promote a greater 
understanding of the nature and extent of gender bias, to educate 
judges, and, ultimately, to reduce any bias. The Equal Justice for 
Women in the Courts Act takes us one step closer to achieving and 
maintaining equal justice under the law. It is an important part of an 
overall effort to ensure meaningful protection of the rights of those 
who were victimized by sex crimes, domestic violence, and crimes of 
violence motivated by gender.

  A majority of the Federal circuits have already established gender 
bias task forces. Some circuits have expanded the mission of the task 
forces to include the study of racial and ethnic bias issues as well. I 
strongly believe that these studies and related education and training 
programs are critical to understanding whether there is any disparate 
treatment in the courts and, if so, what steps the courts should take 
to address it.
  Task forces on gender, racial and ethnic issues have been endorsed 
by, among others, the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and 
Removal, the Long Range Planning Committee of the Federal Courts and, 
as noted by my colleagues, the Federal Courts Study Committee and the 
Judicial Conference of the United States.
  As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and as the author of 
the Violence Against Women Act and the 1994 crime bill, I wish to join 
my colleagues in expressing my strong intent, that the Federal 
judiciary is authorized to use funds appropriated for violent crime 
reduction programs, as set out in title III of fiscal year 1996 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations conference report, to study 
gender bias and other related barriers to equal justice in our courts.
  Mr. KERREY. I concur with distinguished Senators' analysis of the 
status of funding for the bias studies and with their beliefs about the 
importance of these studies. When we encouraged the judicial circuits 
to conduct gender bias studies, Congress acknowledged the importance 
and tradition of judicial self-examination on issues--such as this--
that are critical to the administration of justice.
  The Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 
Circuit, which includes the State of Nebraska, voted unanimously to 
conduct a bias study. The council's vote does not reflect any doubt 
about the talent or integrity of any judge on that court, but rather 
reflects their commitment to the identification and elimination of bias 
where it exists, and their recognition of the importance of that task 
to preserving the integrity of our judicial system.
  As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce Justice, 
State and Judiciary, I fully support the use of Federal funds for the 
continuation of this effort to improve the justice system in the eighth 
circuit and other Federal circuits.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I wish to join my colleagues in their support for the 
continuation of the work of the Federal judiciary in studying the 
existence, if any, of gender bias in the courts.
  I am proud to say that in 1982, the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court of New Jersey established the Nation's first task force on gender 
in the courts. Now, the majority of States have commissioned gender 
task forces and issued reports of their findings. In general, these 
studies have identified some problems in the State courts and 
identified steps that can be taken by the bench and bar to improve the 
fair treatment of attorneys, litigants, and employees.

  No one should question the importance of ensuring that our Federal 
courts truly function as fair, neutral adjudicators. Toward that end, 
the Federal courts should be commended for taking the steps to identify 
and, where it exists, to eradicate, gender bias in decisionmaking, 
employment, and the treatment of individuals. The work of these gender 
fairness task forces may not always be popular. The work may not always 
be comfortable for some. But in the end, their work will help ensure 
that the courts are, and are perceived to be, fair to all litigants.
  I agree with Senators Simon, Kennedy, Biden, and Kerrey that the 
Federal judiciary is fully authorized under the Violence Against Women 
Act to conduct these important studies and that the allocation to the 
judiciary under this appropriations bill may be used for that purpose.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was proud to be a coauthor of Violence Against Women 
Act when I served in the House and I am pleased now to join my 
colleagues in stating my strong support for the important work of the 
gender task forces authorized under VAWA. I fully agree that the courts 
are authorized to continue this work using funds provided in this 
appropriations bill.
  The ninth circuit was the first Federal circuit to form a task force 
to 

