[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1816-S1852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, II
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3473
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from
Iowa and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for their work in
bringing us to this point on one of the most important aspects of this
omnibus appropriations bill, the education amendment. Yesterday we
offered an amendment with an expectation that we could restore full
funding to the 1995 level. This legislation does that. There was some
miscalculation as to the funding level required to bring us to fiscal
1995 levels for title I. As I understand it, the question relating to
how much funding would be required to do just that has been resolved.
I am satisfied that this does restore the fiscal 1995 level for title
I, as well as for the other educational priorities identified in the
underlying amendment. So, clearly, this agreement is a very significant
development. It ought to enjoy the support of both sides of the aisle.
I hope we can get unanimous support for it. It removes what I consider
to be one of the most important impediments to bringing us to a point
where we can get broad bipartisan support for final passage of this
bill.
So, again, I thank the leadership of the Senator from Iowa, and
certainly the Senator from Pennsylvania. I hope that all of our
colleagues can support it. I hope we can work together on a bipartisan
basis to reach similar agreements on other outstanding differences
related to this legislation, including funding levels for the
environment, crime, and technology. We also need to remove the
contentious riders the House included in their version of the bill. I
believe that if we did that this afternoon, we could put this bill on
the President's desk before the end of the week and, at long last,
resolve the many problems we have had with these appropriations bills.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Pennsylvania. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 16, as follows:
[[Page S1817]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--16
Ashcroft
Coats
Craig
Faircloth
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
McCain
Murkowski
Smith
Thompson
So, the amendment (No. 3473) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3467
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Daschle
amendment No. 3467, as amended.
So the amendment (No. 3467), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator
Hatfield's proposal in the omnibus bill before us to remove
restrictions on U.S. funding of international family planning. These
restrictions are part of the foreign operations bill which was folded
into the last CR. Senator Hatfield's initiative is a necessary and
welcome step: necessary because the restrictions risk the lives and
health of women and children in the developing world; welcome because
the United States should not be forced by these ill-conceived
restrictions to abdicate its proven leadership in international family
planning.
Voluntary efforts to limit population growth must remain a principal
priority of U.S. foreign assistance. The failure to fund adequately
international family planning efforts in the developing world has dire
consequences. The restrictions currently on the books will result in 4
million unwanted pregnancies in developing countries. Of these unwanted
pregnancies, an estimated 1.6 million will end in abortions. Thus,
these restrictions have as a direct and alarming consequence a result
contrary to their purported purpose of trying to minimize abortions.
The restrictions do not decrease abortions, they increase them. Other
statistics speak for themselves. In Russia, a lack of family planning
services has made abortion the chief method of birth control. The
average Russian woman has four abortions over her lifetime. In
countries with effective family planning, though, such as Hungary,
abortion rates have dropped dramatically.
But this debate is not just about abortion. A lack of adequate family
planning and population efforts leads directly to a severe degradation
of the lives and health of mothers and children. U.S.-funded programs,
rather than promote abortion, seek to promote safe contraception, thus
allowing women to space their pregnancies, a step crucial to the health
of the mother and the survival of the child. If the CR funding
restrictions are left in place, 8,000 more women will die in pregnancy
and childbirth, including from unsafe abortions, and 134,000 more
infant deaths will occur. Inadequate family planning also contributes
to dangerous strains on already heavily taxed environments, while
unbridled population growth has a serious impact on education efforts
in countries where money for such programs is scarce. Such a strain on
education is an indirect cost of these restrictions, but one with dire
long-term consequences.
It is worth emphasizing that prohibitions on U.S. funding for
abortions have been on the books since 1973.
USAID has consistently sought to prevent abortions by offering viable
alternatives, alternatives available only through adequate education.
AID's programs are widely recognized as the most efficient and
effective population planning programs in the world.
These shortsighted restrictions endanger the long-term goals of
improving the lot of women and children in the developing world, with
potentially catastrophic results.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article from the Christian Science Monitor of February 9, 1996.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Effort to Curb Global Abortion May Backfire
(By George Moffett)
Washington.--A Congressional move to limit abortion and
family planning may have a dramatic unintended consequence:
It could actually cause the global abortion rate to rise.
Encouraged by the Christian Coalition and anti-abortion
groups, Congress last month made deep cuts in United States
funds for family-planning programs abroad. But demographers,
and even some anti-abortion activists, are warning that the
cuts for family planning will lead to more unintended
pregnancies--and that more, not fewer, abortions are likely
to result.
``We embraced the probability of at least 4 million more
abortions that could have been averted if access to voluntary
family-planning services had been maintained,'' Sen. Mark
Hatfield (R) of Oregon told his Senate colleagues this week.
``These numbers are as disturbing as they are astounding,
particularly to those of us who are faithfully and
assertively pro-life.''
The US has been barred from funding abortion services
overseas since 1973. But anti-abortion activists in the US
urged Congress to cut support for family-planning programs
concerned that such programs indirectly promote abortion.
``Population control that has to do with education and the
use of contraceptives was not the issue,'' says Rep. Sonny
Callahan (R) of Alabama, chairman of the House Appropriations
subcommittee that deals with foreign aid. ``The issue is
trying to stop the US from providing any money that might be
used for abortions.''
``Our concern is that services for abortion are being
provided by family-planning agencies,'' adds a spokesman for
the Christian Coalition, based in Chesapeake, Va.
Lawmakers trimmed funding for population assistance by 35
percent in a foreign-aid bill that was incorporated into a
``continuing resolution'' to keep the federal government
running until mid-March.
In addition to budget cuts, the legislation imposes
unprecedented restrictions on family-planning programs funded
by the US Agency for International Development (AID), AID is
now barred from obligating any money before July 1 and only
small monthly parcels thereafter process that leaves only 14
percent of the amount appropriated in 1995 available for
use in fiscal year 1996, and which, AID officials
complain, will confound the process of long-term planning.
Republican sources on Capitol Hill say cuts in family-
planning funds are part of an across-the-board drive to
reduce federal spending. As for restrictions on how the money
is spent, says one House source, they reflect the new balance
of power in the 104th Congress in favor of those who believe
that family-planning agencies promote abortion--a charge
family planning advocates hotly deny.
Family-planning advocates cite evidence indicating that
cuts in family-planning services will lead to sharp increases
in abortion. They point to Russia, where the absence of
family-planning services has made abortion the chief method
of birth control. The average Russian woman has at least four
abortions over a lifetime.
``The framers of the family-planning language in [the
continuing resolution] ensured, perhaps unintentionally, that
the gruesome experience of Russian women and families will be
replicated throughout the world, starting now,'' Senator
Hatfield says.
Conversely, where family-planning services have been
introduced, as in Hungary, the abortion rate has dropped
dramatically.
Some 50 million couples around the world now use family-
planning services paid for by US government funds. The one-
third budget cut could mean one-third that number, or 17
million couples, will lose access to family planning. If
funds are not found from other sources, according to
projections by Population Action International, a Washington-
based advocacy group.
``More than 10 million unintended pregnancies could result
annually,'' says Sally Ethelston, a spokeswoman for the
group. ``That could mean at least 3 million abortions, at
least half a million infant and child deaths, and tens of
thousands of maternal deaths.''
Without family-planning services, more pregnancies will
occur among younger women, older women, and women who have
not spaced pregnancies by at least two years, which is
considered the minimum time needed to protect the health of
mother and child.
[[Page S1818]]
The US has taken the lead since the 1960s in funding
family-planning programs in poor nations. Since then, global
contraceptive use has risen fivefold; fertility (the average
number of children born to a woman during her reproductive
years) has dropped by one-third; and the rate of global
population growth has begun to slow.
Even so, the world grows by 1 million people every 96
hours, and the populations of most poor nations are projected
to double within 20 to 30 years. AID officials say the cuts
will retard the incipient family-planning movement in Africa,
where population growth is fastest. ``If this proves to be
something that does increase abortion, we'd take another look
at our position,'' says the Christian Coalition spokesman.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I urge my colleagues to support lifting these
restrictions on programs with vital U.S. interests. I yield to the
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
amendment no. 3474 to amendment no. 3466
(Purpose: To provide funding for important technology initiatives with
an offset)
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask,
on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Bingaman, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Leahy, Senator
Lautenberg and Senator Kerrey, the clerk to please report it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] for himself,
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Kerrey proposes an amendment
numbered 3474 to amendment No. 3466.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is the technology amendment. I ask
unanimous consent that I be able to yield to the distinguished Senator
from California, who wishes to make a brief statement as in morning
business.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank Senator
Hollings.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak
as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S.
1607 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. HOLLINGS. I have been informed by the Parliamentarian, since the
Daschle education amendment has passed, that the present amendment on
technology needs to be conformed. I ask unanimous consent the
Parliamentarian conform it in accordance with the Daschle amendment in
the bill as it now appears.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment restores funding for five
important technology programs that are significant investments in our
country's future. They focus on three critical areas: Economic growth,
education, and cost-effective environmental protection. The spending we
propose in this amendment is fully offset, and the Congressional Budget
Office has scored that offset at providing more than is needed for the
programs we restore.
The distinguished Senator from Iowa has been the principal sponsor
also of the offset, which deals with accelerated collection by the
Federal Government. We, as cosponsors, are indebted to him for his
leadership. Otherwise, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator
Mikulski, has really led the way for our Environmental Protection
Technology Program.
Specifically, the amendment invests five important technology
programs. It restores funding for four of them: A $300 million add-back
for the Department of Commerce's Advance Technology Program, which
contracts with industry to speed the development of new breakthrough
technologies; $32 million more for the Telecommunications and
Information Infrastructure Assistance Program at the National
Telecommunication and Information Administration; an additional $4.5
million for the Technology Administration at the Department of
Commerce, including $2.5 million to honor commitments under the United
States-Israel Science and Technology Commission; and a $62 million
addition for the Environmental Technology Initiative at the
Environmental Protection Agency, an important effort to develop
innovative and cost-effective ways to protect the environment. These
add-backs total $398.5 million.
In addition, the amendment specifies that $23 million that is already
in title I of the committee amendment is to go to the Education
Department's Technology Learning Challenge Program. These five programs
promote innovative new technologies--technologies, Mr. President, that
can improve schools, protect the environment at lower cost, and create
new industries and jobs to replace employment lost through never-ending
downsizing and layoffs. We must invest now to benefit from those new
technologies tomorrow. This amendment does that job.
The amendment fully offsets these add-backs through a provision that
would significantly improve the collection of delinquent Federal debts.
It puts the squeeze on deadbeats who have not repaid money owed to the
Federal Government. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this
provision as raising $440 million in fiscal year 1996--more than enough
to cover the add-backs.
Mr. President, I want to turn first to investment in new job-creating
technologies. I particularly want to focus on the Advanced Technology
Program at the Department of Commerce. The Advanced Technology Program
contracts with companies on a cost-shared basis to speed the
development of new breakthrough technologies that offer great promise
for the Nation but are too untested for the regular marketplace to
fully fund. Just as other Federal research and development programs
work through companies to develop the technologies needed for
Government missions such as defense and space, the Advanced Technology
Program works with companies in support of the critical Federal mission
of promoting long-term economic growth and job creation.
The amendment now before the Senate provides $300 million for the
ATP. The $300 million level is significantly below the $341 million
available for the program just last year in 1995. Currently, H.R. 3019
provides no 1996 funds for this important program, although the
committee amendment's unfunded title IV would provide $235 million to
support existing awards.
Mr. President, I want to talk about several points in this important
program.
First, we are talking here about jobs. The Advanced Technology
Program supports a vital mission of Government--promoting long-term
economic growth. The voters know that America faces tough economic
times. Foreign competition remains fierce, American companies continue
with never-ending downsizing, and voters are understandably anxious and
upset. It is ironic indeed that the Government spends billions in
research and development dollars each year for defense security, but we
are still debating the R&D efforts to promote economic security.
Increasingly, new industries, jobs, and wealth will go to those who
are fastest at developing and then applying new technologies. And if we
are to save as many jobs as possible in existing industries, they too
need to be technologically competitive. The ATP works to turn promising
laboratory ideas into practical breakthrough technologies--technologies
that the private sector itself will develop into new products and
processes. And, we hope, technologies that American companies and
American workers will turn into products before our overseas
competitors do so.
The Federal Government has long worked with industry to speed the
development of important new technologies. Industry-government
partnerships helped start entire U.S. industries--from the telegraph
and agriculture to aircraft and biotechnology to computers and the
Internet. These government investments paid off enormously for the
Nation and its workers.
[[Page S1819]]
We won the race to develop those technologies. But will we win
others? I started the ATP because I saw our competitors overseas moving
to develop and commercialize American ideas before we could, in areas
such as superconductivity.
And the race continues. Numerous small ATP winners tell us that their
foreign competitors are often no more than 12 to 18 months behind them.
This is not surprising. While American firms have difficulty getting
private capital for long-term research that will not pay off quickly,
other governments invest heavily in programs to support civilian
technology. This year, the Japanese will spend $1.4 billion on national
technology research programs for industry. The European Union is
investing $14.4 billion over 5 years in 20 specific areas of research
and technology, and individual European governments are investing
additional R&D amounts to help their economies.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the explosive growth of foreign
technology programs, we need not only Defense Department research
programs but also economic growth programs such as the ATP. And given
the economic insecurity facing the country, we should increase the ATP,
not cut it. We need to help American industry accelerate the
development of new technologies, new industries, and new jobs. If you
want to let other countries win the technology race, then kill the ATP.
Second, Congress has a serious obligation to honor our commitments to
companies and workers in ongoing ATP projects. The pending bill
acknowledged this when it included $235 million in the unfunded title
IV of the bill. I commend Chairman Hatfield for including that
provision. He put that in so that if Congress can find the money, then
fiscal year 1996 commitments to some 200 current multiyear projects
will be kept. Our amendment has an actual offset for that $235 million,
as well as enough additional money to have a small new ATP competition
in fiscal year 1996. Not passing our amendment will, in fact, abruptly
reduce the ATP from its fiscal year 1995 level of $341 million to a
fiscal year 1996 level of zero--a draconian move that will hurt
companies across the country. It will particularly hurt the 100
companies in 25 States that won awards in fiscal year 1995 and now need
fiscal year 1996 funding to continue their multi-year projects. These
companies have hired staff and committed their own matching funds.
Third, I want to emphasize that over the years the ATP has actually
enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The law creating the program passed
during President Reagan's second term, and the ATP received its first
funds during the Bush administration. Mr. Bush's Commerce Department
wrote the rules for the ATP, and did a good job. President Bush himself
requested budget increases, and in 1992 14 Republican Senators on a
defense conversion task force endorsed it. See ``Report of the Senate
Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Based,'' June 22, 1992.
Unfortunately, in 1994 politics intruded because some Senators
worried that ATP grants might be made in a political fashion. But this
is the purest program you will find. Expert panels make the decisions--
not the Secretary of Commerce, not the White House, not any Member of
Congress. Several States that have no Democratic Senators or Governor
do very well under the ATP, including Texas and Pennsylvania. The ATP
now supports 276 research projects around the country, involving 757
research participants in 41 States. The ATP is not porked, has never
been porked, and is not used for partisan purposes.
Fourth, the ATP is not corporate welfare. This program is not a
handout to deadbeats. The purpose of the ATP is not to subsidize
companies but to contract with the best companies to develop
technologies important to the Nation as a whole. Companies also pay
half the costs, hardly welfare. Moreover, no ATP funds are ever used to
subsidize product development in companies; it supports only
development work up to basic prototypes. More than half the awards go
to small firms or joint ventures led by small firms.
Fifth, both the ATP itself and the larger principle of industry-
government technology partnerships enjoy solid support and excellent
evaluations. In terms of industry's views, I want to quote first an
important July 1995 policy statement by the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM) about technology partnership programs in general:
The NAM believes that the disproportionately large cuts
proposed in newer R&D programs are a mistake. R&D programs of
more recent vintage enjoy considerable industry support for
one simple fact: They are more relevant to today's technology
challenges. . . . In particular, partnership and bridge
programs should not be singled out for elimination, but
should receive a relatively greater share of what federal R&D
spending remains. These programs currently account for
approximately 5 percent of federal R&D spending. The NAM
suggests that 15 percent may be a more appropriate level.
Groups explicitly endorsing the ATP include the Coalition for
Technology Partnerships, a group of over 100 companies and other
research organizations, and the Science and Technology Working Group,
representing over two dozen scientific and engineering societies and
other organizations. These groups see the ATP as an important
investment in America's future prosperity and strength.
In addition, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has conducted two
reviews of the ATP in the past year. Despite some assertions to the
contrary, they speak highly of the program. GAO found that the ATP had
succeeded in encouraging research joint ventures, one of its purposes;
that ATP winners did indeed often have trouble getting private funding
because the research was too far from immediate market results; and
even those companies that would have continued their research without
ATP awards would have done so much more slowly or at a lower level of
effort.
A January 1996 report conducted by Silber and Associates provided
further positive comments from industry. Of the companies surveyed,
many maintain that the ATP has been the lifeblood of their company's
innovative research efforts, permitting them to venture into arenas new
to U.S. industry.
Sixth, while the ATP is still new, it already has generated some real
technical successes--successes that in the years ahead will create jobs
and broad benefits for our Nation. Later, I will submit for the Record
a detailed list of accomplishments, but for now I want to mention three
particular cases.
With help from ATP, Aastrom Biosciences of Ann Arbor, MI, has
developed a prototype bioreactor that can grow blood cells from a
patient's own bone marrow cells. In 12 days, the bioreactor will
produce billions of red and white cells identical to the patient's
own--cells that then can be injected into the patient to boost the
immune system. The benefits from this system will be astounding. Now
that the basic technology has been proven and patented, Aastrom has
received $20 million in private funds to turn the prototype into a
commercial product.
With ATP help, the Auto Body Consortium--consisting of eight auto
suppliers, with support from Chrysler, General Motors, and the
University of Michigan--have developed a new measurement technology to
make assembly-line manufacturing more precise. The result will be
better fit-and-finish in car production, resulting in lower
manufacturing costs and lower car maintenance costs. The new system is
now being tested.
Diamond Semiconductor of Gloucester, MA, used its ATP award to
develop a new, risky technology for helping to reliably use much larger
semiconductor wafers--the slices of silicon on which computer chips are
built. Diamond Semiconductor's equipment can be used to make 12-inch
wafers, holding many more chips than the old 8-inch wafers. Now that
the technology is proven, a much larger company, Varian Associates, has
invested in turning this system into a commercial product.
Finally, there is one other key point. The President supports this
program and opposes any effort to abruptly terminate it. It is a fact
that when he vetoed the earlier fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice,
State conference report he cited two main reasons--cuts in the COPS
Program and elimination of the ATP. ATP funding is needed in order to
get the President's signature and get on with finishing appropriations
bills for this current fiscal year. The sooner we resolve the ATP
issue, the sooner we get on with solving this protracted budget
impasse.
[[Page S1820]]
Mr. President, the ATP is one of our most investments in long-term
economic growth and jobs. For that reason, we need to pass the pending
amendment and fund the ATP.
INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE
Mr. President, this amendment also adds $32 million to the current
bill's $22 million for fiscal year 1996 funding for NTIA's
Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program
[TIIAP]. The fiscal year 1995 figure was $42 million.
TIIAP is a highly competitive, merit-based grant program that
provides seed money for innovative, practical information technology
projects throughout the United States. TIIAP helps to connect schools,
libraries, hospitals, and community centers to new telecommunications
systems. Examples include connecting schools to the vast resources of
the Internet, improved health care communications for elderly patients
in their homes, and extending emergency telephone service in rural
areas. Projects are cost shared, and have yielded nearly $2 of non-
Federal support for every Federal dollar spent. Many of the awards go
to underserved rural and inner-city areas.
In fiscal year 1995, NTIA received 1,811 applications, with proposals
from all 50 States, and was able to fund 117 awards.
With the recent enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, more
communities that ever will be faced with both new information
infrastructure challenges and opportunities. Schools, hospitals, and
libraries all need help hooking up and applying this technology to
their needs. The money this amendment would provide for fiscal year
1996 will enable dozens of additional communities to connect to, and
benefit from, the new telecommunications revolution.
TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION
Our amendment also would add $4.5 million to the $5 million that H.R.
3019's title I provides to DOC's Technology Administration [TA]
appropriations account. Of that additional amount, $2 million will help
TA and its Office of Technology Policy [OTP] maintain its role in
coordinating the new-generation vehicle project, organizing industry
benchmarking studies, and serving as the secretariat for the United
States-Israel Science and Technology Commission. The other $2.5 million
is for a new activity endorsed by the Committee amendment's title IV--
actual joint projects between the United States and Israel in
technology and in harmonizing technical regulations so as to promote
high-technology trade between the countries.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Mr. President, I will let others speak in greater detail about two of
the programs covered in this amendment--environmental technology and
educational technology. But I want to mention them briefly here.
The amendment contains a $62 million add-back to support activities
under the EPA's environmental technology initiative [ETI]. The program
has two main purposes--to help accelerate the development,
verification, and dissemination of new cleaner and cheaper
technologies, and to accelerate efforts by EPA and state environmental
agencies to rewrite regulations so that they do not lock in old
technologies. Innovative environmental technologies offer a win-win
opportunity--high levels of protection at lower costs for industry. In
the process, we also can help a growing U.S. industry that exports
environmental protection technology and creates jobs here at home. The
$62 million will help with these important activities.
In the case of educational technology, title I of the committee
amendment to H.R. 3019 already provides additional funds for
educational research and technology, and I commend members of the
Appropriations Committee for that step. Our amendment would simply
clarify that of those funds now in title I of the bill, $23 million is
for the highly regarded technology learning challenge grants.
This is a competitive, peer-reviewed program. Under this program,
schools work with computer companies, software companies, universities,
and others to develop innovative software and computer tools for
improving basic classroom curricula. The challenge grants are seed
money for alliances of educators and industrial partners to develop new
computer applications in reading, writing, geometry and other math, and
vocational education. In short, we are developing new ways to use
computers to improve learning.
In the first competition, held last year, the Education Department
received 500 proposals and was able to make only 19 awards. Clearly,
there are many more outstanding, valuable proposals out there. The $23
million of fiscal year 1996 funding would allow more of these important
projects.
THE OFFSET: IMPROVED DEBT COLLECTION
Before concluding, Mr. President, I want to mention briefly the
offset that this amendment provides to pay for these technology program
add-backs. As mentioned, CBO has scored this proposal as providing $440
million in fiscal year 1996 funds, more than enough to offset the
$389.5 million in add-backs included in the amendment.
The offsetting funds come from a upgraded Federal process, created in
this amendment, for improving the collection of money owed to the
Government and for denying certain Federal payments to individuals who
owe such money to the Government. In short, we will not give certain
Federal payments to people who are delinquent in paying their debts to
the Government, and we will give Federal agencies new authority to
collect such debts.
The Government estimates that the total amount owed to the
Government--including both nontax debt and tax debt--in 1995 was a
staggering $125 billion. The Internal Revenue Service already has
authority under law to withhold Federal tax returns for delinquent
Federal debts, and the Treasury Department's Financial Management
Service may hold back certain nontax Federal benefits for delinquent
Federal debts.
So far, the Treasury Department has collected over $5 billion in bad
debt through reductions--offsets--in Federal tax credits. But there is
a larger problem. Many other Federal agencies do not have the resources
to invest in debt collection, or their mission does not include debt
collection, or they face too many restrictions in using the available
tools. On March 22, 1995, the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency, which is composed of agency inspectors general, reported on
the need for a Governmentwide system of reducing Federal payments to
delinquents.
Based on this problem, legislation has been proposed by a bipartisan
group of legislators, acting with the support of the administration. In
the House, the main bill is H.R. 2234, the Debt Collection Improvement
Act, introduced by Congressman Horn, Congresswoman Maloney, and others.
The Senate companion bill is S. 1234, introduced by our distinguished
colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin. Finally, a version of this
proposal was included in the House version of last year's budget
reconciliation legislation, H.R. 2517. So this idea of improving
Federal debt collection enjoys strong bipartisan support.
As included in our amendment, the debt-collection proposal has
several key provisions. First, the Treasury will be able to reduce
certain Federal payments to individuals who owe the Government money.
Veterans Affairs benefits would be exempt from this offset process.
Other benefit payments such as social security, railroad retirement,
and black lung payments will reduce after a $10,000 combined annual
exemption. Other agencies can cooperate in this process by giving
information to the Treasury regarding delinquent debt, although steps
will be taken to protect the legitimate privacy of individuals.
Second, Federal agencies will have access to the computerized
information and can dock the pay of Federal employees who owe the
Government money.
Third, people who have delinquent Federal debts will be barred from
obtaining Federal loans or loan guarantees.
Fourth, the Social Security Administration, the Customs Service, and
the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government will be
authorized to use debt collection tools, such as credit bureaus and
private collection agencies.
Mr. President, this is a sound proposal for collecting money from
deadbeats and docking their Federal payments until they pay the funds
they
[[Page S1821]]
owe. It is fair, and it simply improves the process for carrying out
debt-collection authorities agencies already have.
CONCLUSION
Mr. President, America's success at home and abroad is like a stool
that rests on three legs. First, our strength and success depend on our
military power, which is now undisputed in an age where we are the
world's only superpower. Second are our values, of family and country.
They are strong and can be stronger still. The third leg, though, is
our economic strength. And here we face serious challenges. As the New
York Times has recently documented, too many Americans live with
growing economic insecurity. Layoffs abound, and many of the jobs that
once went to Americans have gone overseas.
Accelerating the development of new high-technology industries and
jobs is not a complete solution. We also need a vigorous trade policy
to pry open foreign markets and reduce unfair dumping of foreign
products. We need better education and training for all Americans. We
need to make real progress, not phony progress, on the Federal deficit,
so that interest rates can fall further.
But technology policy is one key step in national economic recovery
and strength, and the four programs this amendment supports are key
parts of an effective, nonporked national technology policy. We know
that earlier technology cooperation between industry and Government has
helped create entire American industries--from agriculture to aircraft
to computers and biotechnology. Much of Government's support came
through the Defense Department, which was appropriate during World War
II and the cold war. But now the Berlin Wall has fallen, and now our
Nation's greatest challenge is economic, not military. We therefore
need to strengthen civilian programs to stimulate technologies
important to the civilian economy and civilian jobs. To do less is to
condemn our Nation and its workers in the long run to second-rate
status and more, not less, economic insecurity.
For these reasons, I urge our colleagues to pass this important
amendment.
Mr. President, at this point I want to make a few additional points
about the importance of technology and the Advanced Technology Program
in particular. To begin with, we must remember that our strength as a
Nation is like a three-legged stool. We have the one leg--the values of
the Nation--which is unquestionably strong. We have sacrificed for the
hungry in Somalia, for democracy in Haiti, for peace in Bosnia. We have
the second leg, Mr. President, of military strength, which is also
unquestioned. But the third leg--that of economic strength--has become
fractured over the past 45 years in the cold war--intentionally, if you
please, because we sacrificed to keep the allies together in the cold
war. So we willingly gave up market share trying to develop capitalism
not just in Europe, but particularly in the Pacific rim, and it has
worked. The Marshall Plan has worked. With the fall of the Berlin Wall,
however, now is the time to rebuild the strength of our economy.
Our problem is, right to the point, that you can willingly--for
national defense, military security--conduct research without any
matching funds whatever. You can go right to the heart of it and give
out the money. But all of a sudden, Mr. President, when we come to the
matter of economic security--which is really the competition now in
global affairs--we hear criticism even though the ATP requires matching
funds, a dollar of private money for every dollar of Government money
we expend. The law requires 50 percent from industry. The track record
is 60 percent of the money by industry itself. Yet when they come with
it, all of a sudden we hear talk about pork.
