[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11872-S11886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I applaud the managers of the bill and the 
leaders for all the hard work and long hours they have put into 
crafting this bill. The mere size of this bill alone--if we look at it 
here, 2,000 pages--is testament to the immense amount of work that they 
have done.
  I also, of course, express my special thanks and appreciation to the 
Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, who not only this year but every 
year for the previous 30 years has done such a magnificent job. He will 
be sorely missed, not only because of his accomplishments, but because 
the Senator from Oregon has always, invariably, unwaveringly been a 
gentleman, and his unfailing courtesy to all of us, even if there is 
significant disagreement, will not only be long remembered but, I am 
sure, from time to time deeply missed.
  There is much in this bill that merits support. The bill funds six 
Cabinet departments and hundreds of agencies and commissions. We must 
fund these departments and keep the Government open and operating. That 
is our duty.
  Before I go on, I also want to pay special thanks to Keith Kennedy, 
who, again, unfailingly has been courteous and considerate to me for 
many years now. The work he has done will never be fully appreciated 
except by those of us who have observed the incredible labors which he 
has had to go through in satisfying some pretty enormous egos, and 
balancing the very difficult, competing priorities that exist here. I 
do not know of anyone who has done the job the way that Keith Kennedy 
has, not only for the State of Oregon, not only for the Appropriations 
Committee and not only for the Senate, but for the United States of 
America.

  Mr. President, we also have a duty not to waste the people's money. 
To spend simply for spending's sake is wrong. It is even more egregious 
to use the taxpayers' money in a manner designed to reap political and 
electoral gains. Unfortunately, that has occurred here.
  It is common knowledge that as the end of the fiscal year approaches 
and Congress is forced to take up omnibus bills that must be passed, 
such legislation tends to be a vehicle for every Member's pet project. 
The term heard most often is that the bill becomes a ``Christmas 
tree.'' Mr. President, this bill is definitely a Christmas tree, and a 
glorious one at that.
  I note for the Record that those on this side of the aisle, while not 
without blame for much of the pork in the bill, did attempt valiantly 
to pass the appropriations bills in the normal fashion. Following the 
proper procedure would have allowed all the provisions of this bill to 
be examined and scrutinized in the light of day. Many would have been 
dropped, others amended or changed. Now, effectively, we do not have 
those options.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it so that 
this situation is very clear. They would offer a constant stream of 
nongermane, nonrelevant amendments to the appropriations bills. These 
amendments were designed to further a certain agenda. While such action 
is allowable under the rules, it was unfortunate and has resulted in 
the situation we now find ourselves.
  I intend to vote against this bill. As I just stated, there is much 
in the bill that is meritorious and should be funded. However, the bill 
is indeed a Christmas tree, loaded with pork-barrel projects, and 
nonrelevant, not appropriate authorizing language. I would like to 
discuss many of the items I found in this bill that caused me 
consternation.
  When a bill contains earmarks that forces the administration to spend 
money on one specific project, it denies other worthwhile projects the 
opportunity to receive funding. The following is a partial list of 
earmarks that I have found in the bill.
  On page 16, the bill earmarks $1,900,000 for supervision of the 
Brotherhood of teamsters national election. While I do not question the 
need for Federal involvement in this matter, there is simply no need to 
specifically earmark and mandate that this spending occur at this exact 
level.
  On page 92, a special trust fund is established with $60,000,000 
deposited in it, for the payment of money to telecommunications 
carriers for burdens placed upon them due to law enforcement efforts. 
While I have always opposed unfunded mandates, many do in fact exist 
and many companies, especially many small businesses are excessively 
burdened by such unfunded mandates. I am concerned that while these 
small businessmen and women continue to be burdened, we are 
establishing a trust fund to pay some of our Nation's largest, most 
profitable companies.
  This issue certainly merits debate, but not in the context of the 
underlying legislation. There is no pressing need that forces us to 
take this action at this time. This is an appropriations bill and if 
the Senate sees fit to establish such a trust fund, we should do so on 
other legislation.
  This bill also contains language regarding Sallie Mae and library 
services and numerous other authorizing legislation that should not be 
here.
  Mr. President, on page 126 of the bill, the funding for the Advanced 
Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology is funded at a level of $225,000,000. This number is an 
increase over the funding previously contained in legislation. This 
program is nothing but a corporate subsidy program. It is clear case of 
corporate welfare and I must object to the funding level for this 
program.