[[Page S 18175]]
study the effects of gender in the judicial system. The work of the 
task force was initiated before Congress encouraged such studies. The 
ninth circuit report was issued in July 1993 and it concluded in part 
that ``[a]lthough the judiciary aspires to a system of justice in which 
the gender of participants is of no import, the results [of the study] 
document that in the current world, gender counts.'' Supreme Court 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called the ninth circuit report a 
comprehensive, well-supported report.
  The majority of Federal circuits have already created task forces to 
study the effects of gender in the courts. Their work should not be 
discouraged in any way now.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As a member of the Appropriations Committee 
Subcommittee on Commerce, State, Justice, and Judiciary, I wish to 
express my support for the work of the task forces on gender and racial 
bias in the courts. I concur with my colleagues as to the importance of 
the task forces and I join my colleague, Senator Bradley, in noting 
that New Jersey has been a leader in the effort to ensure gender and 
racial fairness in the courts.

  I firmly believe that funding for this important work is provided for 
in this appropriations bill and I join my colleagues in encouraging the 
judiciary to continue this work.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my colleagues for their insightful remarks on this 
important topic. I believe what we are really talking about here is 
maintaining the ability of the judiciary to address issues of 
particular importance to that branch of government. And bias is 
certainly such a topic. The judiciary is in the best position to 
determine whether this topic merits study or educational activities. 
And I believe the judiciary should be given the flexibility to do so.
  The Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit, which includes my home 
State of Ohio, felt strongly enough about this issue that it has 
approved the formation of a task force on gender fairness and a task 
force on racial and ethnic fairness.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I join my colleagues to express my support for the 
efforts of the task forces on gender bias in the Federal courts.
  Six of the seven States in the eighth circuit have conducted gender 
and/or racial bias studies. When bias was documented, these State task 
forces recommended improvements designed to assure the fair 
administration of justice for men and women in the courts.
  In 1994, Chief Judge Richard Arnold of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Eighth Circuit appointed a 30-member gender fairness task force on 
gender bias. The group includes 12 Federal judges from each of the 7 
States in the circuit as well as court administrators, attorneys, and 
law professors. These distinguished task force members are committed to 
a careful, responsible survey of the court to determine whether gender 
bias exists there. Congress has unequivocally authorized this work and 
I strongly believe that the Federal judiciary should continue this 
effort.