Let me take up the matter of pork because that is the reason we are
into this particular dilemma. The program at hand is working in most of
the 50 States with hundreds of different contracts awarded. They are
awarded over for 3- and 5-year periods, and they have led into
commercialization, which we will soon touch upon.
Senator Danforth and I set this up in the late 1980's. I was chairman
of the Commerce Committee at that particular time. We wanted to make
sure, back in 1988--the Trade Act of 1988 is where it was added--we
wanted to make sure that it would not be exactly what is it accused of
being today, namely, pork. So we set down various guidelines in the
particular measure itself, and it was implemented in a very, very
successful way by, I should say, President Bush's administration. No.
1, the industry has to come and make the request. It is not the
Government picking winners or losers. It is the industry picking the
winner. They have to come with at least 50 percent of the money.
Thereupon, the experts in technology and business, including retired
executives selected by the Industrial Research Institute, have to peer
review the particular proposals. Mr. President, they have to look it
over and make sure that the submission would really pass muster. I know
it particularly well because my textile industry came with a request
for computerization that they thought was unique. But it did not pass
muster and was not given the award. They do not have an Advanced
Technology Program award. Incidentally, I guess they heard ahead of
time about my discipline of not making any calls. I never made a call
to the White House or anybody in the Commerce Department in favor of
any proposal. I would rather, at the markup of the appropriations bill,
have turned back efforts on the other side of the Capitol to try to
write in these particular projects.
So we have protected the authenticity of the program as being
nonpork. Thereupon, having passed peer review, highly ranked proposals
have to go to a source selection board. The source selection board are
civil servants, as we all know, of no political affiliation. On a
competitive basis, they make the decision, not Secretary Brown, not
President Clinton, not Senator Hollings, or any other Senator or
Congressman, but, rather, that is the way these awards have been made.
There have been no violations of it. We are proud of its record. That
is why it has the confidence of the National Association of
Manufacturers. That is why it receives the endorsement of the Council
on Competitiveness, and every particular industry group you can
possibly imagine have come forward and said this is the way to do it.
That has to do with the pork part. The other part with respect to the
long-range financing for long-term technologies has to be understood.
Back at that particular time, when we were writing the legislation
years ago, Newsweek reported an analysis predicting that maintaining
the current hands-off policies toward industry and research, namely,
the matter of commercialization of our technology, could cause the
United States to be locked into a technological decline. They said, and
I quote, that it would add $225 billion to the annual trade deficit by
the year 2010 and put 2 million Americans out of work.
There are various other articles we had at that particular time, and
witnesses. I quote particularly from Alan Wolff:
In 1990, a Wall Street analyst commented to a group of U.S.
semiconductor executives that the goal of people investing in
stocks is to make money. That is what capitalism is all
about. It is not a charity. I can't tell my brokers, ``Gee, I
am sorry about your client, but investing in the
semiconductor industry is good for the country.'' While the
individual was stating a truth, obviously, he was touching on
a fundamental dilemma confronting U.S. industry today in
light of the investor sentiment expressed above. How is a
company to maintain the level of investment needed to remain
competitive over the long term, particularly if there is no
prospect of a short-term or short-run payoff, or foreign
competition has destroyed the prospect of earning a return on
that investment?
That is the points that answers a charge sometimes made with respect
to two recent GAO reports. Critics of the Advanced Technology Program
quote GAO's statement where it said that half of those who had been
given awards, when asked if they would have continued their research
without the awards, said they would have continued. But by way of
emphasis, these critics do not mention the next GAO finding, namely,
that none of them said they would have ever continued as quickly or
with the same degree of investment. With Government assistance, they
are able to expedite their research and therefore have been able to
meet the foreign competition. But note that GAO reported that half the
winners said they would not have continued their research without
Government
[[Page S1822]]
assistance. They would have abandoned it.
We would have lost valid, good research projects without this
Advanced Technology Program. I think the emphasis should be made at
this particular time that GAO has made a favorable report, and that the
program is doing exactly what was intended to do. It confronts exactly
the particular dilemma we find ourselves in with respect to the
operation of the stock market. It can go up 171 points one day and come
back 110 points the next day. They look for short-term turnarounds and
everything else of that kind, and does not focus on the long-term,
including long-term technologies. That is why the working group headed
by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, calls
for the various securities law reforms. So we can do away, perhaps,
with the quarterly report and actually meet the long-term investment
competition that we confront, particularly in the Pacific rim.
Again, I want to emphasize that expert panels make the decisions, not
the Secretary of Commerce. Several States that have no Democratic
Senators or Governor do very well in the ATP, including Texas and
Pennsylvania. The Advanced Technology Program now involves some 760
research participants. It supports 280 projects around the country and
in some 41 States.
The Advanced Technology Program is not corporate welfare. It is not a
handout to deadbeats. The purpose of the Advanced Technology Program is
not to subsidize companies but to contract with the best companies to
develop technologies important to the Nation as a whole. Companies must
pay, as I pointed out, at least half of the amount when they come and
may apply to the Advanced Technology Program. The ATP itself is the
larger principal of industry-Government technology partnerships which
enjoy solid support and excellent evaluations.
In terms of industry's views, I want to quote first an important July
1995 policy statement by the National Association of Manufacturers:
The National Association of Manufacturers believes that the
disproportionately large cuts proposed in newer R&D programs
are a mistake. R&D programs of more recent vintage enjoy
considerable industry support for one simple fact: They are
more relevant to today's technology challenges. In
particular, partnership and bridge programs should not be
singled out for elimination, but should receive a relatively
greater share of what Federal R&D spending remains. These
programs currently account for approximately 5 percent of
Federal R&D spending. The National Association of
Manufacturers suggest that 15 percent may be a more
appropriate level.
The figure we have in the particular amendment is $41 million less
than the fiscal year 1995 level--$131 million less than the original
1995 level that existed before rescissions. We propose that there be a
cut, not even a freeze. Of our $300 million, we are trying to bring up
some $235 million to honor commitments to projects that have already
received their awards and now need to complete them. We do not want to
cut them off in half completion.
Let me commend the distinguished chairman of our Appropriations
Committee, Senator Hatfield of Oregon, in realizing and confronting
this problem. He did not have the money. He put the $235 million in
title IV, but he said, ``Look, if we can possibly find the money in
offsets in title IV, then this should be completed.'' It is not a way
for the Government to do business and build up the confidence that is
so much besieged this day and age. The Government is trying to build up
these partnerships and work together in research with industry and with
the college campuses. It is wrong to take valid programs that have no
objection to them, no pork, no waste, fraud, and abuse, and only
tremendous success, and then come with a fetish against them because
they appear as pork to some on the other side of the Capitol, and then
to walk lockstep like it is part of a contract.
We had, in qualifying this program, by way of emphasis, a series of
hearings back in the 1980's. We also had soon after that particular
time the Competitiveness Policy Council, with many members appointed by
President Reagan. He appointed the former head of the National Science
Foundation, Erich Bloch, who was designated chairman of the Council's
Critical Technologies Subcouncil. They endorsed the ATP.
I ask unanimous consent that the critical technology subcouncil
listing of these outstanding individuals be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Competitiveness Policy Council
Critical Technologies Subcouncil, 1993
Chairman Erich Bloch, Distinguished Fellow, Council on
Competitiveness.
David Cheney, Staff Director.
Membership
Eleanor Baum, Dean, Albert Nerken School of Engineering,
Cooper Union.
Frederick M. Bernthal, Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation.
Sherwood L. Boehlert, U.S. House of Representatives.
Michael G. Borrus, Co-director, Berkeley Roundtable on
International Economics.
Rick Boucher, U.S. House of Representatives.
Lewis M. Branscomb, Professor, Harvard University.
Daniel Burton, Executive Vice President, Council on
Competitiveness.
Dennis Chamot, Executive Assistant to the President,
Department of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO.
John Deutch, Professor, MIT.
John W. Diggs, Deputy Director for Extramural Research,
Department of Health and Human Services.
Craig Fields, President and CEO, MCC.
Edward B. Fort, Chancellor, North Carolina Agricultural and
Technical State University.
John S. Foster, Consultant, TRW, Inc., and Chairman,
Defense Science Board.
William Happer, Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S.
Department of Energy.
Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Group, and former Deputy
Assistant Director, Energy and Science Division, OMB.
Richard K. Lester, Director, Industrial Performance Center,
MIT.
John W. Lyons, Director, National Institute for Standards
and Technology.
Daniel P. McCurdy, Manager, Technology Policy, IBM.
Joseph G. Morone, Professor, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, School of Management.
Al Narath, President, Sandia National Laboratories.
Richard R. Nelson, Professor, Columbia University.
William D. Phillips, Former Associate Director of
Industrial Technology, Office of Science & Technology Policy.
Lois Rice, Guest Scholar, Brookings Institution.
Nathan Rosenberg, Director of Program for Technology &
Economic Growth, Stanford University.
Howard D. Samuel, President, Industrial Union Department,
AFL-CIO.
Hubert J.P. Schoemaker, President and CEO, Centocor, Inc.
Charles Shanley, Director of Technology Planning, Motorola
Inc.
Richard H. van Atta, Research Staff Member, Institute for
Defense Analyses.
Robert M. White, Under Secretary for Technology, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Eugene Wong, Associate Director of Industrial Technology,
Office of Science & Technology Policy.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in August 1992, we also had the National
Science Board itself. I will read a couple of things and not put it in
its entirety into the Record, which we would be glad to do. But the
National Science Board concluded:
Stronger Federal leadership is needed in setting the course
for U.S. technological competitiveness. Implementation of a
national technology policy, including establishment of a
rationale and guidelines for Federal action, should receive
the highest priority. The start of such a policy was set
forth 2 years ago by the President's Office of Science and
Technology Policy, but more forceful action is needed by the
President and Congress before there is further erosion in the
United States technological position.
They made the recommendation to expand and strengthen the
Manufacturing Technology Centers Program, the State Technology
Extension Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
and I quote, ``Further expand NIST's Advanced Technology Program.''
That was very important, therefore, the National Science Board and its
findings at that particular time.
Going back to 1987 for a moment, Mr. President, we led off our
original series of technology hearings that year with the distinguished
entrepreneur, technologist, professor, industrial leader, dean at the
University of Texas Business School, Dr. George Kosmetsky, who had
helped create the Microelectronics Technology and Computer Corporation
down in Austin, TX. We followed his testimony with the Council on
Competitiveness.
I will read just part of a Council on Competitiveness statement
written not long after that particular time.
The United States is already losing badly in many critical
technologies. Unless the Nation acts today to promote the
development
[[Page S1823]]
of generic industrial technology, its technological position
will erode further, with disastrous consequences for American
jobs, economic growth, and national security. The Federal
Government should view support for generic industrial
technology as a priority mission. It is important to note
that this mission would not require major new Federal
funding. Additional funds for generic technology programs are
required. Other Federal R&D programs, such as national
prestige projects, should be redirected or phased in more
slowly to allow more resources to be focused on generic
technology.
Of course, Mr. President, these themes were included and touched upon
in our hearings and legislation, and we have been more or less off and
running since then.
We have, finally, by way of endorsement, the Coalition for Technology
Partnerships. It has over 130 members, a combination of companies,
trade associations, different companies themselves, such as the
American Electronic Association, and several universities that work
with industry on ATP projects.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
at this particular point a letter from the Coalition for Technology
Partnership along with the listing of membership.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Coalition for
Technology Partnerships (CTP),
Washington, DC, July 6, 1995.
Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hollings: The undersigned members of the
Coalition for Technology Partnerships respectfully ask for
your support of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). We
understand that the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committees will be marking up the FY
Department of Commerce Authorization bill in late July. We
are concerned by the House Science Committee and the House
Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee vote to eliminate the ATP and
are writing to outline our views on this essential program.
The Coalition for Technology Partnerships applauds your
efforts to cut the federal budget deficit and to streamline
the federal government, but we caution against sacrificing
technology partnerships, such as the ATP, that are essential
to our international competitiveness.
The ATP has enjoyed wide-spread industry support and
participation. The basic mission of the ATP is to fund
research programs with a significant potential for
stimulating economic growth and improving the long-term
competitiveness of U.S. industry. The ATP is already
achieving this goal, by cost-sharing research to foster new
innovative technologies that create opportunities for world-
class products, services and industrial processes. ATP
research priorities are set by industry. The selection
process is fair, and based entirely on technical and business
merit. Half of all ATP awards and joint ventures go to small
business directed partnerships. Today, as indication of the
success of this program, quality proposals in pursuit of ATP
funds far outstrips available funds.
The real payoff of the ATP is the long-term economic growth
potential for the companies involved with the program, and
the creation of new jobs. The ATP is a model of industry/
government partnerships which benefits the nation as a whole,
again by leveraging industrial capital to pursue new
technologies. Without ATP, these 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.
We urge you to adequately fund the Advanced Technology
Program as you begin mark-up of the authorization bill. The
ATP is essential, cost effective and timely for the economic
growth of our country. Please contact either Taffy Kingscott
at 202/515-5193 or Tom Sellers at 202/728-3606 if you have
any questions or if we can be of any assistance.
coalition for technology partnerships
The Coalition for Technology Partnerships has been formed
by a group of small, medium and large businesses, trade
associations and technical societies on the principle that
technology partnerships between government and industry
reflect the realities of today's budget climate and
technology development mechanisms.
Advance Circuits, Inc.
Advanced Machining Dynamics.
Aerospace Industries Association.
Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute.
Alaska Technology Transfer Assistance Center.
American Electronics Association.
American Concrete Institute.
Amoco Performance Products, Inc.
Andersen Consulting.
Aphios Corporation.
Apple Computer.
Applied Medical Informatics (AMI).
Arizona State Univ.-College of Engineering & Applied
Science.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Array Comm., Inc.
Atlantic Research Corporation.
Babcock & Wilcox.
BioHybrid Technologies Inc.
Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Brunswick Composites.
CALMAC Manufacturing Corporation.
The Carborundum Company.
Clean Air Now.
CNA Consulting Engineers.
Coal Technology Corporation.
Columbia Bay Company.
Council on Superconductivity.
Cubicon.
Cybo Robots, Inc.
Dakota Technologies, Inc.
Dell Computer.
Diamond Semiconductor Group.
Dow Chemical Company.
Dow-United Technologies Composite Products, Inc.
Dragon Systems, Inc.
DuPont.
Edison Materials Technology Center.
The Electorlyser Corporation.
Energy BioSystems Corporation.
Erie County Technical Institute.
Fairfield University-Center for Global Competitiveness.
FED Corporation.
Foster-Miller, Inc.
FSI Corporation, Inc.
GenCorp.
GeneTrace Systems Inc.
Hercules, Inc.
Higher Education Manufacturing Process Applications
Consortium.
Honeywell Inc.
IBM Corporation.
I-Kinetics.
Institute for Interconnecting & Packaging of Electronic
Circuits (IPC).
Intermagnetics General Corporation.
Intermetrics, Inc.
Intervac, Vacuum Systems Division.
ISCO, Inc.
Joint Ventures Silicon Valley.
Kaman Electromagnetic Corporation.
Kopin Corporation.
Light Age, Inc.
Material Sciences Corp.
Matrix Construction & Engineering.
Maxoptix Corporation.
Merchant Gasses-Praxair, Inc.
Merix Corporation.
Mocropolis Corporation.
Milwaukee School of Engineering.
Molecular Tool.
Moog, Inc.
MRS Technologies, Inc.
MultiLythics, Inc.
Murray, Scher, & Montgomery.
Nanophase.
National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing.
National Semiconductor.
National Storage Industry Consortrium (NSIC).
National Tooling & Machining Association.
Nelco International Corporation.
New Mexico Technology Enterprises Division.
Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation.
North Carolina Industrial Extension Service.
Ohio Aerospace Institute.
Optex Corporation.
The Pennsylvania State University.
Philadelphia College of Textiles & Science.
Photonics Imaging.
Physical Optics Corporation.
Planar Systems.
Praxair, Inc.
PS Enterprises.
Real-Rite Corporation.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Rosemount Aerospace, Inc.
Sagent Corporation.
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.
SI. Diamond Technology, Inc.
Silicon Valley Group.
Silicon Video Corporation.
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.
Solar Engineering Applications, Corp.
Solarex.
South Bay Business Environmental Coalition.
Spectrian, Inc.
Suppliers of Advanced Composite.
Materials Association.
System Management Arts.
TCOM LP.
Technology Service Corporation.
3M.
Tektronix, Inc.
Texas Instruments.
Third Wave Technologies, Inc.
Thomas Electronics.
Tissue Engineering, Inc.
Touchstone Technologies.
Trans Science Corp.
Trellis Software & Controls, Inc.
TULIP Memory Systems, Inc.
United States Advanced Ceramics Association.
University of Pittsburgh.
University of South Florida.
UES, Inc.
United Technology Corporation.
Vysis, Inc.
Watkins-Johnson, Inc.
West Virginia High Tech Consortium.
West Virginia University.
XXsys.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think I have covered some of the
highlights. The real problem that we have here is, in essence, that now
everyone is on the hustings out on the campaign
[[Page S1824]]
trail talking technology, jobs, talk, talk. What we would hope is that
the President would want to walk here this afternoon and that we could
get an agreement not to increase ATP funding this year, not even have a
freeze, but let us continue with these particular projects now ongoing
and now starting to pay off, with the companies having done their fair
share. The program has seen a substantial cut, but let us not have
total elimination--where we have good industries working in partnership
with the Federal Government successfully--and not cut them off halfway
through a particular endeavor.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the long and tireless
commitment of the Senator from South Carolina to this issue, certainly
items such as the Hollings Centers for Excellence, which involves
working with industry and the Government in attempting to disseminate
knowledge on how to better manufacture, and on which he has,
appropriately, his name. But this proposal which he has brought forth
today has a number of fundamental flaws.
The first flaw is that it has not been scored by CBO, so we really do
not know how much it costs. The second flaw is that it does not seem to
be offset. The third flaw is to the extent it is offset, the offset has
not been scored. To the extent it is offset by the terms of the
amendment itself, no offset occurs with this coming fiscal year.
So to the extent that this amendment generates costs this coming
year, there is no offset. So it adds to the deficit.
In order to get around that, the Senator from South Carolina has
invoked the emergency clause. The emergency clause was not, I do not
think, ever conceived of to be used for the purposes of funding what
amounts to corporate welfare. That is what this is. You know, a lot of
people are walking around here saying ``corporate welfare, corporate
welfare,'' looking for the face of corporate welfare. This is the face
of corporate welfare. The emergency clause is for floods and other
crises of significant proportions which are inordinate and which are
unusual and which we need to respond to because there is an emergency.
But what we have here is a desire by the Senator to fund an
undertaking which the committee decided not to fund, and in so doing he
would be violating the budgetary rules because it would add to the
deficit this year. In order to avoid a point of order, he has claimed
it as an emergency.
I know, as many people know, that technology is an important part of
our economy and that it creates a lot of jobs, especially in my part of
the country, but I do not think that the Federal Government going out
and picking winners and losers in the field of technology represents an
emergency under any definition of what an emergency is. Even if you
could agree with this program, the program itself has some very severe,
fundamental flaws because it is a picking of winners and losers by the
Government, for which the Government has never been very good at
picking winners and losers in the area of technology. And I point out a
large number of very significant failures of the Government in deciding
where the appropriate technology of the time should be, such as the
Synfuels Program, such as the Clinch River breeder reactor. And the
list goes on and on.
But, even if you were to give the Government some credibility and the
ability to go into the marketplace and pick winners and losers, which I
happen to think is foolish on its face, but even if you were to give it
that credibility, you could under no circumstances--under no
circumstances--conceive of that as an emergency. That is like saying
whether we lay out a four-lane highway or a two-lane highway determines
an emergency. This is the business of the Government. This is the
ordinary and common business of the Government. And to claim it as an
emergency is, on its face, farfetched and hard to accept.
So just on the technical grounds that this clearly is not an
emergency and therefore should not be raised to the level of an
emergency--if we are going to do that, we might as well fund all
functions of Government as an emergency and just ignore the concept of
the deficit, ignore the concept of fiscal responsibility as put upon us
by the Budget Act. On those grounds, I am going to strongly oppose this
amendment.
I also happen to oppose it on substantive grounds in that I think
this program is of questionable value. Let me list a few things here
that have been funded under this program. I suspect they are good
programs, but I want you to ask, are these emergencies? These are
almost all experimental undertakings. We do not know if they have any
commercial use at all. We do not know if anybody is going to benefit
from them at all except people who happen to be doing the work and get
paid. It is like going down to your local technology company and
saying, ``Hey, we will hire a few folks for you to do this project.''
Is that an emergency? I hardly think so. Let me list some of these
things: a Nobel x ray source for CT scanners; a flexible, low-cost
laser machine for motor vehicle manufacturing; an ultrahigh-performance
optical tape drive using a short wavelength laser; adaptive video
coding for information networks; and the list goes on and on and on--
real-time micro-PCR analysis systems. Is it an emergency that we fund
real-time micro-PCR analysis systems? Has this Government come to the
point where that is defined as an emergency? I really have to say that,
on the face of it, this is a bit hard to talk about with a straight
face.
Amendment No. 3475 to Amendment No. 3474
Mr. GREGG. So, I am going to send an amendment in the second degree
which strikes chapter 3, which is the emergency language of this
amendment, to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 3475 to amendment No. 3474.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike chapter 3 of the pending amendment in its entirety.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the manager is rising. I do not want to
be----
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to let me answer two
or three points that I think should be clarified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. With respect to emergency, I thought, Mr. President,
that coming out of New Hampshire, my distinguished colleague would
understand small business. I traveled that State extensively. If you
have 20 or 30 employees and you have received a grant and you put up
half the money and you are halfway through the particular project still
soliciting finance on the open market and you have every promising
indication that that is going to happen, and then all of a sudden the
Government cuts it off and you know already from the very beginning
that you had a need that could not be answered by normal banking
sources, you are under an emergency.
It is not an emergency because of any particular technology. It is an
emergency because of the situation facing these small companies. The
Senator addresses his comments with respect to the technology. I am
talking about $235 million needed to maintain contracts that have
already been awarded after going through all of this, getting the
financing, setting up the operation, getting half way through and then
facing a cutoff. That is an emergency. But the emergency designation in
my amendment is not necessary, in a sense, because we do have a
favorable offset and scoring, Mr. President. When the Senator says it
is not scored, let me say that on March 12, today, we have a memorandum
from John Righter of the Congressional Budget Office, on: ``The scoring
of the Debt Collection
[[Page S1825]]
Improvement Act of 1996, chapter 2, of a proposed amendment to H.R.
3019.'' I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 12, 1996.
memorandum
To: Patrick Windham, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
From: John Righter, Congressional Budget Office.
Subject: Preliminary scoring of the ``Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996,'' Chapter 2 of a proposed
amendment to H.R. 3019.
As you requested, I have prepared a preliminary estimate of
the budgetary impact of the Debt Collection Improvement Act
of 1996, a chapter within a proposed amendment to H.R. 3019,
as provided to CBO on March 8, 1996. I estimate that the
proposed legislation would reduce direct spending by about
$525 million over the 1996-2002 period and would increase
revenues by about $24 million over the same period. The
following table provides my year-by-year estimates.
IMPACT OF DEBT COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in direct spending:\1\
Estimated budget authority......................... -440 -20 -10 -10 -15 -15 -15
Estimated outlays.................................. -440 -20 -10 -10 -15 -15 -15
Additional revenues:
Estimated revenues................................. 0 3 3 3 3 6 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the budgetary impact of a modification that alters the subsidy cost
of existing direct loans or loan guarantee is calculated as the estimated present value of the change in cash
flows from the modification. This amount is recorded in the budget in the year in which the legislation is
enacted. Consequently, savings in direct spending for the existing loans and guarantees under federal credit
programs affected by this proposal are shown in fiscal year 1996. In addition, the legislation would affect
direct spending in future years by reducing the subsidiaries for mandatory loan programs by use of new
collection authorities present in the proposal.
Changes in Direct Spending. The seven-year totals in
estimated savings in direct spending include about $475
million for new and enhanced offset authorities, including
the authority to offset a portion of Social Security
Administration, Railroad Retirement Board, and Black Lung
payments for recipients who are delinquent on a debt owed to
the federal government and who are scheduled to receive more
than $10,000 in federal benefit payments over a 12-month
period. For example, assume an individual currently is
delinquent on an education loan and is also expected to
receive $12,000 in Social Security and other federal payments
over the next 12 months. Under the proposed language,
Treasury could offset as much as $166 of each monthly Social
Security payment and transfer this money to Education in
partial satisfaction of the recipient's delinquent loan. (The
$166 results from dividing 12 into $2,000, which is the
amount the recipient's total federal benefits exceeds the
$10,000 exemption.)
The seven-year totals also include about $15 million for
the removal of limitation on the collection of delinquent
debts by the Social Security Administration and the U.S.
Customs Service, as well as about $5 million for the expanded
use of nonjudicial foreclosure of federal mortgages. The
Rural Housing and Community Development Service at the
Department of Agriculture and the Small Business
Administration could use the latter authority to shorten
their foreclosure process by about 6 to 12 months, thus
decreasing their holding costs.
In addition, I estimate that the bill would reduce the
projected subsidy cost for mandatory loan or loan guarantees
that would be made in future years by about $30 million for
the 1997-2002 period.
Additional Revenues. Additional revenues would result from
adjusting the value of existing civil monetary penalties for
changes in inflation. The bill would provide for an initial
adjustment of no more than 10 percent within six months of
enactment, with subsequent adjustments to occur at least once
every four years.
Previous Estimate. As part of the President's plan to
balance the budget, CBO provided an estimate of the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1995 on December 13, 1995. CBO
has provided estimates of other debt collection initiatives;
however, the language in the President's Balanced Budget Act
of 1995 is closest to the proposed amendment to H.R. 3019.
For the President's plan, CBO preliminarily estimated that
the debt collection provisions would reduce direct spending
by about $550 million over the 1996-2002 period, or about $65
million more than this estimate. The reduced savings result
from the use of different sets of economic assumptions. For
the President's plan, CBO was directed to revise and update
its economic assumptions, which yielded a higher present
value for the increase in collections of credit debt. For the
proposed amendment to H.R. 3019, I have used the economic
assumptions that underlie the Budget Resolution for Fiscal
Year 1996, as required by law. Because the projected rate for
marketable Treasury securities is higher in the economic
assumptions used for the budget resolution, the present value
of the collections is lower.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 6-2860 if you have
any questions.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
Mr. President, they have: ``Changes in direct spending, estimated
budget authority, minus $440 million; estimated outlays, minus $440
million.'' So it has been scored, and the offset does produce real
savings.
Now, we are back to the old wag, Mr. President, of winners and losers
and winners and losers and winners and losers in the Government.
Earlier, I tried to emphasize this issue in the most courteous fashion,
but I will have to do it in the most direct fashion. Let me refer
specifically to a key report, and I read this and quote it exactly, Mr.
President: ``Report of the Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting
the Defense Base, June 25, 1992,'' by Senator Warren Rudman, Senator
Hank Brown, Senator William Cohen, Senator John Danforth, Senator Pete
Domenici, Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Senator Trent
Lott, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator John McCain, Senator John Seymour,
Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner.
I read from page 24:
The task force endorses two programs of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology as important to the
effort to promote technology transfer to allow industries to
convert to civilian activities. These programs are the
Manufacturing Technology Program and the Advanced Technology
Program.