[[Page S11873]]

  On page 182 of the bill $8,500,000 is earmarked specifically for the 
University of New Hampshire for construction and related expenses for 
an environmental technology facility. Mr. President, I have no way of 
assessing on behalf of my constituents whether this spending is 
meritorious or not. Further, I have no way of knowing whether other 
schools or entities that may engage in similar tasks and have similar 
or even more pressing needs.
  Mr. President, numerous earmarks are contained on page 262. Three 
million is earmarked for the WVHTC Foundations outreach program. There 
is no explanation what WVATC is. Mr. President, $7,000,000 is 
designated for the grant to the Center for Rural Development in 
Somerset, KY; $1,000,000 is designated for a grant to Indiana State 
University for the renovation and equipping of a training facility; and 
$500,000 for the Center for Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Greenburg, 
PA.
  On page 268, the State Justice Institute is funded at $6,000,000. 
This program was zeroed out by the House. I believe that such action 
taken by the House was entirely appropriate. I had hoped that we would 
have been able to end this program. However, due to the process in 
which this bill was crafted, I had no opportunity to seek to eliminate 
this program.
  The conference report also includes a provision that waives ship 
building loan guarantee procedures intended to protect Federal 
taxpayers.
  Current law requires the Department of Transportation to apply 
economic soundness criteria before the Federal taxpayer is asked to 
guarantee any shipbuilding loan under title XI of the Merchant Marine 
Act.
  The purpose of the safeguard, of course, is to ensure that the vessel 
will be able to successfully compete in the market, so that Federal 
taxpayers are not left holding the bag for the defaulted loan.
  This bill waives the economic soundness criteria for certain 
shipyards, making it easier to build ships that can't compete in the 
market. Mr. President, the provision is bad policy and it has 
absolutely no place in this bill.
  To continue, on page 622, there is an earmark for Hot Springs, AR. On 
page 623, language regarding the Elwha and Glines Dams in the State of 
Washington is contained in the bill. On page 656 is even more language 
regarding the Elwha river. And on page 657, is language regarding the 
University of Utah. Additionally, beginning on page 659 is a series of 
land transfers in Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon.
  Mr. President, I note all these items not because I am questioning 
the integrity of the Members that requested them. But I am questioning 
their need, their merit, and their importance. And, unfortunately, I 
have no way to divine the answers to any of these questions.
  This bill also contains numerous ``emergency designations.'' When 
spending is designated an emergency, it does not have to be paid for--
in other words, it will result in an increase to the deficit. This bill 
contains emergency funding to repair the damage done by Hurricane Fran 
and to pay for important anticrime and antiterrorism legislation.