                      Community Relations Service

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
speak on the conference agreement regarding the structure of and 
funding for the Community Relations Service.
  The appropriations level for the Conflict Resolution Program of the 
Community Relations Service [CRS] of the U.S. Department of Justice in 
this bill--$5.3 million--would have a catastrophic impact on the 
agency's conflict resolution mandate.
  CRS is vital to this Nation's ability to continue to make progress in 
improving race relations. The important work of CRS is essential to 
preventing and resolving the day-to-day racial conflicts in the 
communities we represent. Without an effective CRS, racial tensions and 
conflicts will disrupt the economy and tear at the social fabric of the 
hometowns across Florida and elsewhere.
  Over the past 3 years CRS has shifted resources from headquarters 
administration to field conciliation, leaving CRS with no buffer of 
administrative staff. Due to a series of budget reductions over the 
years, the CRS conflict resolution budget is almost all salaries and 
expenses at this point.
  Because this program does not operate large scale grant, contract, 
training, or other operations that could offset the impact on 
personnel, this funding reduction will lead to the necessity to lay off 
almost 65 percent of the conflict resolution staff.
  At this funding level, CRS would only be able to staff its 15 offices 
around the country with 2 or 3 conciliators in each office. Florida's 
regional office is in Atlanta and covers 7 other states in the region. 
With these drastic cuts, these people cannot begin to provide the 
racial conflict resolution services that Florida needs.
  And even with this modest staffing level of 2 to 3 conciliators in 
most offices, the ability of the agency to sustain independent 
administrative and management operations would be seriously undermined.
  We must recognize what this loss of service will mean to the people 
of this country. Without the full funding of $10.6 million CRS, the 
country will be without a vital service that no one other than CRS can 
provide.
  Further, I am opposed to the transfer of the Cuban-Haitian 
Resettlement Program from the Community Relations Service to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS is, in large part, an 
enforcement agency whose mission is not that of administering 
resettlement activities such as the Cuban-Haitian program. I am also 
concerned that the Cuban-Haitian program would be lost in such a large 
organization as INS which has scores of priorities.
  At CRS, the Cuban-Haitian program is one of two missions that 
complement each other successfully: conflict resolution and Cuban/
Haitian resettlement. The Cuban-Haitian Program has been successfully 
administered by CRS for 15 years. CRS has successfully implemented the 
outplacement operations of Cubans and Haitians from Guantanamo and the 
resettlement programs for unaccompanied alien minors. The resettlement 
program has been indispensable to our Defense Department's Atlantic 
Command in managing the Cuban-Haitian programs at Guantanamo and in 
Panama. CRS has helped to resettle over 17,000 migrants as part of 
DoD's Operation Sea Signal.
  The conflict resolution program works hand in hand with communities 
throughout the country to gain receptivity to the influx of refugees 
and entrants under the Cuban/Haitian program and has smoothed the way 
for an orderly resettlement process. CRS resettlement efforts directly 
support local communities by reducing and preventing strain on local 
public services and preventing potential community tensions.
  Both missions of CRS, Cuban-Haitian resettlement and the Conflict 
Resolution Program should remain as a separate division within the 
Department of Justice. Should the Senate have another opportunity to 
consider the Commerce, Justice bill, I would encourage my colleagues to 
support the CRS language in the Senate-passed bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, when the Commerce/Justice/State 
appropriations bill was before the Senate I noted that it included an 
amendment of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. That 
amendment is in this conference report. Since a veto of this measure is 
likely, this is not the right time to pursue my objection to this 
amendment. But, it is my purpose now to give notice that I will 
continue--at the appropriate time--to oppose this and any other attempt 
to weaken the Motor-Voter Act.
  The provision that I object to would change the exemption provision 
of the Motor-Voter Act. That exemption was drafted--at the specific 
insistence of Republicans--so as to exempt only those States that had 
already, as of March 11, 1993, enacted election day registration or had 
no registration requirement. The amendment in this conference report 
would change the date to extend the exemption to include two more 
States, New Hampshire and Idaho.
  The Motor-Voter amendment included in this report violates the 
purpose of the exemption provision. That purpose was clearly stated by 
the Republican floor manager of the Motor-Voter bill. His statement 
regarding the exemption is clear and unambiguous, so I will repeat it 
here.

       Republicans slammed the escape-hatch shut. No longer is 
     this bill a backdoor means of forcing states into adopting 
     election day 

[[Page S 18176]]
     registration or no registration whatsoever. * * * Republicans succeeded 
     in grand fathering in the five States that would have 
     qualified for the exemption prior to March 11, 1993.