Now, Mr. President, the distinguished leadership over on my
chairman's side of the aisle did not get into that litany then about
picking winners and losers. Making that claim is pollster politics and
pap. That is nonsense. It is not picking winners and losers. When we
had the semiconductor problems and put in Sematech, it was not winners
and losers. Industry came back in there. Then we get to the aircraft
industry; we get to agricultural technology; we have the
telecommunications technology. We can go right on down the list where
Government has worked successfully in partnership, and we do not hear
about picking winners and losers. And now here in the Advanced
Technology Program comes the industry itself working with the
Government, and using political statements to the effect of winners and
losers and pork they just present symbols and labels and hope to kill
the program that way. That is not debating it on its merits. The task
force of my distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle, a
dozen of them, found it was very, very important, including the
majority leader. And it has not changed a bit. It is being administered
properly, and no one contests that. No one wants to talk of the merit
of the program or something that ask whether anything may have gone
awry. They still want to use the symbols.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from South
Carolina in supporting his amendment, and I regret the
characterizations of my friend from New Hampshire, the southern portion
of which certainly has a significant amount of technology companies
that are in partnership with the Federal Government.
It seems to me the arguments that are made by the Senator from New
Hampshire fundamentally avoid the reality that we confront in the
marketplace and that our companies are confronting in the marketplace
today. It would be nice if we could just sit here and say the
Government should not be involved in this or that and proceed along.
But the reality is that the governments of every country against which
we compete are deeply involved in major commitments to science, to
technology, to research, to development, and even carry those
commitments way out into the marketplace in order to effect pricing and
the marketing of the products that come out of their companies. We are
not living in a sort of pure Adam Smith world where everybody can sit
around and say, gee, the Government should not be doing this, should
not be doing that.
[[Page S1826]]
Every government of every industrialized country in the world is
engaged in what most of us would consider to be unfair trade practices
in subsidizing their companies' efforts to penetrate the market of one
country or another.
We know that our own marketplace, as efficient as it is--and it is
efficient, it is brilliant--but even in its brilliance, our marketplace
does not always respond in the ways that we would like it to or as
rapidly as we might like it to in the development of new products. In
fact, from the great expenditures on defense of the late 1950's and on,
we have seen a remarkable number of purely Government-created markets
emerge, Government-created products emerge: Teflon, Gortex,
digitalization, the Internet.
Here we are with the Internet itself, the fastest growing market in
the United States today. Some 30 million people have access to it, and
it is growing at 300,000 people a month. Who created it? The
Government. The Government was able to create it because the Government
was able to leverage investment or make a fundamental primary
investment that no private dollar was willing to do because of the risk
level.
Every one of us knows that in the capital markets of the United
States, we have a relatively small amount of money that goes into pure
venture capital. The last time I looked, which was some time ago, it
was somewhere in the vicinity of $30 billion or so. That venture
capital pool often does not go for some of the job-creating efforts
that are critical on the cutting edge of technology.
Mr. President, I think we have learned enough in the last few years
about our need to try to build the partnership, if you will, to
guarantee that we are on the cutting edge of certain technologies. We
saw that in the early 1980's. I can remember when we were deeply
committed to energy and certain kinds of environmental research. We
actually went so far--we, I was not in the Senate then--but the Senate
went so far and we as a Nation went so far as to create the Energy
Institute in Colorado. Professors literally gave up tenure at certain
universities and went out to Colorado and invested in the notion that
the United States of America was committed to major energy research.
What happened? Along came Ronald Reagan and a different attitude
about Government involvement in energy. So we pulled the plug on the
research institute. People were thrown back out into the street, and,
lo and behold, what happened? The Japanese and the Germans picked up
the leadership in photovoltaics and renewable energy resources, and all
of a sudden, in the post-cold-war era, as the prior Communist bloc
countries suddenly wake up to what they have done to the Danube River
or to the region around Kijev where you can pick up ashes in your hand
and there is not a living bush within a mile of their powerplants, they
suddenly said, ``We have to do something about this.''
Where do they go? Not to the United States, because the United States
had lost the technology lead. So they go to Germany and they go to
Japan and they buy from them. Whose workers wind up benefiting?
That is a clear lesson, Mr. President.
What I am suggesting is this is not an enormous boondoggle or
giveaway. This is a program that is set up with peer review. It is a
highly competitive grant structure. It is one where there has to be
some likelihood of a frontier that is going to provide new jobs under
the definition of the critical technologies that most countries have
recognized as critical technologies.
Lester Thurow, one of the eminent scholars and thinkers of
Massachusetts at MIT, recently noted that we are living in an age where
industrialized nations like the United States are not going to achieve
economic growth by conquering new lands or amassing greater natural
resources, or even through further revolutions in technology
necessarily, which are the traditional pathways that countries have
taken to greatness. He said we are going to have to do it by investing
in human capital.
American business has demonstrated an impressive ability to develop
new products and to invest in the technology that is needed to give us
those new products. But the record of investing in workers has fallen
far short of what is necessary to maintain the leadership position in
today's global environment.
Mr. President, if we look at these add-backs, what we see is a
combination of the best of both worlds: An effort to try to invest in
technology and an effort to try to invest in human capital.
Let me just quickly underscore a couple of those areas, if I may.
Mr. President, the Council on Competitiveness finds that a 10-percent
increase in workers' education levels yields almost a 9-percent gain in
workplace productivity, more than twice the rate of run for the same
investment in tools or in machinery. Every year of postsecondary
education or training boosts the lifetime earnings of an individual by
6 to 12 percent.
So here we are wrestling in this country with the problem of
diminished earnings of 80 percent of America--80 percent of America--
that has not had an increase in their take-home household income in the
last 13 years. We know you can have a 6 to 12-percent increase by
investing in their skill levels in the transfer of technology to human
beings. That is what the Senator from South Carolina and I and others
are trying to do here.
In Massachusetts, we have been able to have about one-third of our
work force employed in these kinds of endeavors, and we find that they
are always more productive and they always pay higher wages.
Let me give you an example, perhaps, Mr. President. The ATP, the
Advanced Technology Program, and the NTIA grants and the EPA envirotech
and educational technology programs that would get an add-back under
this make a direct difference in the lives of our citizens.
The Advanced Technology Program, for instance, helped Dr. Richard
Yohannis of Data Medic in Waltham, MA, to create an automated medical
data gathering and processing system that will improve the quality of
care at Boston Children's Hospital and reduce at least $560,000 of
administrative costs.
Private banks and venture capital groups would not finance this idea.
So without the ATP's matching support, Dr. Yohannis' idea simply would
not have become a reality. With it, we save $560,000 and we create jobs
and provide better health care.
Another example: The National Telecommunications and Infrastructure
Assistance Program is helping Massachusetts Information Infrastructure
to begin to wire schools and libraries and local government entities to
the information superhighway. NTIA now has more than 80 matching grant
requests pending from equally deserving groups in the State of
Massachusetts. Without the NTIA's support, the 352 MII sites around
Massachusetts would simply still be on the waiting ramp on the
information highway.
Now I ask a simple question. We just overwhelmingly adopted an
amendment to raise the level of education in this country. Here is a
grant that links those schools and our students in their math and
science capabilities to the information highway, to the future, to jobs
and to the world. I think that is an emergency.
The only reason it is required to be treated as an emergency is
because our friends on the other side of the aisle, most of them, do
not think it is an emergency and do not want it at all. And instead of
having a 50-vote decision on the floor of the Senate, which is what you
get by defining it as an emergency, they want it to be 60 votes, so the
hurdle is harder to get over.
This is not a fight over defining an emergency. It is not a fight
over pork. It is a fight over the priorities of this country and
whether or not we ought to be making a more significant commitment to
science and to technology.
The Hollings amendment, gratefully, would secure a critical
commitment to technology.
Let me give one last example. There are global demands for pollution
control, for waste disposal and remedial cleanup goods and services
ranges from about $200 to $300 billion. Here is a $200 to $300 billion
market waiting for us.
In Massachusetts alone, the environmental industry is more than 1,500
companies employing about 55,000 people, and it generates more than
$5.5 billion in sales.
But some of their efforts simply cannot be engaged in without the
leverage
[[Page S1827]]
of these dollars, either from a basic venture capital basis or banking
basis or from fundamental risk taking in the marketplace.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that it is extraordinarily valuable
for this country to encourage and leverage the transition of our
workplace. When 40,000 workers are downsized from AT&T, and those
workers find it difficult to find the same level of paying jobs and
they wind up driving taxicabs or doing things at a whole different
level than they were trained for, we do not just lose their technical
skill, we lose their commitment, we lose their morale, we lose the
fabric of our communities.
It seems to me that nothing should gain a greater focus from the U.S.
Senate except for education as a whole than the effort to transfer
science from the laboratory to the marketplace, to take it from
laboratory to shelf as rapidly as possible.
This effort has proven its ability to do that. It is not pork. It is
a fundamental commitment of this country to science and to technology
itself. And I hope colleagues will join together in adding back this
critical funding.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for this
amendment. I listened carefully to my colleague from Massachusetts and
I agree with him completely. I will confine my remarks to the Advanced
Technology Program, the ATP.
I have risen on this floor many times to talk about the importance of
research and the importance of moving research into industry and then
into use--that is, the importance of development, and the importance of
Government's role in areas where private capital is not available even
though maybe it should be.
I urge my colleagues to increase our investment in the ATP because
that is what it is, an investment. And it is an investment that will
yield a high return in high-wage jobs and in long-term economic growth.
We need a well-balanced Federal R&D budget. We need a Federal R&D
budget that, of course, is strong in defense research, but not just
defense, which seemed to dominate research for many years. We need
strength also in civilian research, in basic research, and in applied
research. And applied research includes the development of high-risk,
high-payoff civilian technologies.
We know that new technology accounts for one-half of long-term
economic growth. I repeat that. We know that new technology accounts
for one-half of the long-term economic growth of this country.
We know that workers in high-technology industry are better paid than
the average worker, in fact, on the average, 60 percent better paid. We
know that past public investment, in semiconductors, in computers, in
advanced materials, and in other technologies have paid for themselves
many, many times over.
These technologies have been at the heart of our economic expansion.
We know that the private sector is cutting back on long-term R&D in
favor of shorter term, more product-oriented work.
In 1989, I proposed legislation to create what I called the ACTA,
Advanced Civilian Technology Agency. It was going to be a counterpart
to DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency.
The purpose of ACTA was to help put U.S. industry on an even footing
with competitors who had the benefit of teaming with their Governments.
Team Japan and Team Germany, for example, ensure that their companies
quickly develop, produce, and market new products. They use tools
ranging from R&D tax credits and low-interest loans to research
consortiums. There is no single, magic silver bullet.
Congress decided against a new agency and instead created the
Advanced Technology Program, ATP, within an existing agency. NIST has
managed the ATP, I think by any measure, in an exemplary fashion. But
now, after 6 years, some of my colleagues want to kill this promising
young program, without, I think, even understanding what it is they are
killing.
I think it would be very short-sighted to kill a program just as it
is starting to have an impact. We have two recent studies of the ATP
program. And they agree that the program has stimulated companies to
join together, to collaborate, to form strategic alliances.
These partnerships are not easy for companies because they fear the
loss of intellectual property rights, the loss of trade secrets, and
the loss of control overall. But ATP has catalyzed changes in corporate
behavior that could have profound effects on future R&D. The studies
also agree that ATP has speeded up research, cutting months off of the
R&D cycle. Global competition in high technology moves at a fast pace.
And months can be critical sometimes.
Let us be clear on one thing--this is not just a Government program.
ATP is industry-led. Industry picks the technologies. Industry puts up
50 percent or more of the resources. Industry takes the biggest risk.
And to call this corporate welfare or picking winners and losers is
just know-nothing nonsense. People who have claimed that have not
looked at the program, or do not know what they are talking about, or
have some other agenda, because this is not corporate welfare or
picking winners and losers.
ATP helps fund precompetitive research--research that lies in the gap
between basic research and commercial development. ATP focuses on high-
risk potential breakthroughs, technical know-how that will benefit
industry across the board, that will boost national competitiveness and
that will improve our lives.
ATP partners with companies in 31 States. That shows how widespread
it is, 31 States. The companies are working on quicker and easier
genetic diagnostic tests, for instance, much smaller computer chips,
better materials for fiber optics and more. You say, are these things
important? Of course they are. And they can be multiplied over and
over. We could have a whole list here today. Those are just three
examples.
In my State of Ohio, for example, companies with ATP help are working
on 15 different projects ranging from high-temperature, high-pressure
tolerant enzymes for the chemical food and diagnostic industries to
gene therapy for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.
Most of the projects are geared to moving U.S. manufacturing well
into the 21st century. There are projects on ceramics, composites, long
optical polymers, metal powders, superabrasives and extremely precise
measuring technologies--all in the areas of breakthroughs that would
have an enormous impact on our society and on our industry.
Let me take as an example the first of these--ceramics. People say,
``ceramics.'' They think of dishes and things that you hold water in,
vases, things like that. But if we make a major breakthrough in high-
temperature ceramics, so that we could coat turbine blades, or the
inside of high-temperature engine chambers, we could raise operating
pressures and temperatures. That would let us make far more efficient
use of fuel. We could have smaller turbines and engines. We could make
electric cars much more practical than they are now, when we have to
store energy in lead acid batteries.
If we made a breakthrough in ceramics, we make a whole new industry
possible. Breakthroughs in ceramics make breakthroughs possible in
engines and electric cars and a whole host of things. Each one of the
technologies that I mentioned can have that kind of serendipitous
effect on new industries and new research in our country.
These and other technologies that industry is developing with the
help of ATP--not directly, but with the help of ATP--will not only
create jobs and enhance productivity, but will make life healthier and
the environment cleaner at much lower cost. We are just starting to see
the benefits of the ATP in jobs and technologies coming to market.
Some of our friends on the other side speak of the need to tear
programs out by their roots. That was one of the statements I heard the
other day. For programs like ATP and for programs to bring educational
technology to our students, that is a prescription for an economic
wasteland. It will be an economic disaster if we start tearing programs
like this out by their roots. We should, instead, be nurturing these
programs so that we and our children and
[[Page S1828]]
our grandchildren can enjoy their fruits.
Mr. President, the United States has grown to what it is today mainly
because we have been a research-oriented nation and a curious people, a
people willing to put money into inquiring into the unknown. We have
moved into leadership in the world because of that type of curiosity,
curiosity that has been exhibited by our companies, by our colleges, by
our universities, indeed, by the Federal Government, in taking the lead
in these areas.
If there is one thing this Nation should have learned throughout its
history, and I think we have learned, it is that money spent on
research almost always pays off beyond anything we see at the outset.
How can we not approve ATP? By my reckoning we should be expanding it
further rather than considering cutting it out.
In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. I hope it passes for the good of this country and for the
future of this country.
Amendment No. 3475 withdrawn
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated
and that my amendment to strike be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 3475) was withdrawn.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be ordered on
the underlying amendment of the Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I continue my opposition to this amendment. I do not think
ATP is a program we can fund at this time. I think we should go with
the initial proposal.
Mr. HOLLINGS. There are various Senators that wanted to be heard. I
have agreed with the distinguished chairman, Senator Gregg, we ought to
move as expeditiously as possible to a vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Senator
from South Carolina's amendment to restore funding for high-technology
programs. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to restore about $400
million to these critical investments. This amendment is fully offset
and will not add to the deficit.
Unfortunately, the current bill cuts programs like the Advanced
Technology Program that invest in our future. Some in this Congress are
trying to abolish these high technology programs to claim they have
ended a unnecessary, big-Government bureaucracy. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
These high technology programs are more than necessary in today's
world. They are essential.
The world has shrunk because of advances in technology and
telecommunications.
Today, Americans do not just compete with each other, they compete
with Japanese, Germans, New Zealanders, and the other citizens of our
global economy. To meet the demands of this new world, we must develop
and improve our expertise and infrastructure in advanced technology.
Moreover, these high-technology programs are not big Government.
Because these technology programs provide Federal seed money, private
companies and public players have come together to form community-based
projects. Many of these projects must have matching funds from the
private sector. This requirement had led to innovative networks with
groups that have never worked together before. There is no Government
redtape restricting these partnerships. Instead, Government seed money
is making these partnerships happen.
We should be promoting programs that foster these advanced technology
initiatives. And that is exactly what this amendment does. For
instance, this amendment adds $32 million in funding for the
Telecommunications Information and Infrastructure Administration
Program [TIIAP].
In today's world of innovative telecommunications, this program helps
us keep up with this constant change. TIIAP develops partnerships with
local governments, schools, hospitals, libraries and the business
community to increase access to advanced information and
communications.
Let me describe just a few of these innovative partnerships from
around the country that have gotten off the ground because of TIIAP's
help:
Youth service organizations in New Haven, CT and East Palo, CA are
working together to link teenagers in the two cities to keep them off
their streets and in their schools;
Physicians from big city medical centers in North Carolina are
working together with rural hospitals to provide video
teleconsultations and diagnostic images for emergency care;
And in my home State, Castleton State College has led a consortium of
representatives from the private sector, local government and education
to develop a telecommunications plan for west-central Vermont.
An TIIAP planning grant will bring these Vermonters together to
develop a high-capacity telecommunications infrastructure to overcome
the problems caused by their 15 local dialing areas.
TIIAP is about finding new ways to learn, to practice better
medicine, and to share information. It spurs the growth of networks and
infrastructure in many different fields of telecommunications with only
a small Federal investment. It is essential and innovative.
This amendment also restores $62 million to the Environmental
Protection Agency's Environmental Technology Initiative. This
initiative supports private sector research and development that
protects our environment and generates innovative products for the
emerging environmental technology marketplace. This technology has the
potential to create thousands of jobs by developing new ways to clean
up polluted areas across the country.
For example, an EPA-supported technology was recently developed in
Vermont for the ecological treatment of wastewater. Living Technologies
and Gardiner's Supply in South Burlington, Vermont are on the forefront
of a new technology that treats wastewater through a series of
biological processes. The Environmental Protection Agency has played a
fundamental role in joining quality environmental policy with good
economics.
Mr. President, advanced technology will be the key to our educational
and economic and economic success in the remainder of this decade and
into the next millennium. We must keep our commitment to master
technology or we will be mastered by it. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment to restore vital funding for advanced technology
programs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend Senator
Hollings and praise him for proposing this technology amendent which I
have cosponsored along with my colleagues minority leader Daschle,
Senators Kerrey, Bingaman, Rockefeller, and Kerrey. This amendment
strives to preserve research programs in technology, education and the
environment which are investments in our future. Cuts in research and
development, R&D are bad for America's future. Now is not the time to
pull out of federal investments in these programs, including the
Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and Technology Administration [TA],
National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] which
have a significant impact on high-wage jobs and maintaining U.S.
leadership in the global economy. Now is the time to protect our
investments, maintain our strong base, and build upon technology
infrastructure so that America will remain an economic world leader.
Commerce's Office of Technology Policy recently issued a report which
states:
Although the federal Advanced Technology programs represent
only a small fraction of the federal R&D budget, they
leverage money in the public and private sectors, causing an
economic impact far larger than that suggested by the program
budgets alone. Moreover, they are the only mechanisms focused
specifically on providing a bridge between the federal R&D
investment
[[Page S1829]]
and the efforts of the private sector to remain globally
competitive. These relatively small investments in federal
partnerships play a central role in increasing the efficiency
of government mission research and safeguarding the country's
prosperity.''
An essential part of improving economic growth is technological
change. A recent Council of Economic Advisors report tells us that half
or more of the Nation's productivity growth in the past half century
has been from technological innovation. Looking at a 15-year curve, the
U.S. had growth in private sector R&D every year until the 1990's. That
growth wasn't huge--we were way behind the rate of growth of competitor
nations, but we had such a big lead after WW II that we could tolerate
lower growth for awhile. But since 1991, the private sector has
annually been cutting R&D spending. This year, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science estimates that Congress is implementing
a 30-percent cut in government non-defense R&D. For the second year in
a row the United States placed first in the World Competitiveness
Report in 1995, Japan, top-ranked in 1993, fell to fourth and Germany
to sixth. But when you look into the fine print of the report, it isn't
so rosy.
The United States ranks only 9th in the people category because of
its 30th place showing on adequacy of its education system. The report
also found the United States 40th in vulnerability to imports, was 40th
in gross domestic savings, and it deteriorated to 29th in public
funding of nondefense R&D.
We clearly lead the world in the mixed blessing of downsizing and
have garnered major productivity gains as a result. But disturbing
long-term economic warning signals remain despite all the profit-taking
of the past 5 years. This is particularly true when you look at one of
the basic long term building blocks of economic growth: research and
development.
What are our foreign competitors doing? You guessed it. Japan has
announced plans to double its R&D spending by 2000; it will actually
pass the United States in nondefense R&D in total dollars not just
share of GDP. This is an historic reversal. Germany, Singapore, Taiwan,
China, South Korea, India are aggressively promoting R&D investment.
Our lead in R&D has been our historic competitive advantage. If these
trends continue, that lead will shrink. Competing advanced economies
will be the winners if we cut technology programs that improve
Government's efficiency and the taxpayer's return on investment.
To keep building and renewing our economy, we have to keep investing
in it. The numbers here are so bad they should be giving us fits:
We have a 20-year downward trend in investment as a share of gross
domestic product--we're at 11.2 percent for 1995, behind 47 competitor
nations.
The net national savings rate, which factors in government deficits,
averaged 2.07 percent as a percent of GDP from 1990 to 1994, compared
to the 8.11 percent average in the 1960's. The household savings rate
last year, which doesn't include the Government deficit, is down to 4.6
percent; Japan's is 14.8 percent, France's is 14.1 percent, and
Germany's is 12.3 percent. Obviously, our overall investment rates are
related to our R&D investment rate.
If you divide Government spending into investment and consumption
categories, Government investments--items like education, R&D, and
infrastructure--are increasingly dwarfed by major increases each year
in entitlement consumption spending. Federal non-defense investment in
the 1960's in these three categories was 23 percent of its outlays; it
is now less than half that. These numbers tell us that we're slowly
disinvesting in our economy. They tell us we may be starving our long
term growth.
I would like to focus on the programs that are victims under the
proposed Appropriations bill we seek to amend, the Advanced Technology
Program [ATP] and the Technology Administration [TA], the National
Telecommunications and Informations Administration [NTIA], education
technology and environmental technology.
ATP--Investments in technology are investments in our future. ATP was
enacted during the Bush administration to address technical challenges
facing the American industry. Industry has already begun to benefit
from this public-private partnership which aims to accelerate
development of high-risk, long-term technologies. The nature of the
marketplace has changed, and technological advances are a crucial
component in maintaining our stature in the new world marketplace.
Product life cycles are getting more and more compressed, so that the
development of new products must occur at a more and more rapid pace.
The market demands products faster, at higher quality and in wider
varieties--and the product must be delivered ``just-in-time''. ATP
funding is not a substitute for research investments that industry
would have otherwise used for R&D.
This program has attracted top-notch small-to-medium size companies
who have lauded ATP. In an independent study, Semiconductor Equipment
and Materials International [SEMI], an association comprised of 1,400
small companies that manufacture materials and equipment for the
semiconductor manufacturers, found that 100 percent of the companies
who participated in ATP rated it very favorably. Nearly two-thirds of
the companies surveyed by Industrial Research Institute, an association
of over 260 research companies who account for 80 percent of
industrially-performed R&D in the U.S., only a small number of which
have received ATP awards rated ATP with very high marks.
The impact of the partnership activities amongst Government,
industry, and academia is significant and far-reaching, according to a
Silber and Associates study which interviewed every ATP industrial
participant. I would like to share with you some of the company
responses:
We would not have done this research without the award. It
absolutely enabled us. . . .
We consider ATP a multiplier--by investing $3 million we
gain access to $15 million worth of technology. . . .
We particularly like that it wasn't a grant, but a match.
This eliminated companies who just wanted a government
subsidy . . . promotes putting your money where your mouth
is. We're seriously committed and have already invested $2
million.
ATP money encouraged us that a little company like us can
be taken seriously. . . .
Leverage reduces cost and risk. . . .
Collaborations, cooperation, and learning to operate in a
consortium with competitors were key outcomes. . . .
ATP has clearly acted as a catalyst to develop new technologies and
to foster ongoing joint ventures within the industrial R&D. Clearly, we
should continue to support this program and restore $300 million for it
as proposed in this amendment.
TA--Cuts in Commerce's Technology Administration will severely
handicap our government's ability to assess and strengthen the
technology efforts of the American industry. How can we expect to
improve U.S. economic competitiveness if we squeeze the ringmaster who
oversees and assesses an important part of the U.S. R&D investment? TA
requires an additional $2 million above the $5 million slated in the
Conference report to peer review critical programs such as The clean
car initiative, also known as the partnership for the new generation of
vehicles, and to perform comprehensive competitive studies for many
industrial sectors such as the chemical, semiconductor, banking and
textile industry.
NTIA--The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's Telecommunication's and Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program [TIIAP] serves a very important purpose in
connecting public libraries, schools and hospitals to state of the art
telecommunications services and the Internet through its highly
competitive cost-shared grant program. Last year, only 117 awards for
1800 applicants were given--that is fewer than 1 out of 15. To cut
these programs that are in very high demand and essential in promoting
education, reducing health care costs and providing more jobs is very
short-sighted. The amendment restores $32 million which will enable
TIIAP to provide 100-150 new awards. TIIAP programs are not a free ride
and demand high community involvement to be successful.
I strongly support investments in education technology which will
inspire our children to enhance their creativity and reading and math
skills using the innovative tools of Internet. The Environmental
Technology Initiative will secure a cleaner and brighter
[[Page S1830]]
America for our children and grandchildren with lighter, more fuel
efficient cars and innovative pollution control technologies.
To summarize, continued U.S. government investment in R&D is critical
at a time when our competition is increasing its R&D support. The cuts
in ATP, NTIA, TA and education and environment technology are unfounded
and simply serve to starve our long-term prospects of developing 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 shift
toward a path toward technology bankruptcy. As I stated before, the
American Academy for the Advancement of Science has estimated that if
current congressional spending trends continue, our Government will be
cutting this R&D investments by almost one-third over the next few
years. Defense R&D will be cut deeper than that. Our amendment attempts
to correct that error in some critical program areas. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hollings
amendment. The amendment includes $62 million for EPA's environmental
technology initiative, a program which the conference agreement on the
VA-HUD bill sought to reduce funding for, in order to fund higher
priority EPA programs.
During consideration of the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD bill last fall,
not a single member raised concerns about the reduction to this program
in the committee markup, on the floor, or in conference on the
legislation.
This program was initiated by President Clinton 3 years ago, and a
total of $100 million has been appropriated for the first 2 years. What
has the program accomplished? Not a whole lot as far as I can tell.
We have funded energy efficient housing conferences, lighting
research centers' education of electric utilities about the benefits of
energy efficient lighting, and marketing programs to increase the
purchase of energy efficient lighting products.
Mr. President, what the environmental technology program has amounted
to is corporate pork. Mr. President, we cannot afford this sort of
corporate subsidy.
These sort of activities are not geared to ensuring the U.S. gains a
strong foothold in the market for environmental technology, as the
administration has claimed.
I should also add that the budget request for this program has
quadrupled from $30 million in fiscal year 1994 to $127 million in
fiscal year 1996. Much of that funding has been passed through from EPA
to other agencies--NIST, DOE, agencies which have their own budgets for
technology activities. This, at a time when the administration claims
it cannot find funds to set drinking water standards for
cryptosporidium or control toxic water pollutants.
Given the importance of ensuring that EPA's limited resources are
spent on those activities resulting in the most direct and significant
gains to environmental protection, additional funding for this program
above the $10 million available in this bill is not acceptable.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hollings
technology programs amendment. I want to commend the Senator from South
Carolina for his consistent advocacy of these programs for the entire
13 years I have had the honor to serve in this body. It is
disheartening for some of us to find all of these programs so out of
favor with many of our majority colleagues.