  However, I am very concerned that sometimes we are too quick to 
declare items emergencies. I see that $1.6 million is designated 
emergency spending for the Kennedy Center. The Kennedy Center is indeed 
a national treasure, but I must seriously question increasing the debt 
by $1.6 million for this funding at this time. I am sure we could find 
appropriate offsets to conduct the work.
  When bills are crafted in this manner, there is no end to the 
discoveries that we might find. For example, I have fought for years to 
ensure that Department of Defense dollars are not wasted on 
international sporting events. As we all know due to the horrible 
terrorist act that occurred in Atlanta, there is an appropriate role 
for our military and police in ensuring that such events are safe.
  But we must ensure that the Department of Defense budget does not 
become a cash cow to fund every other program. I worked with others 
last year to develop a manner in which DOD money used for sporting 
events would only be used for necessary security purposes.
  I discovered when reading this bill a provision that establishes an 
account at DOD to support these events. Any unobligated balances 
appropriated for the Atlanta Games and any reimbursements received by 
DOD for the World Cup Games would go into this fund. The fund would 
then be used to fund DOD involvement in other international sporting 
competitions.
  This account is merely a way to funnel more defense dollars to the 
organizers of international sporting events. It is wrong and it should 
not be in this bill.
  Mr. President, let me now turn to the fiscal year 1997 Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act contained in this bill.
  My colleagues are all too painfully aware of my strong feelings about 
wasting scarce defense resources on pork-barrel projects. For many 
years, I have pointed out the billions and billions of defense dollars 
wasted on programs and projects that have little or nothing to do with 
ensuring our national security, but have everything to do with the 
popularity of their sponsors back in their States and districts.
  Sadly, this year is no different from past years. The defense 
appropriations bill once again represents an egregious display of pork 
barrelling by Members of both the House and Senate.
  The Republican-led Congress has worked hard to increase President 
Clinton's inadequate defense budget requests, adding a total of nearly 
$18 billion in the past 2 years. I fully supported these increases 
which have slowed, although not halted, the too-rapid decline in the 
defense budget over the past decade. Failure to provide adequate 
funding for defense will seriously hinder the ability of our military 
services to ensure our future security and will have a deleterious 
effect on our Nation's ability to influence world events and maintain 
peace.
  I believed that most of my Republican colleagues shared my deep 
concern about our future security when we added $18 billion to the 
defense budget. However, after fighting hard for this additional $18 
billion on the grounds of urgent national security requirements, the 
Congress failed to curb its traditional tendency to send scarce defense 
resources on special interest, pork-barrel projects.
  On its face, this defense appropriations bill appears to address the 
serious shortfalls in military modernization funding in the President's 
defense budget plan. The bill adds a total of $5.7 billion to the 
procurement accounts, including tactical aircraft, sealift and airlift 
assets, improved communications systems, surveillance and 
reconnaissance, and other important warfighting equipment. The bill 
also adds $2.7 billion for research and development, to maintain the 
technological edge of our military forces on the battlefields of the 
future, including a significant increase in both theater and national 
missile defense programs.
  Unfortunately, a closer look at the bill reveals the same sort of 
earmarks for special interest programs that have resulted in the waste 
of so many billions of defense dollars in the past.
  There are, of course, the perennial adds, such as: $780 million for 
unrequested Guard and Reserve equipment, including more C-130 aircraft; 
$15 million for continued aurora borealis research and construction of 
the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program [HAARP], for which 
there is no current military requirement or validated use; $300 million 
to be transferred to the Coast Guard; $27 million for the Justice 
Department's National Drug Intelligence Center; $10 million for natural 
gas vehicles and $15 million for electric vehicles; $20 million for 
optoelectronics consortia; and $493.6 million for medical research.
  Let me take a moment to list some of the earmarks in the medical 
research area. They include breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian 
cancer--a new earmark, as well as the usual brown tree snakes, rural 
health care, freeze-dried blood, and a long list of other special 
medical programs. Again this year, we see an earmark in the bill for 
medical research performed by--and I quote--``private sector or non-
Federal physicians who have used and will use the antibacterial 
treatment method based upon the excretion of dead and decaying 
spherical bacteria.'' My question is this: if this particular program 
shows merit in a peer reviewed competition among research

[[Page S11874]]