  With regard to requests from other states--Michigan, Illinois, and 
South Dakota--urging that the exemption not include such a deadline, 
the Republican floor manager said ``their constituents are better 
served by the closing of the escape hatch than if it had been left 
open.''
  It should be clear from the foregoing that this is not merely an 
insignificant or technical amendment. Its purpose is contrary to the 
intent of the exemption provision of the Motor-Voter law. Its 
underlying intent is obvious and should be addressed directly. This is 
another attack on the implementation of the Motor-Voter law. It is also 
a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor of New Hampshire election 
officials shortly before that all-important first Presidential primary.
  I made a more detailed statement of my reasons for opposing this 
amendment when this measure was first under consideration. Rather than 
repeat them now, I will conclude by reiterating that I will continue to 
oppose--at the appropriate time--this and any other attempt to weaken 
the National Voter Registration Act.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report appropriating funds for the Departments of Commerce, State and 
Justice for fiscal year l996. The funding levels contained in this 
report are no better than those contained in its predecessor that the 
President vetoed. I have expressed earlier my extremely serious 
reservations about the provisions relating to the Justice Department 
and the elimination of the Cops on the Beat Program that I and many of 
us worked so hard to enact.
  I now would like to focus my comments briefly on those provisions of 
the conference report that deal a serious blow to the Commerce 
Department's technology programs as well as to the provisions relating 
to Vietnam. Many of the Commerce Department technology programs, like 
the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension 
Program, have played a pivotal role in the start-up of high-technology 
and biotech businesses and the growth of jobs in these sectors in my 
State of Massachusetts.
  The conference report completely zeros-out funding for any new 
projects that would have been supported by the Advanced Technology 
Program, or ATP. The ATP had been funded at a level of $323 million in 
fiscal year l995, and the President had requested more than $490 
million for this program in fiscal l996. Companies that had applied for 
new project funding to bring enabling technologies to the point of 
commercialization will be denied funds under this bill. This will hurt 
a number of firms in my State, including Dynamet Technology of 
Burlington which is developing surgical implant components, Gensym 
Corp. of Cambridge which is developing variable air conditioning 
systems and the Lorron Corp. of Burlington that is working to upgrade 
fire protection modeling codes. I had hoped the Senate figure of more 
than $100 million would prevail. Instead, the elimination of funding 
for this program will deal a severe set-back to many start-up and other 
high-technology firms in my State.
  The conference report preserves $80 million in funding for the 
Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP]. Through the University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst and Bay State Skills, MEP has provided 
valuable, hands-on technical and management consulting on manufacturing 
processes for small and mid-sized businesses. MEP estimates that every 
dollar of its support generates $15 in economic growth for the local 
community. The funding cut contained in this report will hurt companies 
like Alpha Industries of Woburn, whose 600 employees are successfully 
making the transition from manufacturing semiconductors for the Defense 
Department to a commercial product operation.
  Among many other programs in my State that will be hurt as a result 
of funding reductions or terminations in the conference report are the 
Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Institute, which has leveraged 
venture capital funds for new biotechnology companies in and around 
Worcester, and the textile center at the University of Massachusetts at 
Dartmouth, which had hoped to become the first university outside the 
Southeastern United States to participate in the National Textile 
University Centers. Cutbacks in the National Telecommunications and 
Infrastructure Assistance Program will hurt groups in my State that are 
seeking to get on the information superhighway. Among them are the 
Executive Office of Education in Boston that is developing a statewide, 
integrated, interactive voice and data network, called the 
Massachusetts Information Infrastructure. This network will begin by 
connecting 20 of an estimated 352 sites at libraries of K-12 schools 
and higher education institutions, local government and health and 
community organizations throughout Massachusetts. More than 80 other 
entities in my State have sought assistance from this program, but are 
not likely to receive any help in the face of the proposed funding 
cuts.
  I would now like to turn briefly to the State Department title of the 
bill that relates to Vietnam.
  The conference report conditions the establishment of an embassy in 
Vietnam on a certification by the President with respect to Vietnamese 
cooperation on providing POW/MIA information. As the former chairman of 
the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, I believe that no one 
has worked harder or more conscientiously to ensure that our Nation and 
the families of our POW/MIA's get answers to the fate of these heroes. 
But I believe the way we secure continued and even enhanced assistance 
from the Vietnamese is by engagement.
  I believe this provision could have the perverse effect of setting 
back our efforts. This amendment, offered by the House in conference, 
is really a thinly disguised effort to undermine the administration's 
decision to normalize relations with Vietnam, and it is contrary to the 
Senate's position opposing direct linkage of the POW/MIA issue and the 
process of normalizing relations with Vietnam.
  Mr. President, being a strong supporter of the Cops on the Beat and 
other anticrime programs administered by the Justice Department, being 
a staunch advocate for the international trade, technology, 
environmental and fisheries programs carried out by the Commerce 
Department and being a steadfast advocate for the resolution of 
international conflicts through diplomatic means, it pains me to have 
to oppose this conference report. But I must and I will, knowing that 
the funding cuts and terminations will not sustain the programs we must 
have to keep our streets and communities safe, to keep our economy 
vibrant and to promote job creation and to maintain our presence in and 
the peace of this world.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, 
State appropriations bill.
  I am opposed to this conference report because it takes this country 
in the wrong direction. The conference report undermines our efforts to 
fight crime by abolishing the highly successful COPS Program and 
replacing it with a block grant to the States. Under the COPS Program, 
Maryland has received funding for 440 new police officers throughout 
the State devoted to community policing and keeping our streets safe. 
This conference report would pull the rug out from under this program 
and jeopardize future funding for these officers.
  In addition, this conference report makes draconian cuts to the 
Commerce Department that will harm America's ability to maintain its 
technological edge. The conference report contains a rescission of $75 
million in construction funds for the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology [NIST]. These funds were going to be used to construct a 
new advanced technology laboratory that would play a critical role in 
maintaining America's technological supremacy.
  Originally built between 25 and 40 years ago, the majority of NIST's 
facilities are now technically and functionally obsolete, which makes 
it difficult if not impossible to support the requirements of advanced 
research and development projects. As a result, experiments are often 
delayed or subject to costly rework, and scientists must often accept 
levels of precision and accuracy below those needed by industry. 