Mr. President, as we prepare for the challenges and opportunities of
the 21st century, these technology programs are among the last programs
we should be sacrificing to balance the budget. I have given many
speeches over the last year about how misplaced our priorities are when
we prepare to slash our civilian research and development programs by
one-third by 2002. And we are doing this at the same time the Pentagon
is planning to slash research and development spending by 20 to 25
percent in real terms in the same time period. These next few years
will be the first time since World War II that this Nation will
simultaneously cut both civilian and defense research.
Four years ago this body knew that that was the wrong thing to do. We
expected cuts in defense research spending as a result of the end of
the cold war. But both the Rudman and Pryor task forces and the Bush
administration in 1992 advocated increases in civilian research
spending to compensate for the declines in defense research and to keep
pace with the investments other nations were making in civilian
research. There was a consensus then that the Advanced Technology
Program was a program that needed to be expanded to provide
opportunities for firms to do precompetitive research, a term that
President Bush coined, in a cost-effective manner.
The reason that we had that consensus then was that the Senator from
South Carolina had designed the ATP Program with the help of Republican
Senators like Warren Rudman. He had ensured that awards would be made
on the basis of merit pursuant to competition and that industry would
play a major role in selecting areas for competition. He had ensured
that there would be cost sharing from industry, so it was not just
Government saying these technologies were worthy of further
development. The firms themselves were putting their money at risk. Out
of these Government-industry partnerships the Senator from South
Carolina expected to see real innovation. He expected these
partnerships to bridge the gap between basic research at which we excel
as a nation and product development which the private sector should
fully fund. All the reports we have received tell us the program is
doing just that. And yet it is on the chopping block.
The same could be said for the other programs supported by the
Hollings amendment. All had bipartisan origins. All are designed to
provide real leverage for Federal funds by fostering partnerships and
requiring cost sharing. They are precisely the sort of programs we
should be expanding as we approach the 21st century. Instead, we are
forced into a debate on terminating them.
Mr. President, I am going to close by displaying two charts which I
have used before over the past year on the Senate floor. The first
shows Federal civilian research as a percentage of gross domestic
product. In the next few years that spending is headed toward a half-
century low. Is that how we should be building a future for our
children and grandchildren?
The second chart compares our Federal civilian research spending with
that of the Japanese Government. Very soon, if not this year then in
the next few years, Japanese Government research and development
investments will exceed our own. That is a nation with half our
population and half our wealth. How long will we as a nation be able to
live off our previous research investments?
Mr. President, study after study has shown that Federal civilian
research investments since World War II have paid for themselves many
times over. We need to sustain that investment as we head into the 21st
century, particularly since we will continue to cut defense research
investments in light of the end of the cold war. The Pentagon is
planning to make greater use of our civilian research programs to meet
its needs at the same time we are cutting civilian research.
The Senator from South Carolina is making a stand for some of our
best civilian research investments. He stands in a bipartisan tradition
of supporting civilian research that goes back to Presidents Truman and
Eisenhower and clearly included President Bush. He stands against what
one columnist, E.J. Dionne, Jr., in today's Washington Post called the
``smash-the-state'' revolutionaries, who want to demolish essentially
all Government programs.
Government can work and has the capacity to make investments that do
great good for this country. Our research investments have been in that
category for decades. They are Government at its best, building a
better future for our children. I urge my colleagues to stand with the
Senator from South Carolina in support of these research programs.
Please vote for the Hollings amendment.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the Hollings-Daschle technology
amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. In particular, this
amendment adds $32 million for the Telecommunications Information and
Infrastructure Assistance Program [TIIAP] under the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], which I
strongly support.
[[Page S1831]]
When TIIAP was slated for elimination in the fiscal year 1996
Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary appropriations bill (H.R. 2076), I
offered an amendment with Senators Snowe, Daschle, Leahy, Lieberman and
Jeffords that restored $18.9 million for this valuable program. The
motion to table my amendment was defeated overwhelmingly by a
bipartisan vote of 64 to 33, reversing a death sentence for a
competitive, merit-based program that empowers people by linking rural
and underserved communities to advanced telecommunications
technologies.
Mr. President, the Federal seed money from TIIAP is generating
partnerships and matching investments that are helping communities in
my State of Nebraska and across the Nation join the information
revolution. In Beatrice, NE, which previously had no meaningful way to
communicate electronically, a TIIAP grant is funding the Beatrice
Connection. Beginning next month, the Beatrice Connection will link the
entire community--its public schools, library, community college, city
government, and residents--using a metropolitan area network [MAN] and
wireless communications. In Lincoln, NE, TIIAP is empowering people
through InterLinc, which provides dial-up, toll-free Internet access to
low-income, ethnically diverse, and rural areas of Lincoln and its
surrounding rural communities. InterLinc also provides on-line access
to Government agencies, thus permitting citizens greater ease in using
Government services.
Information and communications are fast becoming the keys to economic
success in this country and around the world. By the 21st century,
these industries will represent close to one-sixth of the world
economy. Yet according to a recent study, by the year 2000, 60 percent
of jobs in this country will require skills held by only 20 percent of
the population. Our kids will not be able to compete with a software
programmer in New Delhi or Tokyo if they do not have access to
computers and the Internet.
Currently, however, many communities do not have access to advanced
information or communications either at home, in the local school, or
the local library. I receive numerous letters and telephone calls from
Nebraskans, particularly from educators and health care practitioners,
who want affordable access to Internet and other advanced
telecommunications resources. According to NTIA, this lack of access is
most pronounced in rural and inner city communities, which could spell
disaster for the future of many youths.
TIIAP is specifically designed to connect these communities to the
kinds of information they need to find educational opportunities, job
training, new employment, and better medical care.
TIIAP grants are bridging information gaps for children from farming
communities, who are downloading images of the planets and exchanging
e-mail with space scientists. Emergency room doctors in remote rural
areas are using computer networks and video imaging to consult with
specialists in major medical centers to diagnose injuries and deliver
life-saving care. And teachers are upgrading their skills by taking
advanced courses through the Internet without leaving their school
building. TIIAP provides seed money for everything from computer links
to professional development to advanced software.
Many innovative projects would never get off the ground without the
assistance provided by this program. TIIAP represents the best Federal
investment we can make in this area--it is oriented toward the future,
it is highly competitive, and every Federal dollar is matched by one or
more private dollars. Grants totaling $24.4 million in 1994 generated
$40 million in matching funds to support projects in health care,
education, economic development, infrastructure planning, and library
services.
Mr. President, the constant fight to fund TIIAP shows how difficult
it is becoming to make investments in the United States as entitlement
programs continue to grow and consume large portions of the Federal
budget. I am committed to reforming entitlements precisely because, if
we fail to do so, programs like TIIAP and others funded by the
Hollings-Daschle amendment will become a memory.
The amendment which I am cosponsoring today would fund 100 additional
TIIAP awards in fiscal year 1996, connecting more schools, libraries,
and public health facilities to telecommunications technology. I urge
my colleagues to vote for the Hollings-Daschle amendment, to ensure
that major portions of our country are not left out of the information
age.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Hollings amendment that would
restore funding for key industry and technology programs that provide
high-wage jobs for American workers.
This appropriations bill would make short-sighted cuts to programs
that build American industry, increase exports, and promote American
jobs. In the final analysis, these cuts would damage the long-term
economic prospects of American families.
The cuts I am talking about target the Department of Commerce, which
opponents label as unimportant to the country. In fact, the Department
of Commerce is a Federal agency that works day in and day out to help
keep American businesses one step ahead of foreign rivals in an era of
increasing competition. It is the agency that supports the kind of
cutting-edge technologies crucial to U.S. businesses winning the
international trade wars and capturing markets for U.S. manufactured
goods at the dawn of the 21st century.
If we abandon our support for research and development in this time
of expanding global markets, we will find ourselves fighting an uphill
battle for economic security in the years ahead. Not only are these
cuts penny-wise and pound-foolish, they sacrifice our economic future
for meager budget savings.
This bill would hold important programs hostage by making their
funding contingent on a budget agreement between the President and
Congress. The contingency would require the passage of a separate bill
necessary.
The bill would withhold funding for the Advanced Technology Program,
or ATP, which promotes research in cross-cutting technologies that are
too long term in payoff for private firms to pursue alone. The enabling
technologies developed under this program help American firms compete
in fast-paced international markets. Other governments are far more
aggressive in funding technology.
Some of my colleagues have called the Advanced Technology Program
corporate welfare, but that misses the point that the real benefactors
are American workers who will profit from high-technology and high-wage
jobs. The ATP is a forward-looking cost-effective investment in
America's technology base essential to our long-term economic growth.
To abandon it as this bill does is a mistake and a blow to American
competitiveness.
The ATP is a young program, but early results show that it's working.
The Autobody Consortium from my home State of Michigan, for example,
used an ATP grant to develop a new measurement technology that has led
to dramatic improvements in reliability and performance of American
cars. The technology is giving us a leg up on foreign automakers. That
means that we'll sell more cars and create more high-paying jobs for
American workers.
The Hollings amendment would rescue ATP funding from the proposed
contingency fund so that ATP's important work can continue
uninterrupted. It would also provide funds to allow ATP to support new
research rather than only fund ongoing research.
Another short-sighted measure of this bill is the grab of funds set
aside for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's lab
modernization effort. NIST provides basic infrastructure for the whole
gamut of this country's industries by developing state-of-the-art
measurement technologies. The current facilities at the Institute are
almost 40 years old and in desperate need of renovation or replacement.
Without new facilities, NIST risks becoming technologically obsolete
and unable to continue its world-class research efforts.
While this bill restores half of the funds taken in an earlier Senate
version, it still takes back too much from the moneys set aside for the
NIST modernization effort. It also penalizes an agency that showed
initiative and restraint by husbanding these funds over the years to
make physical plant investments. Why should any agency
[[Page S1832]]
save money when accumulated savings are snatched back and years of
planning demolished?
The ATP and NIST modernization effort are just 2 examples of many
cuts in critical industry and technology programs. Other examples
include the Telecommunications and Infrastructure Assistance Program,
that provides seed money to connect our schools to the Internet, and
the Environmental Technology Initiative at EPA, that supports cost-
shared development of innovative pollution-control technologies.
It is wrong to cut cost-effective R&D programs to achieve minimal
budget savings. If our primary goal in balancing the budget is long-
term economic growth, then we should safeguard initiatives that will
help us reach that objective. The programs cut in this bill are
precisely the kind that will promote long-term economic growth, by
giving American firms the technological edge they need to build
exports, increase profits, and create high-wage jobs.
We are cutting our investment in industry and technology at the same
time our competitors are stepping up their efforts. A recent report by
the Council of Economic Advisors [CEA] showed that the United States
invests far less in technology and trade than our primary competitors.
In fact, over the last two decades, the United States has increasingly
lagged behind both Germany and Japan in nondefense R&D expenditures as
a percentage of GDP. We currently ranked dead last among our major
trading partners in spending to build exports.
And the news gets worse, Mr. President. The CEA report further
reveals that the congressional budget resolution may slash Federal
civilian R&D spending by almost 30 percent by the year 2002. In
contrast, the Japanese Government plans to double its R&D investment by
the year 2000. Even though the United States has traditionally spent a
lower percentage of GDP on R&D than its competitors, it has always been
first in absolute expenditures. In the near future even this will
change. By 1997, the Japanese Government will actually spent more on
R&D, in total dollars, than the United States.
The proposed cuts to the Commerce Department budget are bad for the
country and bad for my home State of Michigan. Michigan is the third
largest exporting State behind California and Texas. Last year, $35
billion in exports, almost all from manufactured goods, supported about
500,000 Michigan jobs. Thousands of Michigan companies benefit from the
industry and technology support programs administered by the Department
of Commerce.
Many of those companies have written to me to offer their
enthusiastic support for the Advanced Technology Program and other
Commerce Department initiatives.
``NIST has a tradition of being a positive contributor to the
competitiveness of U.S. industry and the ATP program is an excellent
example of how the federal government can help,'' wrote Perceptron, a
small high-technology company in Farmington Hills.
``With an expanding global economy and increasing challenges facing
U.S. companies, U.S. businesses today have a critical need for
assistance from the U.S. Department of Commerce to enter and
successfully compete in world markets,'' wrote the S.I. Company of Ann
Arbor.
The Commerce Department ``has concentrated on helping small- and
medium-sized firms export. These are the same companies that have
driven our surge in exports and our growth in employment. Are we trying
to `kill the goose that lays the golden egg'?'' wrote Keesee and
Associates of Birmingham.
Mr. President, if we choose to turn our backs on technology at this
critical juncture, we weaken the prospects for a more productive, more
prosperous America. I hope the Senate will adopt the Hollings
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the Hollings
amendment. We need to keep our Nation on the cutting edge in technology
and the amendment helps to do that. It helps businesses bring creative
ideas into the international marketplace. It promotes finding more
efficient technologies to reduce environmental problems and it helps
educational institutions provide the tools they need to teach our
children with the latest computer technology.
I want to particularly note the debt collection provisions contained
in the amendment. Because of those provisions, CBO has scored the
amendment as fully paid for. The debt collection provisions are
complicated. But, its goal is very simple: The Government needs to
systematically do a better job of collecting the money that is owed to
it. And, it does a pretty poor job of doing that now.
Many may not like the debt collector. But, if the Government does not
collect, other taxpayers must make the payment instead. That is not
fair. The United States has billions of dollars in uncollected debts.
School loans unpaid, businesses that did not pay back the SBA, farmers
who did not pay their loans, all kinds of debts. Yet, the Government is
writing checks to some of those same people month after month for
various payments anyway. The Government is making new loans on top of
the old ones. And, those who do not pay, usually suffer no damage to
their credit ratings.
Under this measure, that changes. First, the collection of bad debts
are more centralized and given to staff who focus on collecting those
debts, including when necessary private attorneys. Second, the
Government can start garnishing most kinds of government payments.
Third, the Government is not going to make new loans or loan guarantees
to those who don't pay their debts. Fourth, the Government is going to
act like most businesses and will pass the information on to credit
agencies. Fifth, the Government is going to be able to more efficiently
forclose on property. And, the measure provides for a lot of other
provisions that makes it more likely that different parts of the
Government will work together to make collecting bad debts a priority.
The amendment also makes these methods available to collect
delinquent child care payments. Few causes are more significant to the
cause of children living in poverty and women going on welfare than the
failure of parents to support the child. And, I very strongly feel that
the Government should do more in that area.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest we go to vote.
vote on amendment no. 3474
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] is
necessarily absent.
The results was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Breaux
So the amendment (No. 3474) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I
would like to yield to my friend from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
[[Page S1833]]
Amendment Nos. 3476 and 3477 to Amendment No. 3466
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask
for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr.
Lautenberg, for himself, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Kerry,
proposes an amendment numbered 3476 to amendment No. 3466.
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Reid,
proposes an amendment numbered 3477 to amendment No. 3466.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3476
At the appropriate places in Title II of the Hatfield
Substitute amendment, insert the following new sections:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for emergency expenses necessary
to enhance the Federal Bureau of Investigation's efforts in
the United States to combat Middle Eastern terrorism,
$7,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such activities shall include efforts to enforce
Executive Order 12947 (``Prohibiting Transactions with
Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace
Process'') to prevent fundraising in the United States on the
behalf of organizations that support terror to undermine the
peace process: Provided further, That the entire amount is
hereby designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(I) of the Balanced Budget
Act and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available
only to the extent an official budget request, for a specific
dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted to Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
salaries and expenses
For an additional amount for emergency expenses necessary
to enhance the Office of Foreign Assets Control's efforts in
the United States to combat Middle Eastern terrorism,
$3,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such activities shall include efforts to enforce
Executive Order 12947 (``Prohibiting Transactions with
Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace
Process'') to prevent fundraising in the United States on the
behalf of organizations that support terror to undermine the
peace process: Provided further, That the entire amount is
hereby designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(I) of the Balanced Budget
Act and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available
only to the extent an official budget request, for a specific
dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted to Congress.
____
amendment no. 3477
(Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to carry out certain
obligations of the United States under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights by prohibiting the practice of female
circumcision)
At the appropriate place under the heading of ``General
Provisions'' at the end of the bill, insert the following new
section:
Sec. .(a) This section may be cited as the ``Federal
Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996''.
(b) Congress finds that--
(1) the practice of female genital mutilation is carried
out by members of certain cultural and religious groups
within the United States;
(2) the practice of female genital mutilation often results
in the occurrence of physical and psychological health
effects that harm the women involved;
(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights
and secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and
constitutional;
(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of
female genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any
single State or local jurisdiction to control;
(5) the practice of female genital mutilation can be
prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights
guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution or
under any other law; and
(6) Congress has the affirmation power under section 8 of
article I of the Constitution, as well as under section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, to enact such
legislation.
(c) It is the purpose of this section to protect and
promote the public safety and health and activities affecting
interstate commerce by establishing Federal criminal
penalties for the performance of female genital mutilation.
(d)(1) Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 116. Female genital mutilation
``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever
knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or
any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of
another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
``(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this
section if the operation is--
``(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is
performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place
of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
``(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given
birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with
that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is
performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in
training to be come such a practitioner or midwife.
``(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be
taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to
be performed of any belief on the part of that or any
other person that the operation is required as a matter of
custom or ritual.
``(d) Whoever knowingly denies to any person medical care
or services or otherwise discriminates against any person in
the provision of medical care or services, because--
``(1) that person has undergone female circumcision,
excision, or infibulation; or
``(2) that person has requested that female circumcision,
excision, or infibulation be performed on any person;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
of the following new item:
``116. Female genital mutilation.''.
(e)(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall do
the following:
(A) Compile data on the number of females living in the
United States who have been subjected to female genital
mutilation (whether in the United States or in their
countries of origin), including a specification of the number
of girls under the age of 18 who have been subjected to such
mutilation.
(B) Identify communities in the United States that practice
female genital mutilation, and design and carry out outreach
activities to educate individuals in the communities on the
physical and psychological health effects of such practice.
Such outreach activities shall be designed and implemented in
collaboration with representatives of the ethnic groups
practicing such mutilation and with representatives of
organizations with expertise in preventing such practice.
(C) Develop recommendations for the education of students
of schools of medicine and osteopathic medicine regarding
female genital mutilation and complications arising from such
mutilation. Such recommendations shall be disseminated to
such schools.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``female
genital mutilation'' means the removal of infibulation (or
both) of the whole or part of the clitoris, the labia minor,
or the labia major.
(f) Subsection (e) shall take effect on the date of
enactment of this Act, and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall commence carrying out such section not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subsection (d) shall take effect on the date that is 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the first amendment is the Lautenberg-
Hollings amendment which has been cleared on both sides. The amendment
would provide $7 million for the FBI and $3 million for Treasury to
combat Middle Eastern terrorism. Funds would only be available if and
to the extent the President designates such an emergency.
The second amendment is the Reid amendment dealing with female
genital mutilation. It has been cleared on both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that both amendments be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, both
amendments are agreed to.
So the amendments (Nos. 3476 and 3477) were agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the
Hollings amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. That motion ran to the Hollings amendment, which was
offered two amendments prior to this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator for the
clarification.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his cooperation.
[[Page S1834]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Amendment No. 3477
Mr. REID. Mr. President, even though my friend from New Hampshire has
quietly offered an amendment that has been accepted, it is extremely
important. It is an amendment that I have been trying to pass for a
number of years in this body. We have been successful, but it has been
knocked out in the other body. That deals with a subject which is
difficult to talk about, female genital mutilation. It is a horrible
procedure that is perpetrated on women all over this world. What this
amendment does is stop it from being done to women in the United
States.
I express my appreciation to my friend from New Hampshire for making
this part of the managers' amendment to this legislation.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to just take a few minutes. I
have waited patiently. I want to talk about the Lautenberg-Hollings-
Kerry amendment. Our amendment would provide $7 million for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and $3 million for the Department of the
Treasury to address the emergency of terrorism in the Middle East.
The funding would be used to enhance efforts to prevent illegal
fundraising in the United States on behalf of organizations, such as
the ill-famed Hamas organization, that support terror to undermine the
Middle East peace process.
Now, the funding we are proposing would bolster the FBI and the
Treasury Department's efforts to promote greater enforcement of
Executive Order 12947, which is listed as ``Prohibiting Transaction
with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace
Process.'' Under that Executive order and subsequent notices that are
published by the Treasury Department, American citizens are prohibited
from making contributions to Hamas along with organizations and
individuals that front for Hamas. Even more, the assets of such
terrorists and terrorist organizations are frozen by the Treasury
Department. That is in the Executive order.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the President's
Executive order be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Despite the existence of this Executive order, Mr.
President, from the United States, funds are still being sent to Hamas,
the organization that takes credit for suicide bombings, for killing
innocent people, for injuring scores of others. One report I heard on
the radio this morning estimated that $10 million was being sent
annually by Americans to Hamas.
By the way, that is tax-exempt, if my understanding is correct, tax-
exempt funds to help terrorists work their dastardly deeds. Even the
FBI acknowledges Americans are still contributing money to Hamas. In
one article, Robert Bryant, Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's National Security Division, said, ``U.S. financial
support is funding for Hamas.''
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the
Record at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. While some of these contributions may not be used to
promote terrorism in the Middle East, I think we need to be more
certain. Blood for the despicable murders in Israel that the world has
witnessed in the past few weeks is already on the hands of the Hamas
militants. I do not want it on the hands of American citizens, as well.
There are no words to express sufficient outrage at the rash of Hamas-
supported suicide bombings in Israel. In four recent bus bombings, 48
innocent people have been killed by Hamas madmen. Clearly, the United
States has an interest in helping our friend and ally, Israel, put an
end to this madness.
We also have a more direct interest at stake. Though Hamas militants
aim to strike a blow to the peace process and in the psyche of the
Israeli people, its suicide bombs do not distinguish between soldier
and citizen, between infant and adult, or even between Israeli and
other nationals.
Unfortunately, two of the most recent victims of Hamas' senseless
violence were young adults from the United States. Two were from New
Jersey: Sarah Duker, from Teaneck, NJ, and her fiance, Matt Eisenfeld,
from Connecticut. Another college student from New Jersey, Alisa
Flatow, was killed last April in another Hamas suicide bombing.
My concern and the concern which this amendment addresses is that the
funds raised in this country may be used by Hamas militants to take the
lives of both American and Israeli citizens. Although American citizens
are not detonating the bombs, they may be providing the financial
support which enables Hamas militants to pull the pin.
Since the Executive order went into effect just over a year ago, some
progress has been made in stemming the flow of financial support from
the United States. Press reports indicate that $800,000 in assets have
been blocked, unable to be transferred to their Middle East recipients.
Unfortunately, the dramatic increase in Hamas-supported violence
reminds us that the job is far from done. Despite our efforts, Hamas
militants continue to gloat in the killing and continue to make martyrs
of the murderers.
The graphic photographs of blood from the Middle East compel us to
redouble our efforts to choke off support in the United States for
Hamas militants. It is not enough to declare war against fundraising
Hamas' militant activities, but we need to put our money where our
mouth is and provide additional resources to get the job done, to stop
terrorism.
The funding provided in this amendment would enable our Government to
accelerate investigations of individuals and organizations that it has
good reason to believe are attempting to fund the Hamas death machine.
It would provide funding for additional analysts, equipment and
intelligence-gathering equipment in the United States aimed at
addressing this problem in the Middle East.
It will provide resources to allow for better tracing of funds once
they leave the United States so that we can be more certain that
American dollars are not ending up in the coffers of Hamas militants.
It will provide resources to promote greater efficiency in freezing the
assets to stop bankrolling of terrorism dead in its tracks.
Mr. President, this week our President, Bill Clinton, will join world
leaders at a summit in Egypt on terrorism. He has left already. He
will, among other things, call upon leaders in the Middle East to
redouble efforts to ensure that the financial wealth for these
extremists is going to run dry. I applaud his initiative and wish him
well in this worthwhile endeavor. I hope that he will say publicly that
Syria's unwillingness to come to the talks on terrorism, that their
client state, Lebanon, is essentially prohibited from joining in these
talks, is an action that we deplore. How can we believe and how can the
Israeli people believe that Syria will talk seriously about peace when
they will not come to a discussion about the reduction or elimination
of terrorism?
I want the record to reflect accurately, I think it is a terrible
sign of their intention about making peace. Syria has to know that we
here in the United States want them to be honest and forthcoming in
their peace discussion and not to come to a meeting that consists of
tens of nations' representatives in the area, willing to discuss peace,
willing to discuss at least the elimination of reduction of terrorism--
I think reflects very badly on the seriousness of their view.
I can think of no better way of helping our President succeed in his
effort to shut off the international funding spigot for Hamas'
terrorists than by showing the world, as this amendment would do, that
we are doubling our efforts to do the same at home. This amendment will
not solve all of the problems of terrorism in the Middle East, but it
demonstrates America's resolve to ensure that our citizens are not
directly or inadvertently financing the actions of terrorists.
I am grateful that we obtained the unanimous support of our
colleagues to
[[Page S1835]]
enhance our ability to fight harder against the killers of innocent
people and to fight against the thugs that do not understand that the
civilized world rejects their approach of murder to gain political
objectives.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a pertinent letter from the Anti-Defamation League.
There being no objection, the motion was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer Memorial Foundation of
the Anti-Defamation League,
Washington DC, March 12, 1996.
Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the Leon and Marilyn
Klinghoffer Foundation of the Anti-Defamation League, we want
to thank you for your leadership in the fight against
terrorism and for seeking to keep this country from being
used as a base to raise funds and finance the activity of
terrorist organizations.
Ten year after the senseless murder of our father, Leon
Klinghoffer, aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship, terrorism
has hit home for other Americans. Unfortunately, our laws are
still inadequate to meet the changing nature of the terrorist
threat.
We welcome and strongly support your amendment to increase
funding for the FBI and the Treasury Department's Office of
Foreign Assets Control. This would provide additional
resource to facilitate and enhance their investigative
abilities to uncover assets, property, and fundraising
support in the United States for foreign terrorist
organizations designated (under President Clinton's Executive
Order 12947, January 23, 1995) as ``threatening to disrupt
the Middle East Peace Process.''
We are ready to assist you in your efforts to build support
among your colleagues for this initiative and are dedicated
to helping to prevent another family from suffering the
painful reality of terrorism.
Sincerely,
Lisa Klinghoffer.
Ilisa Klinghoffer.
Abraham H. Foxman.
Exhibit 1
Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995--Prohibiting Transactions
With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,
including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act
(50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United
States Code,
I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of
America, find that grave acts of violence committed by
foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process
constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United
States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with
that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Except to the extent provided in section
203(b)(3) and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3) and (4)) and
in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be
issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any
contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior
to the effective date: (a) all property and interests in
property of:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;
(ii) foreign persons designated by the Secretary of State,
in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Attorney General, because they are found:
(A) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of
committing, acts of violence that have the purpose or effect
of disrupting the Middle East peace process, or
(B) to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material,
or technological support for, or services in support of, such
acts of violence; and
(iii) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney
General, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on
behalf of, any of the foregoing persons, that are in the
United States, that hereafter come within the United States,
or that hereafter come within the possession or control of
United States persons, are blocked;
(b) any transaction or dealing by United States persons or
within the United States in property or interests in property
of the persons designated in or pursuant to this order is
prohibited, including the making or receiving of any
contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the
benefit of such persons;
(c) any transaction by any United States person or within
the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose
of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the
prohibitions set forth in this order, is prohibited.