programs, why is it necessary to earmark funds for it? I must assume 
that the program cannot stand up to examination and, therefore, must be 
treated specially to ensure its continuation. What a waste.
  Mr. President, this litany of pork-barrel projects is all too 
familiar to my colleagues. But let me take a moment to explore some of 
the interesting, new items included in this bill: $14 million for 
defense conversion activities in San Diego and Monterey, CA; language 
directing that the Department of Defense forgive the monetary value and 
forego the return of 5,000 ballistic helmets loaned to the Los Angeles 
County Sheriffs Department since April 1993; $1.5 million to electronic 
rifle targeting systems from the Atlanta Olympics and install them at 
Fort Benning, GA; a myriad of location-specific earmarks of 
environmental remediation, restoration, and technology development 
funds, including Jefferson Proving Ground, Bremerton Shipyard, Hawaii 
Small Business Development Center, National Defense Center for 
Environmental Excellence, as well as Fort Polk, McGregor Range, and 
Fort Bliss; $13 million for an unnecessary, duplicative, and cumbersome 
bureaucracy for oceanographic research, which the Navy does not need or 
want; and $650,000 for marine biocatalysts for defense and industrial 
applications, using an organization with tropical marine microorganisms 
collected from two major geographical regions, one of which is the 
Pacific Ocean.
  Mr. President, this bill also includes more than $100 million in 
earmarks for programs which were not in either bill and were never 
considered by the Senate or the House. These projects just appeared in 
this conference agreement, often without explanation, and there is 
nothing any Member can do about it.
  Of course, Mr. President, the administration also sought, and 
achieved, inclusion of a few more provisions in this conference 
agreement as late as last Friday night. These include another $100 
million for the Dual Use Applications Program, formerly the Technology 
Reinvestment Project, or TRP, which has been plagued with politization 
from both Congress and the administration since its inception. In 
addition, as I mentioned before, the administration sought and achieved 
the addition of a provision establishing a new account to fund DOD 
assistance to international sporting events. This fund is entitled to 
receive not only direct appropriations but any reimbursements due to 
the Department of Defense for services rendered in the past or the 
future. This provision was not considered by either House of Congress, 
but again, there is nothing any one Member can do about either 
provision now.
  Mr. President, it never ceases to amaze me how innovative and 
creative my colleagues can be in creating and earmarking funds for 
these pork-barrel projects. Perhaps we should spend as much time on 
reducing the deficit and ensuring that our military forces have the 
right equipment to fight and win in future conflicts.
  Mr. President, I have mentioned just a few of the earmarks and add-
ons in this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a more complete list 
be included in the Record at this point.
  These pork-barrel projects total more than $2.4 billion. When added 
together, pork-barrel spending in the defense bills in just the past 2 
years totals more than $6 billion. That is one-third of the entire 
increase in the defense budget--an increase for which this Republican 
Congress fought so hard on the basis of national security.
  Mr. President, these projects have little or nothing to do with 
national security. They are special interest items designed to enhance 
the reputations of their sponsors back in their States. They are 
projects which serve the political and economic interests of their 
sponsors, rather than the security interests of all Americans.
  The simple fact is that wasting money on projects like these, which 
have little or no military relevance, is dangerous. It takes money away 
from the high-priority requirements of the military services. It is 
counter-productive to our efforts to ensure that our troops are trained 
and equipped to successfully perform their missions in any future 
conflict. Pork-barrelling harms our national security.
  The American people are entitled to know how the Congress is spending 
their tax money. The simple fact is that the American people are sick 
and tired of congressional pork-barrel politics. By continuing the 
practice of pork-barreling with defense dollars, we run the serious 
risk of further eroding the already low level of support for defense 
spending among the voters. But we seem unable to change our long-
standing tradition of bringing home the bacon.
  The American people will not stand for this type of wasteful spending 
of their tax dollars. If we in Congress refuse to halt the pork-
barrelling, it will be more and more difficult to explain to the 
American people why we need to maintain adequate defense spending. I 
would prefer that the $2.8 billion wasted on pork-barrel projects had 
not been included in the bill. I hope that, next year, with the very 
real threat of a line-item veto of some of these items, the Congress 
will stop wasting defense dollars on these kinds of special interest 
items.
  Let me conclude by saying that I believe this is a sad display of the 
Congress putting its Members' interests ahead of the interests of the 
majority of the American people. I cannot support this bill.
  I am also concerned about provisions in the bill regarding native 
Americans and gaming. These provisions should have been considered by 
the Committee on Indian Affairs. This bill is not the appropriate 
vehicle for this debate.
   Mr. President, I also want to express my concern regarding an 
opposition to section 330 of the general provisions of the Interior and 
related agencies portions of this omnibus appropriations bill because 
section 330 would, in a discriminatory fashion, dismantle the rights of 
one Indian tribe to conduct gaming activities on its lands like all 
other Indian tribes.
  Section 330 is specific to Rhode Island. It would expressly deny to 
the only federally recognized Indian tribe in Rhode Island, the 
Narragansett Indian Tribe, the rights other Indian tribes have under 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  I will focus most of my remarks on why I think section 330 should be 
rejected as bad policy. But first, I want to say a few words about why, 
on procedural grounds alone, I oppose this section on this 
appropriations bill from my perspective as chairman of the authorizing 
committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  I have the deepest respect for my colleagues from Rhode Island, 
Senators Chafee and Pell, and for the others who have been involved in 
shaping section 330. But I must say that section 330 of this 
appropriations bill is an unfair, end-run around the ongoing work of 
the authorizing committee.
  None of the provisions of section 330 have ever before been part of 
any bill or introduced or amendment filed in either House or Senate. It 
is new language added for the first time last week by the House to the 
omnibus appropriations bill. Section 330 would substantially amend 
authorizing legislation on an appropriations measure without the 
benefit of any legislative hearings, without any contribution by the 
authorizing Committees of jurisdiction, and without any public debate 
by those most affected--the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island.
  Let me say that, at the same time, I appreciate the position of 
Senators Chafee and Pell and understand why they have taken it. This 
issue has been quite troubling to them, to Rhode Island officials, and 
to the Narragansetts themselves. It stems from an apparent 
misunderstanding about whether the Congress intended the tribe or the 
State to have civil jurisdiction over gaming on tribal lands acquired 
under the Narragansett Land Claims Settlement Act of 1978.
  In 1988, Senators Chafee and Pell withdrew a floor amendment during 
consideration of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act legislation which 
they had drafted to resolve this issue in favor of the State after they 
received what they understood to be assurances that jurisdiction over 
gaming resided exclusively with the State. The meaning of those 
assurances have been in hot dispute ever since.
  This past January, I met with Senators Pell and Chafee at their 
request to review their concerns and discuss what they could do. At 
that time I made it clear to them that, although I