[[Page S 18177]]

  As the only Federal laboratory whose explicit mission is developing 
scientific standards and providing technical support for U.S. 
industry's competitiveness objectives, NIST must have a modern 
scientific infrastructure--the laboratories, equipment, instrumentation 
and support--in order to maintain a viable scientific research program 
and to keep our Nation on the cutting edge of science and technology as 
we move into the 21st century. This view was recently underscored by a 
group of 25 nobel laureates who called the laboratories ``a national 
treasure,'' which ``carry out the basic research that is essential for 
advanced technology.''
  Under the conference report, the Commerce Department's Advanced 
Technology Program receives no new funding for fiscal year 1996. The 
ATP is another vital program for developing new technologies that lead 
to the creation of new jobs by supporting innovative research.
  I believe this bill will not further America's long-term economic 
interests nor the interests of my own State of Maryland. Furthermore, 
the cuts to law enforcement will hurt our ability to fight crime in the 
streets and make our neighborhoods safer.
  So, I will oppose the approval of this conference report.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to address briefly a few 
provisions in H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill, that relate to funding of the United Nations.
  First, I want to compliment the fine work of the new subcommittee 
chairman, the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his great 
work on this bill. As all of us know, our friend from New Hampshire had 
to assume command, so to speak, while this bill was in flight. And as 
all of us know, this is a very important and complicated piece of 
legislation. The Senator from New Hampshire took command and has 
produced a good bill that is worthy of our support.
  One provision worth noting is that which would limit U.S. 
contributions to the United Nations. Under the conference report, 20 
percent of the funds appropriated for our regular budget assessed 
contribution to the United Nations would be withheld until a 
certification is made by the President to the Congress that the United 
Nations has established an independent office of inspector general as 
defined in section 401(b) of Public Law 103-236--the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act of 1994.
  This withholding requirement should sound familiar to my colleagues. 
The provision in the conference report extends a withholding 
requirement I offered as an amendment to the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act during Senate consideration in 1994. The reason why I 
took this step nearly two years ago was because of rampant waste, 
fraud, abuse, and outright thievery at the United Nations.
  For years, I have identified specific examples of budgetary 
mismanagement and wasteful practices at the United Nations. I believed 
that the solution to these practices was the same solution the federal 
government has adopted to ensure American taxpayer funds are well-
spent: an independent inspector general. Specifically, what was needed 
then and now is an office or mechanism that can conduct budgetary 
audits; recommend policies for efficient and effective U.N. management; 
investigate and detect budgetary waste, fraud and abuse; and provide an 
enforcement mechanism that would enable the Secretary General, or even 
the so-called inspector general, to take corrective action.
  The withholding requirement was put in place for two reasons: First, 
it was important to demonstrate that the U.S. Government was very 
serious about putting an end to U.N. fiscal mismanagement. As the 
single largest contributor to the United Nations, I believed that it 
was time to use this leverage to achieve real reform at the United 
Nations. Second, I believed that American taxpayer dollars should not 
be used to subsidize waste, fraud, and abuse. Frankly, I had sought a 
higher withholding amount--50 percent--to achieve this goal, but twenty 
percent was the highest I could get through what was then a Senate 
controlled by the Democrats.