Sec. 2. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term
``person'' means an individual or entity;
(b) the term ``entity'' means a partnership, association,
corporation, or other organization, group, or subgroup;
(c) the term ``United States person'' means any United
States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized
under the laws of the United States (including foreign
branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) the term ``foreign person'' means any citizen or
national of a foreign state (including any such individual
who is also a citizen or national of the United States) or
any entity not organized solely under the laws of the United
States or existing solely in the United States, but does not
include a foreign state.
Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of
the type specified in section 203(b)(2)(A) of IEEPA (50
U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)(A)) by United States persons to persons
designated in or pursuant to this order would seriously
impair my ability to deal with the national emergency
declared in this order, and hereby prohibit such donations as
provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, the Attorney
General, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including
the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all
powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury
may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and
agencies of the United States Government. All agencies of the
United States Government are hereby directed to take all
appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the
provisions of this order.
(b) Any investigation emanating from a possible violation
of this order, or of any license, order, or regulation issued
pursuant to this order, shall first be coordinated with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and any matter
involving evidence of a criminal violation shall be referred
to the FBI for further investigation. The FBI shall timely
notify the Department of the Treasury of any action it takes
on such referrals.
Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this order shall create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by
any party against the United States, its agencies or
instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other
person.
Sec. 6. (a) This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern
standard time on January 24, 1995.
(b) This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and
published in the Federal Register.
William J. Clinton,
January 23, 1995.
Annex
terrorist organizations which threaten to disrupt the middle east peace
process
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
Hizballah
Islamic Gama'at (IG)
Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)
Jihad
Kach
Kahane Chai
Palestinian Islamic Jihad-Shiqaqi faction (PIJ)
Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas faction (PLF-Abu Abbas)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palesine (PFLP)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command
(PFLP-GC)
____
Office of Foreign Assets Control
list of specially designated terrorists who threaten to disrupt the
middle east peace process--wednesday, january 25, 1995
Agency: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Action: Notice of blocking.
Summary: The Treasury Department is issuing a list of
blocked persons who have been designated by the President as
terrorist organizations threatening the Middle East peace
process or have been found to be owned or controlled by, or
to be acting for or on behalf of, these terrorist
organizations.
Effective date: January 24, 1995.
For further information: J. Robert McBrien, Chief,
International Programs, Tel.: (202) 622-2420; Office of
Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Supplementary information:
Electronic availability
This document is available as an electronic file on The
Federal Bulletin Board the day of publication in the Federal
Register. By modem dial 202/512-1387 or call 202/512-1530 for
disks or paper copies. This file is available in Postscript,
WordPerfect 5.1 and ASCII.
Background
On January 23, 1995, President Clinton signed Executive
Order 12947, ``Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who
Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process'' (the
``Order''). The Order blocks all property subject to U.S.
jurisdiction in which there is any interest of 12 terrorist
organizations that threaten the Middle East peace process as
identified in an Annex to the Order. The Order also blocks
the property and interests in property subject to U.S.
jurisdiction of persons designated by the Secretary of State,
in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury and the
Attorney General, who are found (1) to have committed, or to
pose a significant risk of committing, acts of violence
[[Page S1836]]
that have the purpose or effect of disrupting the Middle East
peace process, or (2) to assist in, sponsor or provide
financial, material, or technological support for, or
services in support of, such acts of violence. In
addition, the Order blocks all property and interests in
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction in which there is
any interest of persons determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of State and
the Attorney General, to be owned or controlled by, or to
act for or on behalf of, any other person designated
pursuant to the Order (collectively ``Specially Designated
Terrorists'' or ``SDTs'').
The Order further prohibits any transaction or dealing by a
United States person or within the United States in property
or interests in property of SDTs, including the making or
receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to
or for the benefit of such persons. This prohibition includes
donations that are intended to relieve human suffering.
Designations of persons blocked pursuant to the Order are
effective upon the date of determination by the Secretary of
State or his delegate, or the Director of the Office of
Foreign Assets Control acting under authority delegated by
the Secretary of the Treasury. Public notice of blocking is
effective upon the date of filing with the Federal Register,
or upon prior actual notice.
list of specially designated terrorists who threaten the middle east
peace process
Note: The abbreviations used in this list are as follows:
``DOB'' means ``date of birth,'' ``a.k.a.'' means ``also
known as,'' and ``POB'' means ``place of birth.''
entities
Abu Nidal Organization (a.k.a. ANO, a.k.a. Black September,
a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary
Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Brigades, a.k.a.
Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims); Libya;
Lebanon; Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Al-Gama'A Al-Islamiyya (a.k.a. Islamic Gama'AT, a.k.a.
Gama'AT, a.k.a. Gama'AT Al-Islamiyya, a.k.a. The Islamic
Group); Egypt.
Al-Jihad (a.k.a. Jihad Group, a.k.a. Vanguards of Conquest,
a.k.a. Talaa'al al-Fateh); Egypt.
ANO (a.k.a. Abu Nidal Organization, a.k.a. Black September,
a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary
Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Brigades, a.k.a.
Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims); Libya;
Lebanon; Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Ansar Allah (a.k.a. Party of God, a.k.a. Hizballah, a.k.a.
Islamic Jihad, a.k.a. Revolutionary Justice Organization,
a.k.a. Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, a.k.a. Islamic
Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine, a.k.a. Followers of
the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
Arab Revolutionary Brigades a.k.a. ANO, a.k.a. Abu Nidal
Organization, a.k.a. Black September, a.k.a. Fatah
Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Council,
a.k.a. Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims);
Libya; Lebanon; Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Arab Revolutionary Council (a.k.a. ANO, a.k.a. Abu Nidal
Organization, a.k.a. Black September, a.k.a. Faith
Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Brigades,
a.k.a. Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims);
Libya; Lebanon; Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Black September (a.k.a. ANO, a.k.a. Abu Nidal Organization,
a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary
Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Brigades, a.k.a.
Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims); Libya;
Lebanon; Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a.k.a.
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine--Hawatmeh
Faction, a.k.a. DFLP); Lebanon; Syria; Israel.
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine--Hawatmeh
Faction (a.k.a. Democratic Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, a.k.a. DFLP); Lebanon; Syria; Israel.
DFLP (a.k.a. Democratic Front for the Liberation of
Palestine--Hawatmeh Faction, a.k.a. Democratic Front for the
Liberation of Palestine); Lebanon; Syria; Israel.
Fatah Revolutionary Council (a.k.a. ANO, a.k.a. Abu Nidal
Organization, a.k.a. Black September, a.k.a. Arab
Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Brigades,
a.k.a. Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims);
Libya; Lebanon; Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Followers of the Prophet Muhammad (a.k.a. Party of God,
a.k.a. Hizballah, a.k.a. Islamic, Jihad, a.k.a. Revolutionary
Justice Organization, a.k.a. Organization of the Oppressed on
Earth, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine,
a.k.a. Ansar Allah); Lebanon.
Gama'At (a.k.a. Islamic Gama'at, a.k.a. Gama'at Al-
Islamiyya, a.k.a. the Islamic Group, a.k.a. Al-Gama'a Al-
Islamiyya); Egypt.
Gama'at Al-Islamiyya (a.k.a. Islamic Gama'at, a.k.a.
Gama'at, a.k.a. the Islamic Group, a.k.a. Al-Gama'a Al-
Islamiyya); Egypt.
Hamas (a.k.a. Islamic Resistance Movement); Gaza; West Bank
Territories; Jordan.
Hizballah (a.k.a. Party of God, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad,
a.k.a. Revolutionary Justice Organization, a.k.a.
Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad
for the Liberation of Palestine, a.k.a. Ansar Allah, a.k.a.
Followers of the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
Islamic Gama'at (a.k.a. Gama'at, a.k.a. Gama'at Al-
Islamiyya, a.k.a. the Islamic Group, a.k.a. Al-Gama'a Al-
Islamiyya); Egypt.
Islamic Jihad (a.k.a. Party of God, a.k.a. Hizballah,
a.k.a. Revolutionary Justice Organization, a.k.a.
Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad
for the Liberation of Palestine, a.k.a. Ansar Allah, a.k.a.
Followers of the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (a.k.a. Party
of God, a.k.a. Hizballah, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad, a.k.a.
Revolutionary Justice Organization, a.k.a. Organization of
the Oppressed on Earth, a.k.a. Ansar Allah, a.k.a. Followers
of the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
Islamic Jihad of Palestine (a.k.a. PIJ, a.k.a. Palestinian
Islamic Jihad--Shiqaqi, a.k.a. PIJ Shiqaqi/Awda Faction,
a.k.a. Palestinian Islamic Jihad); Israel; Jordan; Lebanon.
Islamic Jihad of Palestine (a.k.a. PIJ, a.k.a. Palestinian
Islamic Jihad--Shiqaqi, a.k.a. PIJ Shiqaqi/Awda Faction,
a.k.a. Palestinian Islamic Jihad); Israel; Jordan, Lebanon.
Islamic Resistance Movement (a.k.a. Hamas); Gaza; West Bank
Territories; Jordan.
Jihad Group (a.k.a. Al-Jihad, a.k.a. Vanguards of conquest,
a.k.a. Talaa'al Al-fateh); Egypt.
Kach; Israel.
Kahane Chai; Israel.
Organization of the Oppressed on Earth (a.k.a. Party of
God, a.k.a. Hizballah, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad, a.k.a.
Revolutionary Justice Organization, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad for
the Liberation of Palestine, a.k.a. Ansar Allah, a.k.a.
Followers of the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
Palestine Liberation Front (a.k.a. Palestine Liberation
Front--Abu Abbas Faction, a.k.a. PLF-Abu Abbas, a.k.a. PLF);
Iraq.
Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction (a.k.a. PLF-
Abu Abbas, a.k.a. PLF, a.k.a. Palestine Liberation Front);
Iraq.
Palestinian Islamic Jidad--Shiqaqi (a.k.a. PIJ, a.k.a.
Islamic Jihad of Palestine, a.k.a. PIJ Shiqaqi/Awda Faction,
a.k.a. Palestinian Islamic Jihad); Israel; Jordan; Lebanon.
Party of God (a.k.a. Hizballah, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad,
a.k.a. Revolutionary Justice Organization, a.k.a.
Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad
for the Liberation of Palestine, a.k.a. Ansar Allah, a.k.a.
Followers of the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
PFLP (a.k.a. Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine); Lebanon; Syria; Israel.
PFLP-GC (a.k.a. Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine--General Command); Lebanon; Syria; Jordan.
PIJ (a.k.a. Palestinian Islamic Jihad--Shiqaqi, a.k.a.
Islamic Jihad of Palestine, a.k.a. PIJ Shiqaqi/Awda Faction,
a.k.a. Palestinian Islamic Jihad); Israel; Jordan; Lebanon.
PIJ Shiqaqi/Awda Faction (a.k.a. PIJ, a.k.a. Palestinian
Islamic Jihad--Shiqaqi, a.k.a. ISlamic Jihad of Palestine,
a.k.a. Palestinian Islamic Jihad); Israel, Jordan; Lebanon.
PLF (a.k.a. PLF-ABu Abbas, a.k.a. Palestine Liberation
Front--Abu Abbas Faction, a.k.a. Palestine Liberation Front);
Iraq.
PLF-Abu Abbas (a.k.a. Palestine Liberation Front--Abu Abbas
Faction, a.k.a. PLF, a.k.a. Palestine Liberation Front);
Iraq.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a.k.a.
PFLP); Lebanon; Syria; Israel.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General
Command (a.k.a. PFLP-GC); Lebanon; Syria; Jordan.
Revolutionary Justice Organization (a.k.a. Party of God,
a.k.a. Hizballah, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad, a.k.a. Organization
of the Oppressed on Earth, a.k.a. Islamic Jihad for the
Liberation of Palestine, a.k.a. Ansar Allah, a.k.a. Followers
of the Prophet Muhammad); Lebanon.
Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims (a.k.a.
ANO, a.k.a. Abu Nidal Organization, a.k.a. Black September,
a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary
Council, a.k.a. Arab Revolutionary Brigades); Libya; Lebanon;
Algeria; Sudan; Iraq.
Talaa'al al-Fateh (a.k.a. Jihad Group, a.k.a. Al-Jihad,
a.k.a. Vanguards of Conquest); Egypt.
The Islamic Group (a.k.a. Islamic Gama'at, a.k.a. Gama`at,
a.k.a. Gama'at al-Vanguards of Conquest (a.k.a. Jihad Group,
a.k.a. Al-Jihad, a.k.a. Talla'al al-Fateh); Egypt.
Individuals
Abbas, Abu (a.k.a. Zaydan, Muhammad); Director of Palestine
Liberation Front-- Abu Abbas Faction: DOB 10 December 1948.
Al Banna, Sabri Khalil Abd Al Qadir (a.k.a. Nidal, Abu);
Founder and Secretary General of Abu Nidal Organization; DOB
May 1937 or 1940; POB Jaffa, Israel.
Al Rahman, Shaykh Umar Abd; Chief Ideological Figure of
Islamic Gama'at; DOB 3 May 1938; POB Egypt.
Al Zawahiri, Dr. Ayman: Operational and Military Leader of
Jihad Group; DOB 19 June 1951; POB Giza, Egypt; Passport No.
1084010 (Egypt).
Al-Zumar, Abbud (a.k.a Zumar, Colonel Abbud); Factional
Leader of Jihad Group; Egypt; POB Egypt.
Awda, Abd Al Aziz; Chief Ideological Figure of Palestinian
Islamic Jihad--Shiqaqi; DOB 1946.
Fadlallah, Shaykh Muhammad Husayn; Leading Ideological
Figure of Hizballah;
[[Page S1837]]
DOB 1938 or 1936; POB Najf Al Ashraf (Najaf), Iraq.
Habash, George (a.k.a. Habbash, George); Secretary General
of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Habbash, George (a.k.a. Habash, George); Secretary General
of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Hawatma, Nayif (a.k.a. Hawatmeh, Nayif, a.k.a. Hawatmah,
Nayif, a.k.a. Khalid, Abu); Secretary General of Democratic
Front for the Liberation of Palestine--Hawatmeh Faction; DOB
1933.
Hawatmah, Nayif (a.k.a. Hawatma, Nayif; a.k.a. Hawatmeh,
Nayif, a.k.a. Khalid, Abu); Secretary General of Democratic
Front for the Liberation of Palestine--Hawatmeh Faction; DOB
1933.
Hawatmeh, Nayif (a.k.a. Hawatma, Nayif; a.k.a. Hawatmah,
Nayif, a.k.a. Khalid, Abu); Secretary General of Democratic
Front for the Liberation of Palestine--Hawatmeh Faction; DOB
1933.
Islambouli, Mohammad Shawqi; Military Leader of Islamic
Gama'at; DOB 15 January 1955; POB Egypt; Passport No. 304555
(Egypt).
Jabril, Ahmad (a.k.a. Jibril, Ahmad); Secretary General of
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General
Command; DOB 1938 POB Ramleh, Israel.
Jibril, Ahmad (a.k.a. Jabril, Ahmad); Secretary General of
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General
Command; DOB 1938; POB Ramleh, Israel.
Khalid, Abu (a.k.a. Hawatmeh, Nayif, a.k.a. Hawatma, Nayif,
a.k.a. Hawatmah, Nayif); Secretary General of Democratic
Front for the Liberation of Palestine--Hawatmeh Faction; DOB
1933.
Mughniyah, Imad Fa'iz (a.k.a. Mughniyah, Imad Fayiz);
Senior Intelligence Officer of Hizballah; DOB 7 December
1962; POB Tayr Dibba, Lebanon; Passport No. 432298 (Lebanon).
Mughniyah, Imad Fayiz (a.k.a. Mughniyah, Imad Fa'iz);
Senior Intelligence Officer of Hizballah: DOB 7 December
1962; POB Tayr Dibba, Lebanon; Passport No. 432298 (Lebanon).
Naji, Talal Muhammad Rashid; Principal Deputy of Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command; DOB
1930; POB Al Nasiria, Palestine. .
Nasrallah, Hasan; Secretary General of Hizballah; DOB 31
August 1960 or 1953 or 1955 or 1958; POB Al Basuriyah,
Lebanon; Passport No. 042833 (Lebanon).
Nidal, Abu (a.k.a. Al Banna, Sabri Khalil Abd Al Qadir);
Founder and Secretary General of Abu Nidal Organization; DOB
May 1937 or 1940; POB Jaffa, Israel.
Qasem, Talat Fouad; Propaganda Leader of Islamic Gama'at;
DOB 2 June 1957 or 3 June 1957; POB Al Mina, Egypt.
Shaqaqi, Fathi; Secretary General of Palestinian Islamic
Jihad--Shiqaqi.
Tufayli, Subhi; Former Secretary General and Current Senior
Figure of Hizballah; DOB 1947; POB Biqa Valley, Lebanon.
Yasin, Shaykh Ahmad; Founder and Chief Ideological Figure
of Hamas; DOB 1931.
Zaydan, Muhammad (a.k.a. Abbas, Abu); Director of Palestine
Liberation Front--Abu Abbas Faction; DOB 10 December 1948.
Zumar, Colonel Abbud (a.k.a. Al-zumar, Abbud); Factional
Leader of Jihad Group; Egypt; POB Egypt.
Dated: January 23, 1995.
R. Richard Newcomb,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Approved: January 23, 1995.
John Berry,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Enforcement).
Exhibit 2
FBI Says Hamas Raising Funds in United States
Washington.--A top FBI official acknowledged Wednesday that
Americans are contributing money to Hamas, the Islamic
Resistance Movement, which has claimed responsibility for
recent deadly attacks in Israel.
``U.S. financial support is funding for Hamas,'' Robert
Bryant, assistant director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's national security division, told reporters.
He said most of the donors believe the money is being used
for charitable purposes.
``I think the people believe in good faith it's going to
charitable purposes. I think there will be a very determined
effort to cut it off,'' he told the Defense Writers
Association, declining to specify how this would be done.
Israeli Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich told a news conference
this week that Americans were contributing funds to Hamas.
``It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of facts.
And I'm afraid they still do,'' he said.
``That Hamas became very sophisticated in fund-raising and
disguising the true purpose of fund-raising and these are
facts. These are not a matter of opinion,'' Rabinovich said.
Hamas has claimed responsibility for recent attacks in
Israel including a suicide bombing Monday that killed 12
people in Tel Aviv and one Sunday that killed 18 people in
Jerusalem. The attacks, which followed the killing of a key
Hamas figure with a booby-trapped cellular telephone in
January, have stalled Middle East peace negotiations.
President Bill Clinton, responding to previous attacks
against Israel, signed an executive order in January 1995
blocking assets in the United States of ``terrorist
organizations that threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace
process'' and prohibiting financial transactions with them.
Hamas, which was founded in 1987 and funds its strength
among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, was one
of a dozen groups listed in the order.
In last year's terrorism report, the State Department said
Hamas receives funds from Palestinian expatriates, Iran and
private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab
states.
In addition to launching violent attacks against Israel,
Hamas provides medical and social services to Palestinians.
The U.S. Treasury Department, whose Office of Foreign
Assets Control executes the presidential order, said Monday
that since January 1995, $800,000 worth of Hamas-related
assets, involving three individuals, have been frozen.
But a Treasury spokesman could not immediately say whether
the effort was considered successful and what the total
amount of Hamas fund-raising in the United States was
believed to be. Nor could he say if the three individuals
whose assets were frozen have been charged with any crimes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New
Jersey for bringing this issue to the Senate and I am pleased to
cosponsor this amendment. Getting directly to the point, this amendment
provides an additional $10 million to the Federal Bureau of
investigation and the Department of Treasury to combat international
terrorism.
We have all been shocked and saddened to see the death and
destruction caused by Hamas terrorists in Israel. These fanatics, and
that is just what they are--these zealots are doing everything they can
to stop the peace process. The scenes from the Middle East are simply
revolting. Several times in the past few weeks we have watched innocent
people--men, women, and children both Israeli and American--killed in
senseless terrorist bombings. It is as if the people of Israel are
being subjected to a tragedy like the Oklahoma City bombing--over and
over again. They cannot even safely take public transportation without
risking their lives.
President Clinton and Secretary of State Christopher will be in Egypt
tomorrow to convene an international conference to combat terrorism.
The President recently sent the Deputy Director of the CIA to meet with
Israeli and Palestinian officials to see what technical assistance the
United States can provide. I applaud him for the leadership he has
shown on this issue and I hope he can achieve concrete progress at the
conference.
Mr. President, I am appalled when I hear reports that funding to
support Hamas and other Middle-Eastern terrorism is coming from the
United States. It is hard for this Senator to believe that any American
would knowingly contribute money to support these cold blooded killers.
But, apparently that is the case.
So, this amendment provides Judge Freeh and his FBI with the
resources needed to get to the bottom of this issue. It will help them
uncover groups and institutions that are providing millions of dollars
to support terrorism in the Middle East. And, it provides the Treasury
Department with funding so they can moving expeditiously to freeze the
assets of foundations and others that knowingly support Hamas and
criminals that seek to derail the peace process through committing
terrorist acts. It bolsters these agencies enforcement of Executive
Order 12947 which is titled ``Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists
Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.'' It is at least
one way that we in the Senate can do something to respond to this
emergency.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Amendment No. 3478 to Amendment No. 3466
(Purpose: To restore funding for, and otherwise ensure the protection
of, endangered species of fish and wildlife)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on my behalf
and that of Senators Lautenberg, Lieberman, Graham, Boxer, and
Moynihan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Moynihan, proposes an amendment numbered 3478.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 75, strike lines 1 through 9.
On page 412, line 23, strike ``$497,670,000'' and insert
``$501,420,000''.
[[Page S1838]]
On page 412, line 24, after ``1997,'', insert the
following: ``of which $4,500,000 shall be available for
species listings under section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533),''.
On page 413, strike ``1997:'' on line 11 and all that
follows through line 20 and insert ``1997.''.
On page 461, line 24, strike ``$1,255,005,000'' and insert
``$1,251,255,000''.
On page 462, line 5, before the colon, insert the
following: ``, of which not more than $81,250,000 shall be
available for travel expenses''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what this amendment does say to my
colleagues is, do away with, repeal the moratorium that is on listing
of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. I indicated to
the Appropriations Committee when it was meeting to discuss this
omnibus bill that I would offer this amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield to the chairman for a question.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I
believe, in the previous conversation, the Senator from Nevada
indicated he would need 40 minutes for the presentation of his
amendment. I have just cleared on our side the additional 40 minutes
for the opposition, so that would be a total of 1 hour 20 minutes to be
equally divided, or 40 minutes each.
Will the Senator from Nevada agree to that as a time limit?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, since talking to the chairman, I say through
the Chair to the chairman, that I have been--if I can have 45 minutes?
So I ask the unanimous-consent request be altered to allow 45 minutes
on a side.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if my friend from Nevada would just respond
to an inquiry?
Mr. REID. If I could, just before doing this, and I say to my friend,
it is my understanding there will be no second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to propose a unanimous-
consent agreement?
Mr. REID. I would propose that, subject to the question of the
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. My question has nothing to do with the amendment of
the Senator. It has to do with some time availability. I understand the
Senator needs 40 minutes or some such time?
Mr. REID. Does the Senator wish some time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would appreciate a chance, about 10 minutes, if
possible, just to make a statement. If that is acceptable to my friend
from Nevada, then I would ask for recognition from the Chair. If not,
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will withdraw the request, I
inquire if the Senator from New Jersey wishes 10 minutes of the 45
minutes?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, 10 minutes off, on a totally different subject.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could propose a unanimous consent
request? Would that be appropriate? I ask unanimous-consent there be 1-
\1/2\ hours equally divided, no second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent request is for 1-\1/2\
hours equally divided, with the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee controlling half the time and the Senator from Nevada
controlling the other half. Does the request also include a provision
that no second-degree amendments be in order?
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I cannot agree to that, relating to the
second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard with regard to the second-
degree aspect.
The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated when I stood on the floor of
the Appropriations Committee, chaired by the Senator from Oregon, I
indicated at that time I would offer this amendment. I am offering the
amendment because we have had ample opportunity to understand what the
effect is of having a moratorium on the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. President, I am the ranking member on the subcommittee that will
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I understand the Endangered
Species Act and that we need to reauthorize it. I have worked with my
friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Idaho, to come up with a
bipartisan bill. I do not know if we are going to be able to do that.
But we are going to attempt to reauthorize this bill. Whether it is the
bill offered by my friend from Idaho or a bill offered by the Senator
from Nevada, we are going to get into reauthorizing the Endangered
Species Act. There are some things we need to do, in effect, to
modernize the Endangered Species Act.
I doubt there is any Member of this body who has not been contacted
by one group or another regarding the moratorium on the Endangered
Species Act. Most of us in this body, during the last few days, have
been visited by the homebuilders. They are concerned about the
Endangered Species Act, as are other special interest groups that come
to us on a frequent basis, some in favor of the Endangered Species Act
and some opposed to it. But never is there anyone who has come to me
and said, ``We want to do away with the Endangered Species Act.''
There are a great many arguments being tossed about to keep the
moratorium in place. I have heard some say that the moratorium would be
leverage to get the Endangered Species Act reauthorized. That certainly
has not proven to be the case to this point. In fact, I think they are
wrong. The moratorium has nothing to do with efforts to reauthorize the
Endangered Species Act. We need to reauthorize the Endangered Species
Act, and I underline and underscore that. If an Endangered Species Act
reform bill comes to the Senate floor, it will be because that is the
right thing to do. And it is the right thing to do.
I have heard some want reform and better science procedures in place
before we lift the moratorium. That type of argument is backward and it
is illogical. We, in this body, on this floor, placed a moratorium on
listing further species without a hearing, without any procedures that
are normal to this body or the other body. We simply said we are going
to have a moratorium. Why? Based on these stories that come from people
about what is wrong with the Endangered Species Act.
I had some people come to my office today, and they said they wanted
me to be real careful about the Endangered Species Act, be careful if
we remove the moratorium because they had heard there was some flower
in southern California that had been identified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service that caused a reduction of the speed on I-15 to 15
miles an hour because, if they drove faster than that, it would blow
the petals off the flower. We hear these stories all the time. They are
ridiculous. There is no foundation to them. They are scare tactics.
I repeat, I am in favor of doing something to change the Endangered
Species Act. We need to do that. We need more input from the public. We
need States to be involved. We need to make sure that someone who has
an endangered species on their property has some incentives for coming
to the Federal Government and saying, ``I found this endangered species
on my land and I want to work with you to do something about it,'' and
they are not, in effect, penalized for telling us. We need to do some
of those kinds of things to make the Endangered Species Act more
consumer friendly. And we can do that.
But that has nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment, in
effect, says that we should remove this careless, illogical moratorium.
While we debate the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act,
there are species needing protection, facing greater risks, and
threatened and endangered species could be decreasing to irreparable
numbers. The science, all the science in the world, is irrelevant if a
specie becomes extinct, because extinction is forever.
Not a single plant or animal has been added to the list since April
10, 1995. There might be some people cheering about this, saying,
``Good.'' The fact of the matter is, that is not good. I know there are
probably going to be efforts to, what we call in the jargon of the
Congress, to second-degree my amendment, the purpose of which would be
to say, ``Let us have emergency listings.'' That will give some people,
programs,
[[Page S1839]]
a way to hide, saying they now can have emergency listings.
Of course, I am sure the amendment will be very clear in not
providing any money to do this, which is different from the amendment I
am offering. This amendment, in effect, would end the counterproductive
moratorium in adding new species to the endangered species for both the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine and Fisheries
Service. It will also provide sufficient funding for the Fish and
Wildlife Service for listing activities for the balance of the year;
that is some $4.5 million. The offset would be $3.75 million of the
Fish and Wildlife travel expenses, and $750,000 would be reprogrammed
within the Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Marine Fisheries
Service, with funding of $1 million, would administer the
reprogramming.