[[Page S11875]]

opposed them on the merits, I would not use my position as chairman of 
the committee of jurisdiction to block a bill they would introduce to 
amend the Narragansett Land Claims Settlement Act to gain the clarity 
they sought against the tribe. Indeed, I told them I would schedule a 
hearing and allow the bill to move to the Senate floor for 
consideration. I was surprised to see that they did not take any such 
action during this entire session. Had they done so, we would have long 
ago voted on authorizing legislation, with the benefit of a full and 
fair hearing record.
  Now, on the eve of adjournment of the 104th Congress, without the 
benefit of any hearing or public debate, and without any involvement of 
the Indian tribe directly affected, the sponsors of section 330 have 
attached it to an appropriations vehicle. I oppose this effort on these 
grounds alone, and urge my colleagues to reject it.
  On the merits, I oppose any effort to deny to the Narragansetts or 
any other individual Indian tribe what is protected for all other 
Indian tribes--the right to conduct governmental gaming activity on 
their own lands. It is unseemly to single out one Indian tribe for 
discriminatory treatment in this way.
  If Rhode Island finds gaming so offensive, it now has the power to 
enact a criminal ban on such activity, as have Utah and Hawaii, and 
thereby preclude under Cabazon and IGRA the Narragansett Tribe from 
conducting any such gambling activity. Rhode Island now permits some 
gaming activity within its borders. The U.S. Supreme Court in Cabazon 
said an Indian tribe may exclusively regulate the conduct of those 
games not otherwise prohibited under the criminal law of a State.
  I have studied the situation in Rhode Island. I fail to see why the 
proponents of this section 330 feel a need to move it through on the 
eve of adjournment in this way. The decided trend in the courts has 
been favoring States over the Indian tribes. The latest decision in 
Seminole has meant that an Indian tribe has no effective remedy against 
a State for a State's refusal to negotiate.
  I must say I would understand the position of the proponents of 
section 330 if they were to raise it early next year rather than on the 
eve of adjournment. For if the Secretary does issue proposed 
regulations in early 1997 in the way that was referenced in the 11th 
Circuit Court of Appeals holding in Seminole versus Florida, and if 
they are written in such a way as to give the tribe something the State 
does not support, I would understand efforts made at that time by the 
Senators from Rhode Island to ban gaming on Narragansett Indian lands. 
I would still oppose them, in principle, but again, I would not block 
them from having an opportunity to gain the full consideration of the 
Senate after a fair and full hearing of the authorizing committees of 
jurisdiction.

  Finally, Mr. President, although as of last week this section 330 was 
opposed by the administration, and Interior Secretary Babbitt had 
warned, in a letter to Senator Chafee, that if this language is 
included in an appropriations bill he would recommend that the 
President veto the bill, it now appears that section 330 was approved 
by the administration negotiators. The apparent turnabout of the 
administration on this issue over the weekend, while not necessarily 
surprising given this administration's pattern of flipping and flopping 
from 1 day to the next, is highly unfortunate. I for one cannot and 
will not support such language.
  As chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I oppose section 330 
and ask that both my colleagues and the administration never again 
condone such an assault on one Indian tribe's basic rights and 
responsibilities. Consideration of such a dramatic change in Federal-
Indian policy should be reserved to the deliberate care of the 
authorizing committees of jurisdiction.
  I also strenuously oppose a new provision added late last week to the 
omnibus appropriations bill that would prohibit any effort to provide 
direct funding to an Indian tribe of that tribe's share of Bureau of 
Indian Affairs central office or pooled overhead general administration 
funds under Tribal Self-Determination or Self-Governance contracts, 
grants, or funding agreements.
  The new language appears in the unnumbered ``administrative 
provisions'' section at the end of the funding provisions for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs--page 640 of the House-passed bill. The 
language added is as follows:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for central office 
     operations or pooled overhead general administration shall be 
     available for tribal contracts, grants, compacts, or 
     cooperative agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     under the provision of the Indian Self-Determination Act or 
     the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-413).