  Since the adoption of this withholding provision, U.N. reform has 
become a more important and open topic of discussion in the halls of 
the United Nations, and the Clinton administration. During the 50th 
anniversary celebration of the United Nations, the President devoted 
much of his address to U.N. management reform. The United Nations has 
appointed a so-called inspector general that released a report 
detailing vast mismanagement within the United Nations, particularly in 
the area of peacekeeping activities. All this is good news. A few years 
ago, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, in his capacity as 
Undersecretary General for Management, produced a similar report, and 
the United Nations did everything it could to hide it from public view.
  So the fact that the United Nations has produced a report detailing 
its own mismanagement is an important development. The United Nations 
has been a mismanagement addict, and it has taken the vital first step 
to reform its addiction: recognition. The United Nations recognizes it 
has a serious mismanagement problem and it now is willing to admit it. 
It is about time.
  However, one more crucial step needs to be taken: action. The U.N. 
must take action to correct its addiction, and that is why the 
withholding requirement in the conference report before us today is so 
important. By my interpretation of section 401(b) of Public Law 103-
236, the President would be unable to make this certification because 
of the requirement in that section that the United Nations has 
procedures in place designed to ensure compliance with the 
recommendations of the inspector general.
  In short, there must be enforcement of management reform, not simply 
recognition or discussion of the need for it. That is why the 
withholding requirement in the conference report before us is needed. 
We have made progress, but we have yet to achieve our ultimate goal: 
real reform within the United Nations. For that reason, we must stay 
the course. We must continue to insist on a withholding of taxpayer 
dollars until the United Nations has cleaned up its act.
  Mr. President, I intend to speak in more detail on this matter in the 
near future, particularly on the subject of our contributions to the 
United Nations, and additional reforms that must be put in place. In 
the meantime, I am pleased that the conference report maintains our 
commitment to U.N. reform. I commend my friend from New Hampshire for 
his efforts to make sure this provision was included in the final bill. 
I look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to ensure our 
U.N. management reform goals are met.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this year, America recoiled in 
horror as we heard the tragic story of Stephanie Kuhen, a 3-year-old 
girl who was shot dead in her family's car after the car took a wrong 
turn and drove down a gang-infested alley in Los Angeles. Stephanie's 
grandparents have remarked, ironically and unfortunately with some 
truth, that their family would probably be safer in Bosnia.
  In September, we read about 42-year-old Paul McLaughlin, a 
Massachusetts State prosecutor, devoted to his job, who was shot dead 
at point-blank range outside a commuter train station while returning 
home from work. At the time of the murder, police speculated that it 
may have been a gang-ordered assassination. Several officials remarked 
that ``the slaying was the kind of event that might happen in Italy, 
Colombia, or other nations where prosecutors, judges, and police are 
kidnapped or assassinated.''
  And last August, three employees of a Capitol Hill McDonald's 
restaurant--18-year-old Marvin Peay, Jr; 23-year-old Kevin Workman; and 
a 49-year-old grandmother named Lillian Jackson--were all herded into 
the restaurant's basement freezer late one Saturday night and shot in 
the head. All three died instantaneously.
  Mr. President, what I have just described did not take place in 
Bosnia or Italy or Colombia or some other country, but right here in 
America. These are real people. With real families. Feeling real pain. 
And dying real deaths. They are citizens of our country.