The moratorium is poor policy because it does nothing to promote the
endangered species reform that we need to go forward on, and it only
increases the costs and uncertainty of recovery of species.
The moratorium is a poor piece of legislation that should be removed
so that public policy for endangered species can resume with certainty
and with stability. The moratorium fails to acknowledge the permanency
of extinction and has increased the risk that unlisted species face.
The public has awakened to this agenda in this Congress, which is
antienvironmental. The agenda is to undermine the environmental
progress made over the past 25 years. The moratorium which passed last
year with little public comment, and I should say no public comment and
no attention from the environmental community, was wrong. However, the
public understands the implications of this moratorium.
Mr. President, this may not be important to most, but already the
League of Conservation Voters has announced its intention to consider
the vote on this amendment in its scorecard.
I would like to talk a little bit about why the Endangered Species
Act is important and why not listing species is tragic; not only wrong,
it is tragic.
There are many examples, but I have picked just a few. The night is
late.
In 1992, in Kansas, a bird named the ``least tern'' had declined from
11 pairs to 1 breeding pair. The restoration on the Cimarron River
nesting site reversed the saltwater invasion. Predators were excluded.
Following this restoration work, the colony increased to six breeding
pairs which now has produced seven young.
Another example is the 11 original trees that remained of the rare
Virginia round leaf birch in southwest Virginia. Some people may say,
``Well, who cares?'' I repeat, extinction is forever.
Due to the listing and recovery work done on this tree to preserve
and cultivate the seedlings, the population of the species is now 1,400
trees in 20 different locations. Remember, there were 11 trees when
this was listed. Recovery enabled the Fish and Wildlife Service to
propose the reclassification from endangered to threatened, and
imminent delisting is a viable possibility.
Mr. President, the brown pelican, a bird found mostly in Texas but
other places as well, was first listed in 1970. In 1994, we had 125 of
these birds that nested at a place called Little Pelican Island in
Galveston Bay. It was listed in 1970.
In 1994, for the first time in more than 40 years, we have these
brown pelicans nesting and producing more than 90 young. We are
probably going to save this bird. I think that is important.
In Nebraska, on the Platte River, the nesting habitat for the
endangered migrating whooping crane, sandhill crane, and other
waterfowl, has been seriously depleted over the past 20 years. But due
to the protection of habitat upon which the birds are dependent,
agreements were signed by environmental groups and individual private
property owners to clear the vegetation, and now, though the whooping
crane is still endangered, progress has been made in recovering
population.
Recently, there was a press event celebrating the delisting of the
peregrine falcon due to the recovery made in its population.
Even more popular is the success of the American bald eagle. In 1963,
because of DDT in the food chain, eagles were caused to lay eggs that
were simply too thin to allow hatching. There was a dramatic decline in
this very powerful, strong bird, to 417 nesting pairs of this
magnificent animal. A ban on the use of DDT and the protection afforded
the eagle by the Endangered Species Act by 1994 increased the
population nationwide to just over 4,400 nesting pairs. From a little
over 400, we are now to almost 4,500.
The impressive increase in the eagle population caused the Fish and
Wildlife Service to propose in 1994 the eagle be reclassified in 43
States from endangered to threatened with even actual removal from the
list altogether. The eagle population is strong and increasing at
incredible rates, and we may sit back and wonder what all the concern
was about when you see these magnificent birds floating around. But if
the concern had not been there, if the protection of the Endangered
Species Act had not been available, there would be more concern today.
There would be no American bald eagles. None.
I have mentioned only a few of the successes, Mr. President, of
animals and birds. Why are these and other successes important? I
received a letter signed by 38 physicians, scientists and those
associated with health care across the community, health care
providers, advocating the repeal of the moratorium.
The letter says, among other things:
What is often lost in the debate over species conservation
is the value of species to human health.
They continue:
Recent studies have shown that a substantial proportion of
the Nation's medicine is derived from plants and other
natural resources. The medicines of tomorrow are being
discovered today from nature.
In regard to the Endangered Species Act, the physicians continue:
The Endangered Species Act is the best tool we have to
protect species, imperiled plants and animals, but the
moratorium on the endangered species list has put at risk
many species which medical researchers have had no
opportunity to explore.
They conclude:
When a species is lost to extinction, we have no idea what
potential medical cures are lost along with it.
Why do these 38 physicians talk that way? Fifty percent of
prescription medicine sold in the United States contain at least one
compound originally derived from a plant. Dr. Thomas Eisner, director
of the Cornell Institute of Research and Chemical Ecology, has written:
The chemical treasury of nature is literally disappearing
before we have even had a chance to assess it. We cannot
afford in years ahead to be deprived of the inventions of
nature.
When I was coming back on the airplane yesterday from Nevada, I read
an Audubon Society magazine. Someone had given the magazine to me
because there was a wonderful article in that magazine about deserts,
and, in fact, about the deserts in Nevada, the Great Basin. But what
grabbed my attention was not the article on the Great Basin but an
article on endangered species and what they had done to preserve human
life throughout the world.
Forty percent of medical drugs were first extracted--these are not
prescription drugs--first extracted from other life forms. Of the 150
most frequently used pharmaceuticals--now listen to this--of the 150
most frequently used pharmaceuticals, 80 percent come from or were
first identified as living organisms.
Digitalis--there are a lot of important heart medicines, but
digitalis is right up on the list of the most important. It comes from
a plant called the foxglove plant, a lifesaving compound from a plant.
Cyclosporin. In the Democratic conference today, the senior Senator
from Illinois asked us to look at some literature that he had dealing
with organ transplants. The Senator from Illinois is 68 years old. He
asked the people who came in, ``Are any of my organs worth
transplanting?'' They said yes and proceeded to tell him why and how.
He was asking us to sign up to be, at the time of our demise, willing
to give our organs for other people. A number of us had already agreed
to do that prior to the presentation by the Senator from Illinois.
But the reason I mention his presentation to us today is because
cyclosporin, a drug that makes organ
[[Page S1840]]
transplantation possible, which is an antirejection drug that helps
make organ transplants feasible, comes from a fungus.
The Pacific yew tree was once considered a junk tree by the
foresters, but chemists have found that one of the tree's chemicals
found only in that tree, a thing called taxol, can be used in the fight
against ovarian and other cancers. And it works very well.
There is now an endangered mint that is nearly extinct in central
Florida. In fact, that mint has been reduced to a few hundred acres.
Doctor Eisner, from Cornell, has discovered many potent, useful
chemicals in this plant, the utility of which have not been determined
totally. He reports that as scientists examine the mint's leaves, they
isolated 20 kinds of fungi living inside the leaves. Now, remember,
cyclosporin came from a fungus. Remember, it was a mold that allows us
to have penicillin.
Ergot, which is a fungus of wheat, provides us the heart medicine to
block adrenaline in coronary disease. And it was snake venom from which
blood pressure medications were obtained.
Captopril and enalapril are from a poison from a snake. These are
life-saving medications to a significant number of our population.
In Nevada, we have a tiny, tiny little fish called a pupfish. That
fish is being studied in hopes of finding new treatments for kidney
disease.
I have spoken on several occasions, before the committee and on this
floor, about childhood leukemia and how they have been able to find a
magnificent cure for childhood leukemia from the periwinkle bush plant.
All these examples, Mr. President, should focus us on the question of
what others are we missing by failing to protect them? There are many,
many others.
We know that bears and other hibernating animals are being studied
for treatment of kidney failure and osteoporosis. It is a remarkable
part of nature how these animals can be, in effect, near a state of
death, yet their kidneys function well and their bones do not go soft
on them.
We have toads that are being researched, specifically a Houston toad
which is on the brink of extinction that produces alkaloids that may
prevent heart attacks. They also appear to have analgesic properties
more powerful than morphine.
We have frogs that were being studied for neurological disease.
Bats are being studied for treatment of heart attacks and strokes
because the salivary compounds that prevent blood clotting from these
bats have yielded new anticoagulants, more powerful by far than those
currently available for the breakdown of blood clots in heart attacks
and strokes. These bats are found in very remote places.
Pit vipers for high blood pressure treatments I have already talked
about.
Fireflies. The chemicals that cause fireflies to emit light have been
used for tuberculosis, leading to faster tuberculosis treatment.
Mr. President, we have already identified another periwinkle bush,
not the rosy, but the Madagascar perwinkle. This one is for other forms
of cancer.
Mr. President, I have mentioned only a few of the multitude of plants
that are now available for scientific study that are going to lead to
breakthroughs that will cure people of disease. I think we have to
understand what we did last April in shutting down the endangered
species list.
You would think that good conscience would force us to come and start
talking about why we should get rid of the moratorium. But it has been
ignored. We are in this never-never land that we are going to someday
reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. When? Well, we are going to do
it. We will get around to it.
Mr. President, things have changed a little bit. The Endangered
Species Act is not something that is being promoted by the left wing of
the body politic. It is being promoted by people from all walks of
life, of all political persuasions, including some evangelical and
political organizations asking that we protect the species that have
been placed on this Earth.
These religious people ask that we utilize our stewardship wisely and
remove the moratorium from the listing process. We are doing nothing
with this moratorium for the benefit of anyone. I defy anyone to tell
me that there are people--organizations; I will not say people--there
are organizations that support the elimination of the Endangered
Species Act. I have not found any. No one has come to me and said we
want to do away with the Endangered Species Act.
What some people have come and said is that they want some certainty
in the process. The moratorium, though, Mr. President, increases the
uncertainty because of the backlog that is now occurring.
What we are going to hear are efforts to say, well, what we are going
to do is we are going to allow emergency listings. During the time we
have had the Endangered Species Act in effect, there have been very,
very few emergency listings. Listings need to take place in an orderly,
scientific process and procedure. That is what we need to do.
We need to reform the Endangered Species Act. We need to make sure,
as I have said before, that there is more State and non-Federal party
involvement in the process. We need to have peer review and short,
objective science. We need workers to work with landowners and have a
short-form conservation plan. We need safe harbor for landowners who
have agreed to implement conservation measures.
We also need voluntary conservation agreements and recovery teams
that make the recovery of species a practical and a cooperative effort
between the many interested parties.
This is what happened, for example, Mr. President, in Clark County
where a species that was listed was the desert tortoise. It was
difficult, but now, that is being used as a model in other parts of our
country.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the need for substantive reform of
the Endangered Species Act, to understand the devastating effect of
this moratorium, to support an immediate repeal of this devastating
moratorium and provide sufficient funding.
Remember, we, Mr. President, want to end the counterproductive
moratorium in adding new species. We will provide sufficient funding to
allow that to take place until the end of this year. The moratorium is
poor policy because it does nothing to promote the Endangered Species
Act reform that needs to take place. The moratorium is a poor piece of
legislation that should be removed so that the public policy toward
endangered species can resume with certainty and with stability. The
moratorium fails to acknowledge the permanency of extinction and has
increased the risk that unlisted species face.
So I ask my colleagues to not fall for some face-saving second-degree
amendment that will say we are going to allow emergency listing.
Remember, we need to do it in a way that is safe and sound and
certainly one that is scientific. Doing something that is rarely done,
that is, emergency listing, will not do the trick.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator from Nevada completed his
statement?
Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am willing to yield to the Senator
from Montana for some period of time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the very gracious
Senator from Texas--5 or 6 minutes would be appropriate.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will yield that to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 6
minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to lift the
moratorium on the listing of threatened and endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act.
Senator Reid, who is the ranking member of our Endangered Species
Subcommittee, has described why the moratorium is bad policy. I agree
with him.
And I would like to emphasize one particular point. The moratorium
makes a bad situation worse.
In Montana, the Endangered Species Act is not an abstraction. If
affects people's daily lives. Loggers are concerned about restrictions
that apply in grizzly country. Ranchers are concerned about wolves.
At the same time, average folks all across Montana believe, deep
down, that Montana's wildlands, and wildlife,
[[Page S1841]]
are an irreplaceable part of what makes Montana the Last Best Place. So
people have strong feelings, and different perspectives. But one thing
is clear to everyone. The Endangered Species Act is not working as well
as it should. It is driving people apart rather than bringing them
together. It is a situation that must be remedied.
So what does the moratorium do to improve the situation? Nothing. In
fact, it makes things worse.
A moratorium on listings is a makeshift, stopgap measure. Once it
expires, listing will resume, and farmers, ranchers and homeowners will
face the same restrictions under the act that they face today.
In the meantime, species that would otherwise be afforded protection
under the act continue to decline. For those species that survive,
recovery may be much more difficult and expensive, imposing additional
and unnecessary burdens on private landowners.
Is there a better approach? Yes, I believe there is. It may not be as
simple as moratorium. It may not make as good a slogan. But, in the
long run, it is the only way to really improve the Endangered Species
Act.
What is it? Sitting down, listening to one another, and trying to
resolve our differences in good faith.
Let me give you an example. During the last Congress, I introduced a
bill to reform the Endangered Species Act. To improve the listing
process. To involve the States more. To encourage more cooperation with
landowners.
It was a good bill and it had the endorsement of the western
Governors of our country, the endorsement of the environmental
community, and we had several hearings on it here in Washington. We
also had a hearing on the bill in Ronan, MT.
Now, as some of you may know, Ronan is in western Montana, south of
Flathead Lake, in the heart of grizzly country. We had the hearing in
July, on a Saturday, at the local high school. It was packed.
Hundreds of people attended. And more than 70 testified. Some
represented groups like the Stockgrowers, the Mining Association, and
the Sierra Club. Others were there because of their deep personal
interest in this legislation.
The hearing started out a little tense. But by the time it ended 7
hours later, there was a sense that we agreed more than we disagreed.
That we could get beyond politics and find ways to work together. That
we could have a strong Endangered Species Act and a strong economy.
When it comes to the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act,
we need the same kind of an approach.
In fact, some of the people involved in that hearing have established
the Montana Endangered Species Act Reauthorization Committee. It
includes Democrats and Republicans, loggers and environmentalists.
They, too, have come together--not in support of a moratorium, but in
support of commonsense reforms that will protect wildlife while
improving the practical operation of the Endangered Species Act.
I suggest that we take the same approach here, that we get beyond the
slogans and the politics, that we lift the moratorium, and that we
concentrate on what the people back home sent us here to do--that is,
to work together to resolve differences and solve problems.
I know the Senator from Idaho is going to engage in that effort on
the subcommittee. Mr. President, on the Safe Drinking Water Act, he
worked diligently to get groups together. There was not a lot of
politicking and sloganeering going on, or headline grabbing. He did a
great job in helping to get groups together in a commonsense way. It is
the same approach we must take in the Endangered Species Act, not
engage in sloganeering, which tends to cause more problems than solve
problems.
I thank the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, last year, Congress put a hold on
listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitat
that went along with that to give us time to reauthorize the Endangered
Species Act. We called a timeout on new listings so we could reexamine
a 20-year-old law without the pressure of new listing decisions.
Authorization for appropriations ended on September 30, 1992 --3\1/2\
years ago. Mr. President, we have been operating without an
authorization for this act, and that is because so many things have
been done that are far beyond the bounds of common sense. The
moratorium was to give us the timeout so that we would be able to put
listings on under the new reauthorization, to pass without opposition
in the House of Representatives, and with 60 votes here in the Senate--
a clear mandate to say, wait a minute, let us stop doing things that do
not make sense under a law that is not reauthorized, and let us talk
about what we ought to be doing to protect the endangered species of
our country. But let us do it without taking private property rights
and without hurting jobs, without hurting the economy in this country.
We can do both. We can have a positive solution.
But, Mr. President, there are 239 species that are ready to be
listed. In fact, we have tried to work with the other side to make sure
that the listings could be prepared and that the funding was there to
prepare the listings along the way. We have done that in good faith. We
did not think that someone would come up and try to use the fact that
we had, in good faith, allowed the Department to continue to do all of
the preliminary listing procedures, and then spring 239 species that
could cause untold economic damage on States all over our country.
No, we acted in good faith. We believed that the right thing to do
was to have a moratorium until we have a reauthorization so that we can
then list, taking into account some of the new measures that we hope to
have that will encourage conservation, that will encourage the
endangered species protection, through voluntary means, or other
incentives. Those are the things that are not allowed today but will be
allowed under the reauthorization.
We are not putting potentially endangered species at risk. The ones
that are an emergency could be listed today. In fact, one of the things
that we want to do is make sure that an emergency listing would be
available. But, in fact, Mr. President, we are going to debate
tonight--as I understand it, we do not have a time agreement at this
point, but we are going to debate the merits of lifting the moratorium
prematurely. That is really the issue here.
We have agreed on two occasions in this body, and on the House side,
that we should not act precipitously. Now, all of a sudden, the same
people who are fighting the reauthorization are now saying to lift the
moratorium. I really do not think that it is the way we should do
business here. I think we have been acting in good faith. We have done
the things that we have been asked to do to try to take that timeout,
so that when we have a reauthorized act we can come back in and make
sure that the species that are scientifically designated as endangered
will, in fact, be protected. That is what all of us want.
If we free those species--the 239 that we have allowed to be prepared
to be listed when, in fact, they are being prepared under the old act--
I think we will do a lot of harm to many States--my State, the State of
California, Arizona, and many States across this country are going to
have significant economic impact if we do this. Mr. President, it is
not necessary. There is no reason to act precipitously on this omnibus
bill that we are trying to get through. We are trying to fund
Government until the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. President, there is no reason to put something on that is so
extraneous, that causes this kind of debate right at a time when we are
trying to work with the other side to come up with an agreement that
will fund Government until the end of this fiscal year so that we can
start turning toward the next fiscal year, which is going to take our
time.
Mr. President, I think this is the wrong thing at the wrong time.
This is like saying we have this modern, new automobile but we are
going to put Model T parts in it because that is what we have on hand.
Let us not do that. That is not the way to do business.
I am going to speak on this issue again. But, Mr. President, I want
to lay the groundwork for what I think is a terrible injustice. I think
it is breaking a gentleman's agreement that we had
[[Page S1842]]
that we would work together for reauthorization because I assumed that
was everyone's goal. But to have a lifting of the moratorium before the
reauthorization comes, I think, is the wrong thing to do for our
country, for the private property owners in our country, for the small
business people in our country, and for the working people who could
lose their jobs if this happens. This is not right, and I hope the
Members will turn it back. I hope the Members will do the right thing
and let us proceed with Senator Kempthorne to reauthorize in a
judicious way.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, there have been several references to
people resisting the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I
do not know who the references are to. But it certainly is clear that
if this moratorium is extended, the pressure to reauthorize the
Endangered Species Act is reduced. The best way to get the Endangered
Species Act reauthorized is to get rid of this moratorium and have
everybody concentrate their energies on the reauthorization. Certainly,
as far as I am concerned, those on the committee--and certainly the
subcommittee headed by the Senator from Idaho--have been working to get
this act reauthorized. So, I for one have seen no resistance to the
reauthorization of the act from any individual that I know.
Let us just review the bidding, if we might. When President Nixon
signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, this is what he said:
Nothing is more priceless or more worthy of preservation
than the rich array of animal life with which our country has
been blessed. It is a many faceted treasure for valued
scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a
vital part of the heritage we share as all Americans. I
congratulate Congress for taking this important step toward
protecting a heritage which we hold in trust to countless
future generations of our fellow citizens.
That is what President Nixon said when he signed the Endangered
Species Act in 1973. The importance of America's natural heritage is
exactly what we are debating here today--whether as a Nation we should
conserve those plants, species, and animals which we know to be
threatened with extinction, or whether we should knowingly choose not
to protect those imperiled species.
I support Senator Reid's amendment to strike the provisions which
would impose a moratorium on adding new species to the threatened and
endangered list. A blanket moratorium on listing new species undercuts
the goals of the Endangered Species Act and undermines our Nation's
strong bipartisan--I stress bipartisan--history of conservation. This
is not a Republican measure. This is not a Democratic measure. The
efforts to preserve the endangered species of America has been a
bipartisan effort, signed, as I pointed out, by President Nixon in 1973
and passed by a Democratic Congress at that time.
Let me take a moment, if I might, to speak about the broader issue
that led me to support an effective law to protect endangered species.
I share the belief of many across our land that each species is
intrinsically valuable whether or not it is of obvious use to mankind.
I note that when Noah led the animals into the ark, he included all
species. If I could quote, ``One pair male and female of all beasts,
clean and unclean, of birds and everything that crawls on the ground.''
And God did not direct him to select only the most beautiful animals or
those plants that might have some particular use to mankind and perhaps
to help him to cure cancer, whatever it might be. Noah saved all
creatures.
One great strength of the Endangered Species Act is that it does not
just single out the bald eagle, or the bison, or the California whale,
or whatever it might be--some majestic symbol such as the grizzly bear.
It protects every endangered species and its essential habitat--and I
stress the habitat--simply because it is threatened with extinction.
Despite all the advantages of modern science, we really do
not understand the implications, the chain reaction that will be set in
motion when a given species vanishes. So, we should do all we can to
avoid taking such a chance.
Since last April, a moratorium has been in place on adding any new
species to the threatened and endangered list maintained by the Fish
and Wildlife Service. Listen to this. Since last April a moratorium has
been in place on adding any new species to the threatened and
endangered list, and for the past 5 months the Service has had no
funding to carry out any new listing activities. As a result, species
in need are not protected by the law. They are piling up on the
proposed candidate list. There are no new listings of endangered or
threatened. The Service can put those on the proposed and candidate
list but not the threatened or the endangered list.
Under the regular process established under the Endangered Species
Act, species are added to the endangered and threatened list by the
Secretary of the Interior based upon the best scientific knowledge
available. This takes years and involves several stages of review. It
is not done haphazardly. It takes public notice, comment, and hearings,
if requested, and, once listed, the Federal Government is committed to
conserve these species, and they are subject to the protections of the
act; that is, if they are listed as threatened or endangered.
Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 243 species, 196 of
which are plants proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Proposed species have been subject to a full scientific review and
considered to be at risk so as to require the protections of the act.
There are 182 species on the Fish and Wildlife Service list of
candidates. That is species thought to warrant protection for which the
Service has not yet had the resources to conduct a full review. Neither
the proposed nor the candidate species are subject to the protections
of the Endangered Species Act.
In other words, all that is taking place now, there is no protection
out there for those that are proposed or candidate. If they are already
on the list and endangered, and they have been so listed in the past,
that is OK. But they are discovering new species that are proposed and
candidates but they are not subject to any of the protections of the
Endangered Species Act. In other words, proposed and candidate
species--let us take plants for example--can be ripped up, hunted, and
sold, or the animals can still be hunted. In other words, what we are
doing is taking those that once upon a time seemed in pretty good
shape, but they were proposed, or candidates, and now they are becoming
more and more endangered because there is no protection of them.
That is no way to do business. Why should we care that species that
are in danger of extinction are left unprotected and are piling up on
these lists of proposed and candidates? The reasons are practical as
well as ethical. Failure to recognize and address the risk to imperiled
species and doing something about them now will make it much more
difficult and more expensive to conserve in the future. For one thing,
destruction of habitat that is essential for the survival of the
proposed and candidate species can proceed unchanged.
In other words, yes, they are potentially in danger, but you cannot
do anything about it. You cannot do anything about their habitat
preservation.
Thus, a prolonged moratorium on listing is likely to cause further
declines in the status of those species that are precluded from the
protections of the Endangered Species Act. The moratorium may eliminate
conservation options that are available now. In other words, the longer
the moratorium goes on, the less chance there is to come up with a
variety of options to save these endangered species. You cannot do
anything about them.
Each month the moratorium drags on increases the size of the backlog
of work for the biologists at the Fish and Wildlife Service. This
backlog and the lack of funding for listing activities such as research
and monitoring will lead inevitably to further delays and
inefficiencies down the road. Most importantly, it seems to me, Mr.
President, by refusing to protect these species, we fail to live up to
our moral obligation to act as good stewards.
Mr. President, the Endangered Species Act is far from perfect. It can
and should be improved. And with respect to private property rights,
the act should include more carrots and fewer
[[Page S1843]]
sticks--more inducements and fewer prohibitions. We recognize that. But
we are not going to solve the problems of the Endangered Species Act by
ignoring species that we know are in grave danger.
That is no way to solve the problem. The problems with the current
Endangered Species Act are not solved by cutting off funds that are
necessary for Fish and Wildlife to carry out its responsibilities.
The problems with the current Endangered Species Act should be
addressed through the normal authorization process, and that is what we
are trying to do.
I pay tribute to the chairman of the particular subcommittee in the
Environment and Public Works Committee, the junior Senator from Idaho,
for the hearings he has held and attempts he is making to reauthorize
this act. It is no easy job. We have had six hearings, three of them in
the West, on the reauthorization of the act. We have heard from 100
witnesses, and many of them have come up with good proposals. These
hearings, as I say, ably chaired by the junior Senator from Idaho, were
constructive and form the basis for continuing discussions.
So we are meeting, the staffs and members of the committee are
meeting regularly, working on legislation to reform the law. Certainly,
my best efforts will be put toward supporting a responsible Endangered
Species Act this year, and I look forward to working with all Senators
to complete successfully that important task.
However, I do not believe that the moratorium provisions contained in
this appropriations bill constitute a responsible step toward
completion of the reauthorization process. Enactment of the
reauthorization is not going to be easy. We know that through these
meetings and hearings that we have had. The only way it is going to
come about is if Senators are willing to back away from fixed positions
and inform their constituents that their constituents are not going to
get everything each one wants, either the environmentalists, the
lumbermen, or whoever it might be. So Senator Kempthorne, Senator
Baucus, Senator Reid, and I are working together striving to reach a
consensus on legislation to improve the act. Our staffs are meeting,
and we believe we are making good progress.
So, again, I wish to make it clear that I am in favor of passing
legislation to improve the act. And I seek to report a bill from the
committee this spring. But I believe a moratorium on adding new species
to the threatened and endangered list is just plain wrong. A moratorium
causes new problems and compounds the difficulties we are facing. It
does not make it easier. It makes it more difficult. Meanwhile, the
protections are not there that should be there, the protections of the
flora and fauna, the animals involved, and also their habitat that
should be theirs.
So, Mr. President, I hope the Reid amendment will be adopted.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the chairman of the committee leaves,
I wish to extend to him my appreciation for the work he has done as
chairman of the committee, and especially the guidance and, in effect,
free hand he has given the chairman of the subcommittee, the junior
Senator from Idaho, and myself to work on reauthorizing this
legislation.
As the chairman has pointed out, it is difficult legislation. We have
been working hard on this. Our staffs have had numerous meetings not
once every quarter, once every month, but numerous times. We have come
a long way toward each other's position. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, it is not unthinkable that we could come up with an
agreement on reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. So I
appreciate the statement of the chairman. I appreciate the support of
this amendment.
Also, Mr. President, I underline and underscore what the full
committee chairman has said. This amendment should not be approached on
a partisan basis. For instance, as important and as successful as it
has been, Democrats cannot take all the credit for passing the Clean
Water Act. One President who did a great deal for environmental matters
in this country was President Nixon. Some of the most influential
environmental legislators we have had this century have been
Republicans.
So I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will
approach this matter with an open mind because all we are trying to do
is remove this moratorium. We talk about emergency listing. Mr.
President, it is used very rarely--only in imminent risk of a species
being wiped out. We need, before we list species, to have good science,
and this is not the way to go. This is not good science.
The emergency listing does nothing for the vast majority of 243
species that are already proposed for listing, let alone 182 candidate
species. In the meantime, these species continue to decline. The
emergency listing exception to the moratorium is a Band-Aid approach,
Mr. President, largely a cosmetic solution to a very real problem. And
there is no better example of that than what has happened with the
spotted owl. The longer you wait to list, the more difficult and
complicated the problem becomes.