  Mr. President, I object to this language for two reasons. First, this 
restrictive provision surfaced for the first time over the weekend. It 
has not been part of any authorizing or appropriations committee bill 
language this year.
  Second, in 1994 the Congress expressly directed, in Public Law 103-
413, that these BIA central office and general administrative funds be 
available for negotiation into direct funding of tribal shares to all 
tribes asking for these funds. The new provision added during the 
weekend would expressly override Public Law 103-413.
  I have always supported every fair and reasonable effort to shift 
more of appropriated funds into direct, block-grant type transfers to 
Indian tribes. For this reason we have steadily opened up more and more 
of the BIA's funding sources to tribal Self-Determination and Self-
Governance negotiations, in order to allow those Indian tribes choosing 
to do so to receive these funds directly and administer them according 
to tribal priorities. Shifting funds in this way to Indian tribes is a 
very effective way of reorganizing more and more on the BIA. One last 
bastion of bureaucratic power is the BIA central office and the general 
administration or pooled overhead accounts maintained by the BIA. 
Despite Public Law 103-413, the administration has refused to transfer 
to Indian tribes the funds appropriated for these central office 
accounts on the basis that the Committees on Appropriations have 
objected. Now, on the eve of regulations being issued that will fully 
implement Public Law 103-413, the Committees on Appropriations have 
included express language nullifying the relevant provisions of Public 
Law 103-413. I object to this process and oppose the outcome.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs actively addressed the issue of BIA 
reorganization during the 104th Congress. Early in 1996 we reported a 
comprehensive BIA reorganization bill, S. 814, but further 
consideration by the full Senate of S. 814 was precluded until last 
month when Senator Gorton removed a hold he had placed on the bill.
  In the course of our discussions on his objections to S. 814, Senator 
Gorton suggested we find some areas of common agreement as an interim 
step that would increase the proportion of Federal funding that is 
placed under the direct and flexible control of tribal governments. Our 
efforts were partially reflected in a section 118 which Senator Gorton 
added to the Interior appropriations bill in committee, describing it 
as a ``work in progress.'' Unfortunately, our progress in developing 
language to provide Indian tribes with direct and flexible control of a 
larger share of Federal funding ground to a halt over several 
fundamental differences in approach.
  In our discussions concerning section 118, I maintained my firm 
belief that any such language must preserve an Indian tribe's choice to 
administer some or all of the funds appropriated for its benefit, 
consistent with the time-tested policies under the Indian Self-
Determination Act. I insisted that section 188 should be drafted in 
such a way as to allow an Indian tribe to decide to take over the 
operation of some or all programs. For example, a tribe may in its 
sovereign authority choose not to take over law enforcement operations, 
or some other particularly problematic area. Instead of some or all, 
Senator Gorton insisted that section 188 authority be for all or 
nothing, that a tribe choosing not to do everything would be precluded 
from doing some things. Another issue that divided us involved some 
oversight language I felt was overly broad and sought to replace with a 
requirement that applied to Indian tribes the financial accountability 
requirements of the Indian Self-Determination Act, as amended. Whether 
or not education and transportation funds administered by the BIA 
should have

[[Page S11876]]