                         Some facts about crime

  We must put an end to this madness. If America wants to continue 
calling itself a civilized society, we can no 

[[Page S 18178]]
longer accept an annual crime tally of nearly 24,000 murders, 100,000 
forcible rapes, 670,000 robberies, and more than 1 million aggravated 
assaults. We must stop tolerating the intolerable.
  Listen to these facts.
  Fact: For the first time in our Nation's history, the FBI estimates 
that a majority of all murders are committed by persons who are 
strangers to their victims. In a very real sense . . . no matter where 
we live or where we work. Americans are hostage to the vicious, random 
acts of nameless, faceless strangers.
  Fact: More and more young people are resorting to violence. According 
to the Justice Department, the murder rate among 14-to-17 year-olds has 
increased by 165 percent during the past 10 years, fueled in large part 
by crack cocaine. If current trends continue, juvenile arrests may 
double by the year 2010.
  Fact: Violent crime is destroying America's minority communities. The 
Justice Department estimates that a staggering 1 out of every 21 
African-American men in this country can expect to be murdered, a 
majority rate that is twice the rate for U.S. soldiers during World War 
II.
  Fact: The revolving prison door keeps swinging and Americans keep 
dying. At least 30 percent of the murders in the United States are 
committed by predators who should be behind bars, but instead are out 
on the streets while on probation, parole, or bail.


                      law enforcement block grant

  Now, Mr. President, this conference report will not solve the crime 
problem. The best antidote to crime is not a prison cell or more 
police, but conscience--that inner voice that restrains the passions 
and enables us to recognize the difference between right and wrong.
  To put it simply: values count, not just in our lives, but in our 
society. There will never be enough prisons or police to enforce order 
if there is growing disorder in our souls.
  But, of course, we have to start somewhere. Last year, I opposed the 
so-called crime bill because I believed it was a flawed Federal 
policy--too light on punishment and too heavy on pork, spending 
billions and billions of dollars on untested social-programs. This 
conference report tries to correct some of these excesses.
  The report also rejects the ``one-size-fits-all approach'' of the 
current COPS Program by giving local communities more flexibility to 
determine what best suits their own unique law-enforcement needs. Is it 
more police? Better training? More squad cars? Or perhaps modern crime-
fighting technology? As the Washington Post recently editorialized:

       Because community policing has proved to be so effective 
     and so popular with the public, many areas will spend the 
     money as Washington intends. But if new technologies, more 
     cars or a social service unit trained with juveniles are 
     needed, why shouldn't local authorities have more choice? 
     Word processors, a modernized telephone system or better 
     lab equipment may not have the political appeal of 100,000 
     new cops. But for some cities, they may be a much better 
     deal.

  And let me emphasize that if a local community wants more police 
officers--needs more cops--it can use the block-grant funds for this 
very purpose.


                          truth-in-advertising

  Mr. President, in the coming days, we will no doubt hear President 
Clinton denounce the Congress for attempting to repeal his so-called 
100,000 COPS Program. But what the President will not say is that this 
program never existed in the first place. The current program fully 
funds only 25,000 new police officers, not the 100,000 we hear so much 
about. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of experts like 
Princeton University Prof. John Diiulio.
  So, when it comes to the COPS Program, it is time for a little truth-
in-advertising.