So, Mr. President, I know there are many others on the floor who wish
to speak. It is late at night. I understand there will be an offer of
an agreement that will allow the Senator from Texas and the Senator
from Nevada in the morning to close the debate. With that in mind, I
will yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question before he yields the
floor?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. EXON. Let me see if I understand the amendment the Senator is
offering. As I understand it, the situation we are now confronted with
is that the continuing resolutions that have been offered, the series
of them and potentially more, in each and every instance the funding
mechanism has been tied to a caveat that no new Endangered Species Act
may be placed in force. In other words, there is a prohibition from
changing or adding to the endangered species list, period, as we face
the situation right now. Is that correct?
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely correct. Not only was there a
moratorium back in April of last year offered and passed, but in
addition to that, each time we come up with a continuing resolution
there is no additional funding placed, so that the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service simply are without
any funds to list anything. So we have two problems: One is no money
and a moratorium on further listing.
Mr. EXON. I was able to hear only the tail end of the remarks made by
the chairman of the committee. I hope something could be worked out.
I have some concerns that the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service
are so restricted now that they could not put something on the list
that was really endangered. On the other hand, I happen to feel that
the bureaucracy in this area has gone overboard in some areas, by the
number of species that they have placed on this list. If the amendment
offered by the Senator from Nevada becomes law, would that open up the
situation to where the Federal bureaucracy, who has the responsibility
for doing the scientific research, supposedly, and then making a
determination as to what species should go on the endangered list--
would they be free and clear to proceed with the investigation and the
identification of endangered species exactly the way they were before
the prohibition was put into the law on the continuing number of
continuing resolutions?
Mr. REID. I respond to my friend, we have talked about this. I am
happy to, again, address this.
As the chairman of the full committee and I feel, the moratorium has
been very detrimental to scientific listing of plants and animals.
During the period of time this moratorium has been in effect, the
Senator from Nevada and the junior Senator from Idaho have been working
on a reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I acknowledge that
we need to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act and make some changes
in it. We need more public input. We need more involvement of the State
governments that simply are not allowed in the act anymore. We need
peer review. We need better science in listing these species. And there
are a number of other proposals that I think--I do not think, I know
the Senator from Idaho, as chairman of the subcommittee, and I want to
put
[[Page S1844]]
into a bill for reauthorization. What the moratorium has done, as far
as this Senator is concerned, is it has prevented us from going forward
on reauthorization, because there are some who simply want no further
listing.
As I mentioned just a short time ago, I say to the Senator from
Nebraska, when the moratorium went into effect we had 182 candidate
species, and in addition to that we had 243 species already listed with
which we have not been able to go forward. I spent a good part of the
debate earlier this afternoon talking about how, really, that is not
helpful to us.
I say to my colleague, 80 percent of the prescription drugs that the
American public goes to a drugstore to get have in them elements taken
from plants. I read a series of statements from physicians saying,
``You cannot stop now. You have some of these listed. By the time you
get around to listing some others they are going to be gone.'' I also
say to my friend, although recognizing the Endangered Species Act as it
is written needs changing, we cannot, while we are trying to make the
act better, let these species become extinct. And it is not a left-wing
cabal that is pushing getting rid of this moratorium. There is a group
of Evangelical Christians who are saying, ``You cannot do this. You
have to support the listing of these endangered species. Because once
they are gone they are gone.''
So I say to my friend from Nebraska, I recognize that the Endangered
Species Act has some problems, but we are trying to correct that. The
junior Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Nevada have been working
to come up with a bill that we hope to get out on the floor this
session, I hope. But in the meantime we cannot let all these species
that are becoming extinct become extinct.
Mr. EXON. I am not a member of the committee so I am not fully
informed on all of these issues. I appreciate very much the explanation
that is being given by my friend from Nevada.
Under the system that we have always had with regard to the
identification of endangered species, as I understand it, it was that
the agency of jurisdiction would do scientific research which they
would manage and direct to determine whether something was really
endangered or not, or to what degree it was endangered.
But after the agency of jurisdiction makes that determination, then
do they have, under the law, authority, as part of the bureaucracy, to
say, All right, that plant or that animal or that fish is an endangered
species, and we so designate it as an endangered species and that is
it?
Mr. REID. Well, yes, I guess in short term that is it. One of the
things we need to work on, and we are working on in the reauthorization
of this bill, is to allow better science and to allow more than just
the Federal agencies to have some voice in whether or not a species is
threatened.
Mr. EXON. How do you propose to do that?
Mr. REID. We are going to do that in a number of different ways. We
are going to allow better peer review, that is more scientific input,
and also allow State and/or local government some input into whether or
not the listing should take place.
Mr. EXON. But the final decision still rests with the agency of
jurisdiction?
Mr. REID. The final decision would rest with the agency of
jurisdiction. However, I think under the proposal of the Senator from
Idaho and myself, prior to arriving at that point there would be a much
more deliberative process than there is now.
Mr. EXON. Has the Senator ever considered the possibility of having
these people proceed as they have with the identification of an
endangered species, and then, before we added more species to that
list, it be voted on by the Congress of the United States?
Mr. REID. There has been consideration given to that. But, I would
say to my friend from Nebraska, that I think, as I have indicated, we
now have 243 species that have already been listed and we have 182
candidate species. I do not really think that should be the role of
Congress, to vote on each of those.
We could spend a lot of time that should be spent in the agencies of
government, both Federal and State. Of all of the numerous special
interest groups I have listened to--homebuilders and contractors, labor
unions, environmental groups--I do not think anyone has suggested we
should vote on each one of those. I think they all suggest that the
process should be more deliberative in nature and allow more input from
the private sector, not because the Federal agencies have done anything
wrong in listing the endangered species, but the purpose is to allow
State governments and the local entities to feel better about the
listing, so they understand it better.
To this point it has all been done by the Federal Government and
there has not been enough input from State and local governments. So, I
would say to my friend, I think the main thing we have to take into
consideration is there probably have been some listings that have been
wrong, although I do not know of any. But I think the problem is--take,
for example, in Nevada. We have, surprisingly enough, word that we are
the fourth highest State in the whole Nation for endangered species. It
is surprising to some people because we are an arid State. But one that
caused a lot of attention was the desert tortoise in southern Nevada.
It literally brought construction in rapidly growing Las Vegas to a
standstill until we worked it out.
I do not think, in hindsight, there was anything wrong in listing the
desert tortoise. But State and local governments should have had more
input in that listing, rather than having it just given to us all at
one time, and that is what we are trying to do in the reauthorization.
Mr. EXON. I agree with my friend. I am not sure with how much I
disagree, though. I generally have been supportive of all the agencies
that have something to do with this matter. I think the environment is
very, very important. I do, though, think maybe sometimes we, here in
the Congress, give too much authority to the bureaucracy to make
determinations. At one time --I do not know whether it is by the boards
or not, now--but they talked about putting the rattlesnake on the
endangered species list. Those of us who have been born and raised and
been around rattlesnakes, we really do not believe they are endangered
now, and I do not believe they are.
But it seems to me at least maybe we should consider--not that we can
take the time to go through each and every one of these things, but
certainly, possibly, we should at least consider the possibility, when
something is put on the endangered species list, whether it is one
species or 100 species, at one time, maybe the bureaucracy should have
to make a better case to the people's representatives here, to say yes
or no, rather than, carte blanche, giving them the authority after the
input that you say should be improved with regard to State and local
governments.
I am just saying that I have some concerns. I think this whole matter
of endangered species has been overstated, and yet, I must say to my
friend, I congratulate him for bringing this up, because when we have a
situation today when we cannot add on anything, even though they are
critically endangered, it is a concern to me.
Mr. REID. I respond to my friend, we not only have a danger of the
listing, but to this Senator a real concern about not listing. If we
wait too long--and that is what we are doing in this instance. I
indicated we have 243 that are waiting to be listed. We need to
proceed. Not listing is a concern.
I also say to my friend from Nebraska, in a Nickles-Reid amendment
that was adopted by this body 100 to 0 last year, which was an
amendment to the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act which we received
from the House of Representatives, we said that if there is a
regulation promulgated by a Federal Agency that has a certain financial
impact, we in Congress would have 45 days to look at that, and if we
did not like it, we could rescind it legislatively. That is, I am quite
certain, going to come back when we do regulation reform in the next
few days.
So under that proposal, if something happened like listing an
endangered species in Las Vegas that certainly had a financial impact
on the level Senator Nickles and I talked about, in that instance, we
would have had the ability in Congress, if the action had been grievous
enough, to rescind the action of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
[[Page S1845]]
Mr. EXON. To use an example, and then I will yield the floor, if the
controlling agency would declare the rattlesnake an endangered species,
we in the Congress could override that under what you have in place?
Mr. REID. Under the Nickles-Reid amendment, if the financial impact
is such, as they were told it was in southern Nevada, if there is no
financial impact, we continue. But if there is a financial impact, this
Congress would have a right because that is a regulation and rule
promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for answering my questions. I have some
concerns on both sides of the issue. Mr. President, I thank him very
much. I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I say, as usual, my friend from Nebraska asked piercing
questions, and during his entire time in the Senate he has always been
on top of the issues. I appreciate the questions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka be added as
a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe this Congress erred last year
when it allowed passage of a moratorium on new listings of endangered
species, and new designations of critical habitat. This action did
nothing to reduce the decline of wild plants and animals in our Nation,
and across the world. If anything, the need to prevent their loss has
grown, as God's creatures continue to lose a growing war against them.
The moratorium did nothing to reduce the complications or costs of
protecting them. In all likelihood, it has only made it more difficult
as valuable time, and preferable management options, have been lost.
The moratorium provided no funds to stimulate new approaches for
conservation. It provided no financial incentives for private
landowners. It did nothing to streamline listing procedures or tighten
the quality of scientific determinations of species' risk. Instead, it
built a false hope that somehow these problems would simply go away if
we tried to put them away.
It is understandable that nature does not heed man's advice. But it
is unfortunate that we fail to heed nature's advice when it is so
plain. Wild plants and animals are declining at rates thousands of
times faster today than ever before in the fossil record. It is no
coincidence that man's population, our thirst for natural resources,
and our environmental problems, have grown just as fast in the opposite
direction. Our ability to intelligently and effectively manage our
resources has not kept pace with our ability, or desire, to use them.
That is why we developed an Endangered Species Act and other laws for
the conservation of wild plants and animals, and the basic natural
resources upon which both they, and we, depend. We must do a better job
of managing all natural resources for the complete spectrum of human
needs they satisfy, and all of the values they provide. Man cannot live
by bread alone.
There are many arguments pro and con about the effectiveness of the
ESA. Some say our success rate at saving species is too low to be worth
the effort. Others say that it is too little, too late. For sure, the
odds are against us when we let problems get so far out of hand. So it
is a great credit to everyone involved in recovery of endangered
species that we have so many great success stories like the peregrine
falcon, bald eagle, and Pacific yew tree. But I say that the single
most important measure of success for the ESA is whether it has really
made us better stewards of our resources.
Without a doubt it has. Federal and State agencies pursue multiple
use goals and conflict resolution with far greater expertise than they
otherwise might. Some very bad government projects have been scrapped
or modified over the years. Private conservation efforts are far more
sophisticated and widespread. Other nations look more carefully at
their actions. Science has pushed farther and wider to understand the
causes of species decline, as well as the cures. Because of our concern
about other creatures we have learned more about saving ourselves and
leading better, more sustainable lives than we could ever have hoped
all alone. Perhaps that is one reason God put them here with us.
Perhaps our journey should not be alone.
I recognize that stewardship comes with sacrifice. And I recognize
that it can be misdirected at times. I support reforms to the ESA that
ensure that the sacrifices involved are reasonable, supportable, and
specifically targeted toward the prevention of species' decline, or
their recovery. While the ESA moratorium has done virtually nothing to
further progress in these areas, we are fortunate to have an
administration that has been busy nonetheless.
In this past year the Secretary of the Interior has implemented a
broad series of administrative reforms to the ESA, including listing
procedures for endangered species, that go a long way toward solving
problems that may have existed with it. This reform plan includes
stronger peer review of listings to ensure good science; a safe harbor
policy for landowners creating new habitat; speedy habitat conservation
plans and negotiated regional habitat protection approaches; greater
State and local involvement in recovery planning; and recommendations
for new positive incentives for landowners. In addition, the list of so
called ``candidate species'' has been updated after careful scientific
peer review. The procedure for listing candidates has been changed so
that only those species meeting a higher standard of scientific
information are included.
Last April when Congress added the ESA moratorium to the Defense
supplemental appropriations bill it singled out the ESA, and
inaccurately portrayed it as the cause of many of our Nation's economic
woes. For the past year our economy has been no significantly different
than it would have without this moratorium. Today we can set the record
straight by ending this moratorium and providing an appropriate level
of funds to get the law working again.
More than a century ago Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the famous
Sherlock Holmes mysteries, wrote: ``so often those who try to rise
above nature are condemned to fall beneath it.'' Let's not make that
mistake with the ESA by suggesting that a blind eye sees a brighter
future. Let's get back on track with the implementation of the ESA with
its new reforms, and resolve not to waste any more time. For many
creatures, time is running out.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, authorization of the Endangered Species Act
expired nearly 4 years ago on September 30, 1992. Since then, Congress
has kept the law alive by feeding it new appropriations each year.
Funding without authorization is not the way to enact policy,
especially one with such a high profile and one which produces such
profound effects on our environment and our economy.
I have been to the floor numerous times in those 4 years to recount
serious problems with the law as it is being administered.
It is far too costly; $500 million per year is being spent on Snake
River salmon alone. No economic commonsense is being applied--or
required--under the current law.
The section 7 consultation process is out of control. Dozens of
projects have been delayed past the point of economic viability while
waiting for concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
One year ago, a complete shutdown of all multiple use activities on 6
Idaho national forests nearly became a reality because of confusion
over section 7.
Even today, the Forest Service is proposing to shut down guided
rafting trips on the Salmon River to protect spawning salmon. But they
are proposing to stop rafting at times of the year when there are no
fish in the river. None of this makes any sense, and it unnecessarily
angers people, but that is the way the law is being applied.
The law makes enemies of private landowners because of the regulation
and fear it engenders. You don't build cooperation for endangered
species by taking a person's rights or their land.
Despite the obvious need to reauthorize the ESA, reform legislation
has been locked in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
year after year.
My patience has run out. The authorizing committee must generate
action on the two reform bills which have sat in committee for months--
Senator Gorton's S. 768 and Senator Kempthorne's S. 1364. I am a
cosponsor of both bills.
[[Page S1846]]
Until we turn seriously to the matter of reauthorization, I will
continue to support the moratorium on new listings and designations of
critical habitat.
The people of Idaho and the Nation continue to believe that
conserving fish and wildlife species for the enjoyment of future
generations is still the right thing to do. They want to make changes
to the law, but don't want to see the Endangered Species Act
eliminated.
Senator Kempthorne's bill walks that line by: using incentives on
private lands, not regulations; granting States a greater role;
offering realistic conservation alternatives; and requiring that
priorities be set and costs controlled.
The committee has been ignoring these good ideas. They are covering
their eyes and pretending that no significant problems exist while
holding ESA reauthorization at bay.
I am confident we can reform the law in a way which will win the
confidence of the American public. We must give it a try. I challenge
the committee to move toward open debate and consideration of reform
legislation.
Until that happens, I will support the moratorium.
Amendment No. 3479 to Amendment No. 3478
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the Reid
amendment. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration. This is a Hutchison-Kempthorne amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself and
Mr. Kempthorne, proposes an amendment numbered 3479 to
amendment No. 3478.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the language proposed to be stricken, on page 75 insert
the following: ``Provided further, That no monies
appropriated under this Act or any other law shall be used by
the Secretary of Commerce to issue final determinations under
subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (g) or (i) of section 4 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533), until
such time as legislation reauthorizing the Act is enacted or
until the end of fiscal year 1996, whichever is earlier,
except that monies appropriated under this Act may be used to
delist or reclassify species pursuant to subsections
4(a)(2)(B), 4(c)(2)(B)(I), and 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the
Endangered Species Act, and may be used to issue emergency
listings under section 4(b)(7) of the Endangered Species
Act.''
On page 412, line 23, strike ``$497,670,000'' and insert
``$497,670,001''.
On page 412, line 24, after ``1997,'', insert the
following: ``of which $750,001 shall be available for species
listings under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533),''.
In the language proposed to be stricken, strike all after
the word 1997 on page 413, line 11, through the word Act on
page 413, line 20, and insert the following: ``Provided
further, That no monies appropriated under this Act or any
other law shall be used by the Secretary of the Interior to
issue final determinations under subsections (a), (b), (c),
(e), (g) or (i) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533), until such time as legislation
reauthorizing the Act is enacted or until the end of fiscal
year 1996, whichever is earlier, except that monies
appropriated under this Act may be used to delist or
reclassify species pursuant to subsections 4(a)(2)(B),
4(c)(2)(B)(I), and 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species
Act, and may be used to issue emergency listings under
section 4(b)(7) of the Endangered Species Act.''
On page 461, line 24, strike ``$1,255,005,000'' and insert
``$1,255,004,999''.
On page 462, line 5, before the colon, insert the
following: ``, of which not more than $81,349,999 is
available for travel expenses''.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate resume consideration of the Hutchison-Kempthorne amendment to
the Reid amendment at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13, after the
Members who are here have had a chance to debate, of course; that there
be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Hutchison and
Reid; further, that immediately following that debate, the amendments
be temporarily set aside; that immediately following the cloture vote
at 2 o'clock p.m., Senator Reid be recognized to make a motion to table
the Hutchison amendment; further, if the Hutchison amendment is not
tabled, the Senate proceed to a vote on the amendment without
intervening action, to be followed immediately by a vote on the Reid
amendment, as amended, if amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do not intend to object, but I want to
ask one question, if I might. If I understood the proposal correctly,
there will be adequate time this evening for further discussion. So the
Senator is not cutting things off right now, as I understand it?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct, Mr. President. The floor will be
open for debate unlimited tonight, but this will take effect after the
debate has finished tonight, and it will be the procedural order.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no reservation of the right to
object. The Senator is recognized for an inquiry.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, just so I understand the unanimous-consent
request, there will be 15 minutes controlled by the Senator from Nevada
and 15 minutes controlled by the Senators from Idaho and Texas in the
morning?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Order of Procedure
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I announce, on behalf of the leader,
that there will be no further votes tonight, and that the votes will
occur as described in the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Idaho
is recognized.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, let me acknowledge the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, who spoke just
a few moments ago. He referenced the hearings that we held around the
country. I want to compliment Senator Chafee, because while he is the
chairman of the full committee, he still attended all the hearings. In
addition to the hearings, he took part in the field trips associated
with them. That fact just speaks volumes as to how he is approaching
this issue--trying to see the perspective of those of us from States
that are natural resource based who feel how onerous the Endangered
Species Act has been in its administration. I think he also heard from
the people in the West that they support the goals of the Endangered
Species Act. They want to make it work. Right now, it is not working.
Senator Reid, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee that I am
privileged to chair, has pointed out that we are engaged in those
sessions where we regularly are discussing the elements of a
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Our staffs are fully
engaged in this so that we can come up with a reform of the Endangered
Species Act, because just as Senator Reid has stated that he has heard
no group say that we ought to abolish the Endangered Species Act, I do
not think I have heard of any Senator saying we should not reform the
existing act. So we are engaged in that.
Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, who spoke moments ago, said that
we ought to abandon any sloganeering and the rhetoric. Boy, do I agree
with that.
This issue on the Endangered Species Act, without question, is one of
the most polarized issues that Congress will deal with, because you are
so quickly labeled if you deal with the Endangered Species Act. You are
going to be labeled either antibusiness or antienvironment. Now choose.
But which of those is a winning label?
That is why we have to stop this nonsense of the rhetoric that is
escalating this and do what is right for the species and for the people
who are the stewards of this land trying to protect the species and
bring about the well-being of these species.
We undertook this same sort of effort with the Safe Drinking Water
Act: 10 months of sitting down at the table, back and forth, back and
forth. And I will tell you, for a number of those
[[Page S1847]]
months, Senator Chafee and I did not agree. But we ultimately agreed,
as did Senator Baucus and Senator Reid.
We are trying to do the same sort of process so that we can bring
about meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act.
I do not know if it is possible this year. I do not know if this
thing has been so highly politically charged and if somebody has made a
determination that this is going to be the political litmus test on
whether or not you are proenvironment or not. If that has happened,
then we can stop right now, because it will not happen. We will play
politics with it. And that is wrong.
I stood here on the floor of the Senate when we dealt with the
enactment of the funds for listing activities, the rescission package.
I stood here and I defended the money that was authorized and
appropriated because it is a meaningful activity. I am pleased to
cosponsor the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from
Texas, Senator Hutchison, because the amendment is very
straightforward. It allows all listing-related activities except the
final determination that a species is threatened or endangered. And
significantly, it also allows the Secretary to emergency list a species
under the existing regulations. It also allows the down listing of
endangered to threatened and the delisting of final rules.
Straightforward.
I want to discuss then the very real need for Endangered Species Act
reform and the role of the current moratorium that is on the books
right now and how it applies. When we enacted the moratorium initially
last year there was a sense that we needed a timeout from the listing
process, a sense that the Endangered Species Act as it is currently
implemented is not working. The act is not saving the species that we
all want to preserve. It is not saving those species.
The purpose of the moratorium was to give all of us and the
administration and Congress an opportunity to explore meaningful reform
of the act to make it work better.
That purpose for the moratorium is just as relevant today and maybe
even more so. Together with my colleague, Senator Reid, who is the
ranking member of the subcommittee that I chair, I am using this
timeout to reform and improve the Endangered Species Act.
Our goal--and I emphasize the words ``our goal''--is to develop the
bill over the next few weeks that will actually preserve endangered
species and improve their habitat. This is a goal that we can all
share. But the moratorium is an important element of that effort.
People outside of the beltway who have to live with the real-life
impact of the Endangered Species Act understand the importance of the
moratorium.
Let me read an excerpt from a letter I received last week from the
American Farm Bureau. They state:
Authorization of the Endangered Species Act expired over 3
years ago. Congress has clearly failed in its responsibility
to address the issue surrounding how our Nation is protecting
endangered species. This has occurred despite the calls for
change in the act from business, the environmental community,
Secretary Babbitt, and others. Farmers and ranchers,
thousands of whom attended ESA field hearings throughout the
Nation, are concerned that a new Endangered Species Act will
never even be considered by the Congress. Clearly without a
listing moratorium, there is no incentive to reauthorize the
act.
It is for that reason that I cosponsored the amendment by Senator
Hutchison. The Hutchison amendment as I stated, will continue the
moratorium until we either reauthorize the law or at the end of the
existing fiscal year. This will keep the pressure on all of us to craft
a bill that we believe addresses the real problems with the Endangered
Species Act.
The moratorium also applies only to final listings. The Secretary can
still perform all of his other functions under the Endangered Species
Act, including all preliminary activities up to final listing and
actions related to the recovery of listed species.
The Hutchison amendment improves on the current moratorium by
recognizing that situations may arise where a species is really in
trouble. I do not want to drive any species to extinction. I do not
know of anyone else who would willingly do so. Therefore, if there is
an emergency and the Secretary has complied with the other requirements
of the act, the Secretary can add the species to the list and would
have the authority to use this emergency listing power to protect the
species.
Finally, the Hutchison amendment allows the Secretary to delist and
downlist species if that action is appropriate. The moratorium is an
important first step in our effort to achieve substantial reform of the
Endangered Species Act.
As chairman of the Drinking Water and Fisheries and Wildlife
Subcommittee I have held a number of field hearings as well as hearings
here in the Nation's capital to look at the current Endangered Species
Act and to identify ways to improve the act.
It is clear from the testimony we gather that the Endangered Species
Act has not accomplished what Congress intended when it was written
more than 20 years ago. And it is clear that it is possible to achieve
better results for species by improving the act. That is what we are
engaged in, trying to improve the act.
When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973, it was
intended to slow the extinction of plants and animals that we share
this Earth with. When former Senator Jim McClure, who was here when the
ESA was first written, testified before the Environment and Public
Works Committee just 2 years ago, he referred to the Endangered Species
Act as a ``great and noble experiment.''
He stated it was the intent of Congress in 1973 to ``legislate the
lofty ideal of a National effort to conserve species * * *.'' He also
made it clear that the way the Endangered Species Act has been
regulated has made a mockery of that intent. He stated that ``* * *
lack of specific direction in some areas of the act could be corrected
by the administrative agencies charged with implementing the act.''
But in Roseburg, OR, in Lewiston, ID, and Casper, WY, the people who
live with the ESA told us correction has not happened. We heard from a
rancher in Joseph, OR, who described how Federal regulators under the
threat of a lawsuit from environmentalists tried to stop all grazing on
forest lands in the mountains because salmon were spawning in streams
that ran through the private lands below. But, in his words, ``the cows
were up in the high mountains, as far from the spawning habitat as you
could get.'' The ranchers had supporting letters from the Northwest
Power Planning Council and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
but the Federal regulators would not see the reason to this.
We also heard from county officials in Challis, ID, about another
lawsuit to shutdown all resource related activities on national forests
in Custer the Lemhi Counties for the sake of preserving salmon habitat.
The lawsuit would have resulted in a loss of 31 percent of the county's
job and a 38-percent decrease in earnings. The impact on salmon would
have been negligible since over 90 percent of the salmon spawning
ground in Custer County is on private land.
We need to do a better job of making this act work, while recognizing
the legitimate needs of people at the same time. We have let the
regulators use the Endangered Species Act as a club against the very
people who ought to help make the Endangered Species Act work * * *
that is the citizens of the United States. The fact is the people spend
too much time trying to comply with too much paperwork and too many
regulations from too many Federal agencies. Just the consultation
process alone can take years, particularly when the agencies involved
disagree as they often do. In one case in Idaho, for example, a simple
bridge was held up for over a year while the National Marine Fisheries
Service reviewed a proposed construction plan that had been already
approved by the Corps of Engineers, the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, Idaho Department of Water Resources, and Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality. The National Marine Fisheries Service ultimately
prevailed. Their bridge cost over four times as much as the original
approved design.
Citizens spent too much time being afraid that a threatened or an
endangered species will appear on their land and they will then be told
what they can and cannot do with their land. In our field hearings, for
example, several people testified that land owners who had previously
managed their land intelligently in a way to preserve older
[[Page S1848]]
trees are now cutting them down quickly because they are scared. They
are scared that the Federal Government will find new endangered or
threatened species down the road and come in and tell them that they
will not be able to cut down their trees in the future.
The Endangered Species Act needs to be carefully reviewed, carefully
debated, carefully rewritten so that it accomplishes its fundamental
purpose to conserve species. We cannot wait any longer. The original
reasons for the moratorium remain valid. Until the Endangered Species
Act is reformed to accomplish what it was intended to do, there is no
reason to add more species to it.
The only condition for removing the moratorium was reform to the
Endangered Species Act. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt initially said
there was no need for legislative changes in the act. After 2 years,
though, of initiating administrative corrections to the act, he told my
subcommittee that he was recommending a 10-point legislative plan to
address endangered species. A 10-point legislative plan.
It appeared the changes he recommended were largely to bring the
Endangered Species Act into compliance with his administrative changes.
In fact, a major landowner who has spent literally millions of dollars
to comply with the Secretary's administrative changes told our
committee that they were not sure how their investment would hold up in
the courts if they were ever challenged because the changes are not
part of the law.
I saw a very real need to include the Secretary's plan in my bill,
and so the Secretary's 10-point plan is part of the reform that is
being offered.
I also looked at the Western Governor's Association who had been
through an exhaustive process to determine what that bipartisan group
of Governors needed by way of Endangered Species Act reform. We have
incorporated all of the language of the Western Governor's Association
into this reform that we are bringing forward.