been excluded from the formula negotiations remained another area of 
disagreement. Given these important differences, Indian tribes across 
the country asked that section 118, in its incomplete form, be removed.
  I appreciate the fact that Senator Gorton agreed to remove section 
118. I want to make something very clear--Senator Gorton and I have 
agreed that the BIA is in dire need of dramatic reorganization. He and 
I also have agreed that a preferred approach is to expand opportunities 
for tribal self-determination and tribal self-governance. And so I am 
glad that he agreed to lift the annual limit on the number of tribes 
who can be added to the 63 compacts now serving 210 of the total of 557 
tribes. This amendment will permit 50 additional tribes to be added to 
the Self-Governance Program each year.
  However, I am profoundly disturbed by the fact that, without 
negotiation or discussion, the Committee on Appropriations added a new 
provision over the weekend to completely insulate nearly 100 million 
dollars' worth of BIA centralized bureaucracy from any transfer of 
funds and associated authority to Indian tribes.
  Appropriations staff say the administration asked for this provision. 
Well, this provision was not in the President's budget request. It was 
not in the official administration testimony provided to the Committee 
on Indian Affairs during our consideration of S. 814, the BIA 
reorganization bill. This provision is in direct contravention of 
provisions of existing law in Public law 104-413, and I oppose it.
  I strenuously oppose this end-of-the-session effort to protect the 
BIA bureaucracy from the tribal direct-funding initiatives that are now 
in existing law and I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
provision.
  Mr. President, in closing, again, I want to thank the managers of the 
bill for all their work. It does not go unappreciated. I only wish I 
could support what they crafted, but for the reasons I have just 
explained, I cannot.
  Mr. President, sooner or later we are going to stop this. We are 
going to stop this kind of spending, and we can do it by passing 
appropriations bills one at a time with proper scrutiny and amending. 
But, also, we can understand that our national defense and national 
security deserves far better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of items 
designated as ``Emergency'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            ITEMS DESIGNATED AS ``EMERGENCY'' IN OMNIBUS BILL           
              [Dollars in millions unless otherwise noted]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dollars                     Item                     Page       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.6m..................  Office of Intelligence       2                  
                         Policy and Review.                             
20m...................  Attorney General Terrorism.  4                  
1m....................  Executive Office of          6                  
                         Immigration.                                   
1.719m................  Criminal Division Terrorism  12                 
10.9m.................  Terrorism and Security.....  16                 
115.6m................  FBI terrorism..............  35                 
60m...................  Telecomm Carrier Compliance  37                 
                         Fund.                                          
5m....................  Domestic and foreign DEA...  41                 
15m...................  Aliens with ties to          47                 
                         terrorism.                                     
17m...................  Firefighting terrorism.....  59                 
3.9m..................  Nonproliferation of illegal  108                
                         exports of chem.                               
10m...................  Workload from terrorism....  161                
23.7m.................  Counterterrorism overseas..  182                
24.8m.................  Security improvement         188                
                         overseas terrorism.                            
1.375m................  Security--terrorism........  211                
25m...................  Hurricane relief--EDA......  295                
22m...................  Hurricane relief SBA.......  295                
3.5m..................  Firefighting on public       729                
                         lands.                                         
100m..................  Wildland Fire Management...  729                
2.5m..................  Oregon and CA Grant Lands..  729                
2.1m..................  Resource Management........  730                
15.8m.................  Construction...............  730                
2.3m..................  Operation of National Park   730                
                         System.                                        
9.3m..................  Construction--hurricanes/    730                
                         terrorism.                                     
1.1m..................  Surveys, Investigations and  731                
                         Research.                                      
6.6m..................  Operation of Indian          731                
                         Programs.                                      
6m....................  Construction--floods.......  731                
3.4m..................  National Forest System--     732                
                         hurricanes.                                    
550m..................  Wildland Fire Management     732                
                         (repayment).                                   
5.2m..................  Reconstruction and           732                
                         Construction--hurricane.                       
935,000...............  Smithsonian--Salaries and    733                
                         Expenses.                                      
1.6m..................  Kennedy Center--Operation    733                
                         and Main.                                      
3.4m..................  Kennedy Center--             733                
                         construction.                                  
382,000...............  National Gallery Art--       733                
                         terrorism.                                     
1m....................  Holocaust Memorial Council-- 734                
                         terrorism.                                     
288,000...............  Foreign Assets Control.....  170N               
34,000................  Salaries Inspector General.  170N               
15m...................  Counterterrorism Fund......  170O               
1.35m.................  Federal Law Enforcement and  170O               
                         Training.                                      
2.7m..................  Acquisition, Construction..  170O               
449,000...............  Financial Management         170P               
                         Service.                                       
66.4m.................  Construction and Expansion   171                
                         of canine train.                               
62.3m.................  U.S. Customs air carriers,   171                
                         airports.                                      
10.4m.................  IRS processing, assistance.  172                
3m....................  Secret Service.............  172                
210,000...............  OPM--salaries and expenses.  172A               
112.9m................  Drug interdiction..........  172B               
63m...................  Watershed and flood          Title V            
                         Prevention.                                    
25m...................  Emergency Conservation--     Title V            
                         hurricane.                                     
57.9m.................  FAA security activities....  Chapter 5          
147.7m................  Facilities and Equipment...  Chapter 5          
21m...................  Research, Engineering and    Chapter 5          
                         Development.                                   
82m...................  Emergency Relief--hurricane  Chapter 5          
6m....................  NTSB--salaries.............  Chapter 5          
1m....................  NTSB--emergency............  Chapter 5          
3m....................  Research and Special         Chapter 5          
                         Programs.                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1.757 billion in emergency designation.                                