                            other provisions

  This conference report contains other important provisions: $10 
million for the innovative police corps program; truth-in-sentencing 
grants that will help the States abolish parole for violent offenders; 
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which will go a long way to reduce 
the number of frivolous claims file each year by litigation-happy 
inmates, the so-called frequent-filers; and $500 million to reimburse 
the States for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens, including 
those who have committed crimes while in the United States.
  Finally, I want to commend Senator Judd Gregg, the manager of this 
bill, for his skill in developing this conference report and bringing 
it to the floor. Senator Gregg just recently assumed the chairmanship 
of the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, and with today's action, 
he has proven that he is a very fast learner indeed.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to go on record opposing a last 
minute addition to the statement of managers in the conference report 
on the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill, to 
which I object strenuously. On page 127 of the statement of managers 
there is a provision to have a deep ocean isolation study. This report 
language would have NOAA conduct an analysis of a particular patented 
technology that would be used for the disposal of dredge soil to the 
deep ocean.
  Mr. President, I strongly object to this direction to NOAA. First, 
there was no mention of this issue in the House bill, the Senate bill, 
the Senate report or the House report. But, it is in the conference 
report.
  Second, this is special interest legislation of the most egregious 
kind--it is intended to help one and only one company at the expense of 
the environment.
  Third, the company had, in the past, a similar study provision in a 
Defense appropriations bill. In January, the Navy released its study 
that this technology was determined to be ``unacceptable from both 
production rate capability and because of handling systems problems.''
  I objected strenuously against this study in 1993 because it would be 
a waste of Federal resources and because it was intended to lead to 
renewed disposal of sewage sludge in the ocean. Mr. President, the 
study has been completed, and the Navy determined the technology was 
not feasible. The money was wasted and yet, in these difficult budget 
times, a request is being made to do a similar study by a different 
agency of the Federal Government! When is enough enough?
  Mr. President, our oceans are too valuable to be used as a garbage 
dump. Our oceans include diverse species that rival the tropical rain 
forests. Because of the rich environmental heritage of the oceans and 
the tremendous economic vitality of our coasts that are dependent on a 
clean ocean environment, I have worked to end the ocean dumping of 
sewage sludge and the proper handling of contaminated sediments. That 
is why I sponsored legislation to ban ocean dumping of sewage sludge 
and sponsored provisions in water resources development legislation 
that will help develop technologies to decontaminate dredged sediments.
  Mr. President, this study is not just a study of whether a technology 
will work. It is a study about the feasibility of a technology that is 
designed to facilitate illegal activities.
  The intent of this technology is to dispose of contaminated dredge 
materials. Clean dredged disposal is used beneficially on golf courses 
and other uses. However, the disposal of contaminants in the ocean that 
this technology contemplates is illegal above trace amounts under the 
Marine Protection Act and several international conventions.
  Mr. President, the tourism industry in my state, the water recreation 
industry and users, and numerous environmental groups have rejected 
additional disposal of contaminated sediments as contemplated by this 
language. The public has spoken out forcefully and repeatedly against 
the ocean dumping of pollutants. And, the Navy has determined that this 
technology is not feasible and will lead to the release of contaminated 
toxic sediments into the water column.
  Mr. President, I know that this report language is not binding on the 
Agency. Based on the fact a similar study has just recently been 
carried out, I strongly urge the Agency to ignore this ill-conceived 
and ill-considered language.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
request the time be allocated equally to all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. 
  
[[Page S 18179]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask 
unanimous consent the 12 remaining minutes of the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with 
the time assigned to all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
     commendation of staff
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, again I would like to thank the 
professional staff who worked so hard on this appropriations bill. On 
the majority side I want to recognize David Taylor, Scott Corwin, Vas 
Alexopoulus, and Lula Edwards. And, of course, I would be remiss if I 
did not recognize Mark Van DeWater, our full committee's deputy staff 
director. Time and time again Mark worked to develop compromises that 
let this bill go forward. Finally, I want to recognize Emelie East, of 
our minority staff, who staffs this bill, foreign operations, military 
construction, and defense appropriations.


                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back, except that there be 10 minutes reserved for the leader 
and 10 minutes reserved for the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Byrd; that a vote be set to occur at 4 o'clock on 
final passage; that the yeas and nays be ordered; and, that, pending 
the 10 minutes being used by the leader, or the 10 minutes to be used 
by Senator Byrd, we be in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

                          ____________________