[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________