Last month the President was in Idaho addressing the needs of flood
victims in the northern part of my State. During the course of his
visit we had a good discussion about these environmental issues.
Working off of the cooperation between Federal, State and local
governments who are working together to help flood victims, the
President acknowledged and made the point that we need to establish the
same sort of partnership to reform the Endangered Species Act. I want
to take him up on that challenge.
I want to take this opportunity to again compliment Senator Reid,
because we are working through this process. I hope it will bear the
results that we are after. It should. We are making a good-faith
effort. It should because it needs to be done. It should because we
ought to do it this year instead of having to see that it becomes
political fodder and we cannot deal with it.
I want to move forward this year with kind of a bipartisan bill that
will incorporate the very real changes that everyone agrees are needed.
Until then it only seems appropriate that the timeout represented by
the moratorium is the best way to encourage everyone to stay at the
table until we get this job done.
Perhaps the administration agrees. The moratorium was not in force
during certain periods between continuing resolutions during 1995. The
Secretary announced that he was not going to rush through various
listing packages or critical habitat designations during that time.
Instead, he honored the intent of the moratorium. Why honor the intent
of the moratorium when it did not apply, and now seek to overturn it
during an emergency bill?
There is an emergency in America concerning the Endangered Species
Act. And from the view of my State, that need must be addressed by
reform, not just adding more species to the list. If there is an
emergency with regards to a particular species as a result of this
moratorium, let Members address that.
It is evident to me that if we are to move forward to a safer,
cleaner, healthier future, we have to change the way Washington
regulates laws like the Endangered Species Act. States and communities
must be allowed, even encouraged, to take a greater role in
environmental regulations and oversight. After all, who knows better
about what each community needs, a local leader or someone hundreds of
miles away in Washington, DC?
There are national environmental standards that must be set in the
Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Government must make that
determination, but Federal resources must be targeted and allocated
more effectively, and that's why we must have a greater involvement by
State and local officials.
The improvements we need in Washington go beyond State and local
involvement. We need to plan for the future of our children, not just
for today. Science and technology are constantly changing and
improving. In the case of the Endangered Species Act, the Federal
Government hasn't kept up with these improvements, and old regulations
have become outdated and don't do the best job they can. That is why I
want to reform the Endangered Species Act.
In the meantime, Mr. President, I think the moratorium on listings is
the best tool we have to ensure that we continue to work toward
meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act.
I conclude by saying this: As I listened to Senator Reid make his
points about the areas that he thinks we should focus on, I do not find
myself in disagreement. He is touching on a number of those issues that
I do think we need to deal with. We may have a different approach as to
how we correct them. That is what we are discussing at our sessions
that we regularly conduct. We need to deal with this.
Senator Chafee referenced Noah and the flood--now when I had the
discussion with the President, we referenced that too. I have heard
people say that you should not change the Endangered Species Act, and
they call it Project Noah, where Noah was charged to save those animals
two by two. I believe that Noah had to have two-by-fours in order to
construct the ark to save those animals, so we need balance. If there
had been an Endangered Species Act in existence at the time that Noah
was charged with saving those species, I do not know if he would have
gotten permits before the floods came.
That is how a lot of landowners feel right now. They want to save the
species. They can do it. Who are the very people that can do it? Is it
the attorneys in the courtrooms litigating all of this? Absolutely not.
Where you save the species is on the ground. On the ground, where their
habitat is.
So why do we not change this whole atmosphere from adversaries to
advocates? Why do we not enlist all of the American people in this
great crusade to save these species? Right now we have them divided
right down the middle. I challenge all of us that are dealing with this
issue to step up to the plate so that Congress no longer abdicates its
responsibility because it is too politically sensitive. We should deal
with it, deal with it for the species, and deal with it for the people
who in too many instances are finding that it threatens their well-
being, it threatens entire communities.
That is not what was intended by Congress in 1973 when it first
enacted the Endangered Species Act. We should be realistic. I am being
realistic in cosponsoring the Hutchison second-degree amendment. It is
going to keep us at the table. It is at the table that we are going to
write the reform that is necessary with regard to the Endangered
Species Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation, referenced earlier
in my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Washington, DC,
March 7, 1996.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: During consideration of the
Continuing Resolution, we urge you to oppose any effort to
remove the moratorium on listing of endangered species or the
designation of habitat for endangered species.
Authorization of the Endangered Species Act expired over
three years ago. Congress has clearly failed in its
responsibility to address the issues surrounding how our
nation protects endangered species. This has occurred despite
the calls for change in the Act
[[Page S1849]]
from business, the environmental community, Secretary Babbitt
and landowners. Farm Bureau, at every level, has involved
itself in providing the Congress with a wealth of information
on ESA and how farmers and ranchers can be part of the
solution in protecting species. Our members, thousands of
whom have attended ESA field hearings throughout the nation,
are concerned that a new Endangered Species Act will never be
even considered by the Congress. Clearly, without a listing
moratorium, there is no incentive to reauthorize the Act.
Again, we ask that you oppose any effort to remove the
moratorium and support any effort to reauthorize the Act this
year.
Dean R. Kleckner,
President.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for all
that the junior Senator from Idaho has done in connection with working
on the reauthorization of this act. As he pointed out, he has a
determination, and I share that determination, to get this act
reauthorized this year.
Here is the situation, Mr. President: As I understand the second-
degree amendment that the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Idaho
have submitted, and if I am wrong I would appreciate if he would
correct me, I have a copy of it here, but there may have been changes
to it since. What this does is say to the Secretary of Interior that in
an emergency there can be a listing of the animal or plant as
endangered.
What that means to me, and here is the problem, the situation has
gotten so desperate that it therefore qualifies for an emergency
listing. By that time it is close to being too late. That is the whole
problem. That is why this moratorium is bad business. Now it said here,
well, we agreed to a moratorium last April so, therefore, we agreed to
a moratorium in perpetuity. No, I never agreed to anything like that. I
agreed to a moratorium last April that took us through to the end of
that fiscal year. That does not mean I am for going on and on with this
business, especially because of the very point that it seems to me that
the second-degree amendment stresses, that by having these moratoriums
the situation gets worse and worse, no action is taken, and then you
come rushing in under an emergency listing. Yes, that is better than
nothing but by that time it is probably too late. The cost is so
significant.
In connection with that, I might say they reduce the money that has
been proposed by the Senator from Nevada very, very substantially. The
moneys that are available are not going to do the trick here as far as
saving these species that have now reached the emergency situation.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I do not find that the second-
degree amendment solves the problems we have been dealing with here
this evening. I hope, as I hoped the original amendment would be
approved, namely, the Reid amendment, I hope that careful consideration
would be given by all to this second-degree amendment and there will be
a motion--I presume by the Senator from Nevada--to table that second-
degree amendment. I urge favorable consideration of that motion to
table because of the reasons enunciated. Namely, we do not want this
situation to reach the emergency status.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the debate Senate Reid has started
regarding the Endangered Species Act is a good one. We need to
reexamine this act and where we have succeeded and where we have
failed.
However, the amendment by my friend from Nevada moves a step away
from reforming a well-intended law. Therefore, I must oppose Senator
Reid's amendment.
The Endangered Species Act [ESA] was well intended. But, like many
good ideas, its original intent has been twisted and misused. It has
been turned away from an act designed to protect species, and instead
is being used to close down thousands, if not millions, of acres of
land throughout our country.
In Montana, we have wolves being placed in Yellowstone as an
experimental population under the Endangered Species Act. We have miles
and miles of roads being closed in order to protect grizzly bears. And,
we face the threat of listing of the Bull Trout even though our State
is taking an incredibly active role in managing this specie. While
Montanans are proud of our wildlife, we are equally proud of the
lifestyle we cherish. This is based on the balance and wise-use of our
lands.
Senator Reid's amendment would repeal a moratorium on the listing of
new species on the endangered list. Under the moratorium, prelisting
work and recovery activities are still under way. The moratorium does
not effect these activities.
But, the moratorium on listing is important because it gives the
Congress and the administration an opportunity to reexamine the
Endangered Species Act. We need to allow the Environment and Public
Works Committee an opportunity to do their job. The committee held a
number of hearings last year throughout the United States on the act.
Now, we need to allow the committee to report a bill which will address
the inadequacies of the act.
While most Americans agree we need to protect and recover endangered
species, there are a wide range of beliefs on the extent and costs
which should be incurred.
The process is out of control. For every dollar we spend on recovery,
we spend another on process. This includes consultation, law
enforcement, listing, and permits. That ratio needs to change. We need
more recover for our money.
One example for Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is the salmon.
Should we spend $1 billion each year and increase electric rates in the
name of the salmon in the Columbia River? Yet we have not recovered one
fish in the process.
We can do a better job at protecting species at a lesser cost to the
Federal treasury, local communities dependent on natural resources and
landowners. I hope the Reid amendment will be rejected and that we can
continue to consider a complete reauthorization of the act in the near
future.
Mr. President, the work that has been going on now for the
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act has been going on ever
since I walked through these doors. I would like to have a nickel for
every word that has been spoken about the good intentions of
reauthorizing the act. It has not been done yet. Given that track
record, it just goes to prove that the way Washington works and the way
we regulate have to be looked at.
I would rather this amendment not come up. I do not think this is the
time or place to consider this issue, as an amendment on this bill. The
Committee on Environment and Public Works has the reauthorization now
under consideration and should come forth with legislation for this
body to vote on.
We should let that process move forward. The law, in its present
form, is not working in the manner in which it was intended or in a way
it can be successful. If we who serve here in the Senate are to pursue
sensible environmental policy that preserves the gains that we have
made in the last two decades, then this law will have to be changed to
make it user friendly, and also to approach the problem of endangered
species in a plain, everyday, commonsense way. If there is anything we
are short of here, it is common sense.
However, that not being the case in this instance, let us look and
see the merits of this amendment and, of course, the second-degree
amendment. The moratorium now in effect is just on listings. Until a
couple of weeks ago, we had 2,500 to 3,000 candidates on the list to be
considered for listing. Under the moratorium, we now have 184. The
Secretary of the Interior using a model in which to cut those way back
so it does not sound like they are not working to make it work. And
recovery plans on those who are actually on the endangered list
continue.
Now, I suggest to this body that for as much money as it has cost,
the recovery record has not been very good. If the sponsor of this
amendment wants to take credit for delaying this bill, thus leaving the
employees for the respective departments not knowing--we should give
them some predictability and planning for which they are responsible
with regard to this Endangered Species Act.
Recovery plans must move on. It cannot move on as long as the
appropriation is hung up here in the U.S. Senate. It is not fair to the
employees, nor is it fair to the taxpayers of this country, nor is it
fair to what we are trying to
[[Page S1850]]
do, which is to preserve a base of biological diversity that we all
know is very, very important.
The sponsors of this amendment must understand that the very people
who are administering this law are the ones that are funded by this
legislation. But sometimes I do not understand the motives on such
predictability.
I do not think we have an endangered species crisis or an
environmental crisis here. I do not feel there is any great urgency or
a great care for the maintenance or restoration of a healthy biological
base or diversity--not in this particular exercise, not on this day. I
have a feeling there is a little bit of politics in this. But, after
all, that should not surprise any of us. It is like I said, the work
goes on. Right now, there are around 900 domestic species that are
listed on the threatened or endangered list. There are another 900 on
the foreign endangered species list. There were 3,500 to 4,000 a couple
of weeks ago on the candidate list, which is now down to 182. So the
work continues.
So it is not that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have
enough work to do without this moratorium, because they do. This has
been a very, very expensive law. And, at times, it has defied common
sense. In most areas, the law has not worked. It is being used for a
purpose that it was not intended for.
I would like to look at a couple of species that have been listed. We
have spent over $2 billion in recovery, both in taxpayers' money and
ratepayers' money, on the Columbia River trying to recover the sockeye
and the chinook salmon. You can buy salmon in any grocery store fresh,
frozen, or canned. As you know, we had the terrible accident in Prince
William Sound in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ship hit a rock and spilled
the crude. Everybody said the fishing would be gone forever. The other
day in that particular part of the world--I noticed that the Secretary
of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, went to Alaska, and the harvest of salmon
was so big that the Department of Agriculture has decided to buy an
extra amount of salmon for the school lunch programs around this
country.
The market is depressed because of an oversupply. Mr. President, I am
sure not opposed to the School Lunch Program. In fact, I am a great
supporter of it. I even like the idea that salmon should be a part of
the diet. But it does seem strange to me that we have chinook and
sockeye salmon on the endangered species list where we will be able to
buy it anywhere in the world, and yet, we have spent all that money
with the possibility of endangering hydro power production on the
Columbia River. I think we can cite a lot of those kinds of instances
where common sense has absolutely been laid aside to make it work.
I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment and allow the
committee of jurisdiction to complete its work in reforming the law.
Let us involve local government; let us involve local citizens when we
start talking about listing; and let us separate this business of
listing from the business of recovery. Right now, the way the law is
written, if a species is put on the endangered list, it is head-over-
heels costs. It means nothing. We start the recovery program and, as we
have found out, that becomes very expensive. Let us not knee-jerk this
around because it is a highly charged issue, just to appease some folks
who want an environmental record.
When one has to answer and solve a problem or policy, or enable
problem solving to go forward, and we do it by just throwing taxpayer
money at it, I do not think that is the correct approach. And if we are
to pass on to the next generation a world where clean water and clean
air is the hallmark, and a broad-based biological diversity is intact,
then we must approach it and we have to make sure that this law
survives.
As it is right now, it may not--the total law--because of people and
the actions that they take to prevent it being applied to my property
or my neighbors' property.
So, Mr. President, the moratorium should stay intact. And there are
those who are dedicated. I know that my friend from Nevada--I worked
with him on another committee--when he commits himself to something, he
does it wholeheartedly and with a great deal of integrity.
They should keep working on this law. They should bring it forward.
But I am kind of like the Nike commercial: ``Let's do it.'' Let us quit
talking about it and do it. Let us quit dealing with people that might
be like a featherbed because the last one that sits on it leaves the
biggest impression. Let us do it because the law needs to be reformed.
My friend from Nevada understands that, and also my friend from Idaho
does.
We want to see it survive, and we want to see it work in the best
interest of mankind and also for the species that are involved. Let us
look at fairness. Let us look at balance. But let us make sure that it
works. Let us involve local government from the county commissioners to
the city council. Let us work with Governors and State government. Let
us work with the fish and game people and the wildlife biologists that
are found in each and every State, because each and every State is
unique and they have a very unique biological base.
So let us reject the Reid amendment totally, and let us bring forth a
new bill. Let us dedicate ourselves to it because I think we owe it to
the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I reluctantly disagree with my friend from
Montana on the bulk of his statement. I say to my friend before he
leaves the floor that one of the most pleasant experiences I have had
in the U.S. Senate has been working with the junior Senator from
Montana on the Appropriations Committee, he being chairman of the
Military Construction Subcommittee and me being the ranking member. He
is easy to work with, and I think we have been very productive in that
subcommittee.
Mr. President, first of all, let us go back and reflect on how we
arrived at the point where we are now. The junior Senator from Texas
offered an amendment to stop listing further species until the end of
the fiscal year. That was the end of last fiscal year--not this fiscal
year.
I read from the Congressional Record where the Senator said the
amendment rescinds $1.5 million of funding for new listings of
endangered or threatened species, or designation of critical habitat,
through the end of the fiscal year, which is a little more than 6
months from now. It provides remaining funds not to be used for final
listings.
Mr. President, this so-called emergency moratorium was to end last
October 1. Here it is October, November, December, January, February,
and we are in the middle of March--6 months later, almost 1 year later,
and it is still going on. That is wrong. The record is replete with
examples of why we should not have this moratorium.
There are species of plants and animals that are life-sustaining that
will relieve pain and misery throughout the world. Eighty percent of
the drugs prescribed to the American public are compounds that
initially come from a plant or other species.
Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana who gave the example
of the oil spill in 1989 that I hope--I am sure--the intent of the
Senator was not that we have more oil spills to increase the population
of fish around the world. We all know that there is a lot of fish where
the oil was spilled. It was not because of the oil being spilled there.
I also say to my friend from Montana that the numbers of species that
he talked about is daily. The Department of the Interior published
within the past couple of weeks; the prepublication copy was February
23 of this year. The Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service, 50 Code of the Federal Register, Part 17, Endangered/
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, revealed plants and animals that are
candidates of listing as endangered or threatened species. There are
182. They eliminated the others.
So, as I indicated earlier, Mr. President, we have 243 species that
have already been proposed for listing. We have 182 that are candidate
species. This is what we have to make sure of --that we are allowed to
process these in an appropriate order. This does not mean when the
moratorium is lifted
[[Page S1851]]
that we are going to have 182 or 243 thrown at the American public in a
day or two. It will take years. But the process needs to go forward for
the reasons that I have mentioned.
We are dealing literally with life and death. We have been very
patient. The chairman of the full committee voted with the junior
Senator from Texas on the original moratorium. I think everyone who
voted for it was willing to say, ``Well, we will give it until the end
of this fiscal year.'' But then, after the fiscal year, we got into the
continuing resolution process. I think there were 10 CR's offered in
the past few months, and in each one of those the moratorium was
extended and extended and extended, and it has been to the detriment of
the American public. We owe it to the American public to process these
species of plants and animals that are listed. Doing so, Mr. President,
will benefit mankind and certainly do the thing that is fair.
The emergency listing in the second-degree amendment is very
transparent. It is only a way to give people who want to say they want
an environmental vote to vote environmentally. As we have already
established an emergency listing, that is not how we should list
things. We should not wait until the animals are gone before we list
them. It should be an orderly process so we make it much better and
easier on everyone.
Mr. President, I will await the debate in the morning, and I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the previous order, there is no
further debate.
Does the Senator from Montana seek recognition?
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Modification to Amendment No. 3473
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment
No. 3473, to make technical changes that I will send to the desk.
Further, I ask unanimous consent to restore text at the end of
amendment No. 3473. Language that appears on pages 778, line 1 through
781, line 4 of amendment No. 3466 was inadvertently deleted.
I send the technical changes to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So, the modification to amendment No. 3473 is as follows:
Under the heading ``Departmental Management, Salaries and
Expenses'', $12,000,000, of which $10,000,000 shall be only
for terminal leave, severance pay, and other costs directly
related to the reduction of the number of employees in the
Department.
In addition to the amounts provided for in Title I of this
Act for the Department of Health and Human Services:
Under the heading ``Health Resources and Services'',
$55,256,000: Provided, That $52,000,000 of such funds shall
be used only for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act
and shall be distributed to States as authorized by section
2618(b)(2) of such Act; and
Under the heading ``Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services'', $134,107,000.
Part 3--General Provision
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section
4002 shall not apply to part 1 of chapter 3 of title IV.
On page 539, lines 18 and 19, and page 540, line 10,
decrease each amount by $200,000,000.
On page 546, increase the rescission amount on line 21 by
$15,000,000.
On page 583, lines 4 and 14, decrease each amount by
$224,000,000.
Administration for Children and Families Job Opportunities and Basic
Skills
(Rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading elsewhere in
this Act, there is rescinded an amount equal to the total of
the funds within each State's limitation for fiscal year 1996
that are not necessary to pay such State's allowable claims
for such fiscal year.
Section 403(k)(3)(F) of the Social Security Act (as amended
by Public Law 100-485) is amended by adding: ``reduced by an
amount equal to the total of those funds that are within each
State's limitation for fiscal year 1996 that are not
necessary to pay such State's allowable claims for such
fiscal year (except that such amount for such year shall be
deemed to be $1,000,000,000 for the purpose of determining
the amount of the payment under subsection (1) to which each
State is entitled),''.
Federal Aviation Administration Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(Rescission of Contract Authorization)
Of the available contract authority balances under this
account, $616,000,000 are rescinded.
flooding
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as Senator Hatfield knows, Cowlitz County
has been digging out, literally and figuratively, from the effects of
Mt. St. Helens ever since 1980. These last two floods have exacerbated
the movement of sediment in the Toutle, Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers
creating both flooding and navigation concerns. Will the current Senate
bill provide funding so the Corps of Engineers can use authorities
available to them to review and correct these newly created problems?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, this bill provides funding for the corps to
address problems such as those raised by my good friend, the Senator
from Washington.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note that the chairman and ranking
member of the Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations Subcommittee are on
the floor at this time. Senator Dorgan and I would like to engage them
in a colloquy concerning the amendments which we offered and which were
accepted yesterday to help prevent flooding at Devils Lake, ND
The omnibus appropriations bill now includes emergency funding to
address flooding at Devils Lake, ND. The lake is located in Benson and
Ramsey Counties, as well as in the Devils Lake Sioux Indian
Reservation. Last year, as my colleagues know, the lake reached a 120-
year high water level, causing more than $35 million in damages. The
National Weather Service projects that the lake will rise an additional
2\1/2\ to 3 feet this year. It is our understanding that the additional
$10 million provided to the Economic Development Administration is to
undertake emergency flood prevention efforts at Devils Lake. These
emergency funds are critical to the area's economy, and will help
prevent some of the $50 million in flood damages expected this year at
Devils Lake.
Mr. DORGAN. It is also our intention that the State of North Dakota
or its designee be the EDA grant recipient in order to get emergency
funding to the Devils Lake area as quickly as possible. An Interagency
Task Force, headed by FEMA Director James Lee Witt, has recommended
that 100,000 acre-feet of water be stored on upper basin lands as part
of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the unprecedented high water.
Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers' Contingency Plan and the
Interagency Task Force recommended raising essential roads that are
expected to experience flood damage. Would the Chairman of the
Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Subcommittee agree that
water storage and elevating roadways are critical to ensuring the
economic well-being of Devils Lake?
Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that water storage and elevating
roadways are essential to the area's economy, and that only those
projects recommended by the Interagency Task Force or identified by the
Corps of Engineers' contingency plan would be appropriate uses of the
emergency supplemental funds for Devils Lake under this bill. Is it the
Senators' understanding that the State of North Dakota would provide
the customarily required non-Federal cost share?
Mr. DORGAN. It is my understanding that North Dakota would provide
whatever non-Federal share is customarily required by EDA.
Mr. CONRAD. That is my understanding as well.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me add that I agree with the comments of Senator
Gregg. Projects of those types would fit well within the parameters of
the emergency supplemental appropriations language.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senators for their comments. I want to
express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State for their
assistance.
Mr. CONRAD. I also want to thank the Senators for clarifying the
intent of Congress regarding emergency funding for Devils Lake. This
funding will help prevent tens of millions of dollars of damages in
Benson and Ramsey Counties and on the Devils Lake Sioux Indian
Reservation.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the disastrous flooding in the northwestern
United States has covered many areas with layers of flood-borne
boulders,
[[Page S1852]]
gravel, woody debris, and associated materials. Among those areas of
particular concern are U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] lands. The CRP program provides
cost-share assistance to reestablish destroyed permanent vegetative
cover. It is my understanding that present Department policy prohibits
USDA from providing cost-share assistance of clear CRP lands of debris
to reestablish permanent cover. However, the severity of this flood has
covered these lands with unusually heavy and extensive deposits of
materials that must be removed before permanent cover can be
reestablished. It is also my understanding that the Department has the
discretion to allow cost-sharing assistance to remove such materials.
We are told that these lands are not eligible to use Emergency
Conservation Program funds for clearing debris.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, our states, which border each other and
have suffered from the same natural disaster, have similar and shared
problems. I would inform the Senator that section 1101 of chapter 11 of
title II of this bill gives cabinet secretaries of involved departments
authority to waive or specify alternative requirements of any statute
of regulation to expedite the provision of disaster assistance to
affected areas. I believe that the Secretary of Agriculture can and
should use this authority to provide cost sharing assistance to clear
lands enrolled in the CRP reestablished cover.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I concur with my friend from Oregon, the
distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that this would
be an appropriate use of this authority.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you know, my State of Idaho was
devastated like others in the Northwest from floods in recent months.
Many agricultural lands have sustained damage which must be repaired if
the land is to be returned to productive use. It is my understanding
that a need of $1,167,000 has been determined for conservation work and
streambank stabilization in Idaho through the Agricultural Conservation
Program, which was not requested by the President. However, it is also
my understanding that the Department of Agriculture administers the
Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program and the
Emergency Conservation Program, which could fund these needed
activities in Idaho and other affected states in the Northwest. I would
ask my colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies if this is his
understanding as well?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator's
inquiry. This bill includes $107,514,000 for watershed and flood
prevention operations and $30,000,000 for the Emergency Conservation
Program. USDA has determined that these amounts should be sufficient to
cover the damage sustained in the Northwest and other areas which have
experienced natural disasters.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the omnibus appropriations bill before
us today is a wide ranging piece of legislation with programs that
impact teachers, doctors, job trainees, police officers, and
businessmen. I do want to single out one small piece of this
legislation that is very important for South Dakota students and
families, especially those in rural areas.
You see, many small banks and credit unions have been leaving the
Federal student loan program due to burdensome audits imposed by the
Department of Education. The audits on guarantee agencies and schools
were extended to lenders in the Higher Education Act Amendments of
1992. I fully agree with the goal of cracking down on fraud and abuse
in the student loan program.
However, these audits on small lenders are clearly a case of the cure
being worse than the illness. The audits are duplicative and in the
case of many small financial institutions, exceeding the profitability
of the program. The audits are bureaucratic overkill. Expenditures are
wasted, as the Department of Education does not even review all of the
audits. For lenders with small portfolios, it does not make sense to
stay in a program that is losing money. As a result, small lenders are
leaving the program, forcing students and families to take their
student loan business away from their hometown banks. When hometown
lenders leave the program, students and communities are the real
losers.
I was pleased to have worked with the chairman of the Labor and Human
Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, to include language in the
Balanced Budget Act to correct this problem by creating an exemption
for lenders with portfolios under $5 million. I am equally pleased that
the Appropriations Committee included the same language in the bill
before us today. I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Hatfield, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator
Specter, for adding this provision, which will allow students to
continue doing business with their hometown banks. I am pleased this
problem will be resolved for small lenders and their communities.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to make an observation about
funding in this Appropriations bill for the Police Corps program.
I have long supported the Police Corps concept, because I believe it
represents an innovative way to improve public safety and strengthen
the ties between police departments and the communities they serve. I
was proud to be an original sponsor of the Police Corps legislation,
which was enacted into law in 1994 as part of the omnibus crime bill.
In the Senate-passed version of the crime bill, the Police Corps
program was authorized at $100 million for the first year, $250 million
the second year, and such sums as were necessary thereafter. Clearly,
the Senate contemplated a truly national program. Regrettably, the
pending bill contains only $10 million for this important program, so a
national effort is not feasible at this time. I am nonetheless pleased
that the Police Corps will finally get off the ground.
It is my view that the $10 million appropriated in this bill should
be used to support a limited number of pilot programs, rather than
spread thinly over many jurisdictions. With this much reduced amount,
the Police Corps concept can only receive a fair trial if the money is
concentrated in a few jurisdictions that make a serious effort to
implement the program comprehensively. If instead the money were
dispersed across the country as 435 separate Police Corps grants, each
grant would support only one Police Corps officer. The administrative
overhead alone would essentially swallow the entire appropriation.
This program will be administered by the Department of Justice. I
expect--and I believe that my view is shared by the Appropriations
Committee and the full Senate--that the Attorney General will allocate
the $10 million to no more than four or five jurisdictions. It is my
understanding that several police departments are already prepared to
apply for grants and then implement the program swiftly and
conscientiously.
I also understand that the administration intends to request
increased funds for the Police Corps Program in fiscal year 1997, at
which time other jurisdictions can be added.
I look forward to the commencement of the Police Corps effort, and
expect that in the jurisdictions in which it is implemented it will
make a real difference in public safety and police-community relations.
____________________