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 10 minutes on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the legislation before us includes a 
provision that I authored that will prohibit anyone convicted of a 
crime involving domestic violence from possessing firearms. I want to 
take a few minutes of the Senate's time to reflect on just what that 
means.
  We are today about to perform a great and moral act that a human 
being can perform--one of the best. We are about to save the life of 
another person. Today, we are going to save the life of the ordinary 
American woman, a woman who loves her kids, a woman who loves her 
family. Today, this ordinary American woman is married to someone who 
is generally a decent, law-abiding guy, but with one exception. 
Sometimes when things get rough and the stresses of life build, he 
loses his temper because his emotions get the best of him. He loses 
control, flies into a rage and then strikes out violently at those 
closest to him.
  Once he beat his wife brutally and was prosecuted, but like most wife 
beaters, he pleaded down to a misdemeanor and got away with a slap on 
the wrist.
  Mr. President, next year, this fellow is going to lose his cool at 
work, or with the boys, and he is going to go home one day and get into 
another argument with his wife. As arguments often do, it will 
escalate, and this time, as before, it will get out of control. As 
their children huddle in fear, the anger will get physical, and almost 
without knowing what he is doing, with one hand he will strike his wife 
and with the other hand he will reach for the gun he keeps in his 
drawer. In an instant their world will change. And this woman, this 
loving mother, this ordinary American, will die or be severely wounded.

  Later, maybe the husband will go to prison. The children will be left 
parentless, and the effects of the tragedy will ripple for years 
throughout their lives and throughout the lives of so many others.
  Except, Mr. President, because of what we are about to do, this story 
is going to have a different ending.
  Yes, the husband may lose his cool at work and, yes, maybe they will 
get into the same argument; yes, his rage will fly out of control; and 
yes, it will probably lead to violence. But when this man's hand 
reaches into that drawer, there will not be a gun there. So that fatal 
instant, that moment of fleeting madness, will never happen.
  In the end, that ordinary American woman, that loving mother, will 
end up being bruised, maybe she will end up unconscious in the 
hospital. But when the next day comes, hopefully, she will awaken, she 
will see the morning Sun through her swollen eyes, and, if lucky, she 
will leave the hospital and get on with her life, a life to see that 
frightened child grow up and go to school. She will live to see him 
graduate, find a job, and create his own family. That will happen 
because--and only because--we are about to save her life this day.
  Mr. President, over the years there will be thousands of women like 
this, each one with a family of loved ones, each one with their own 
dreams. And there will be children. And they will all live, Mr. 
President. They will all live because of what we do here this day.
  Mr. President, you and I will never know the women and children whose 
lives we are about to save. They will never have a chance to thank us. 
They will never know that their lives were spared.
  But for the rest of our lives, you and I and other Senators, we will 
have the privilege of knowing that we have lived up to the very highest 
of our own ideals. We have done nothing less than reach forward into 
time, put our hands around tragedy and death and remolded it back into 
life itself. We have done that many, many times, over and over and over 
again.
  Mr. President, this tremendous victory for the forces of life would 
not

[[Page S11877]]

have happened but for the hard work and dedication of many people. I 
want to express my deep appreciation to all of those who played a role.
  In particular, I want to thank President Clinton, Leon Panetta, many 
dedicated men and women in the Clinton administration.
  A moment ago, we saw the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Mark Hatfield, on the floor. I want to thank him. He 
was solidly behind our effort.
  The commitment of the people I just mentioned to this cause was 
absolutely essential to getting this done. I am grateful to the 
President for that support.
  I also want to thank our distinguished Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle. He supported me in this effort from the beginning, from way 
back in the beginning of the year. His efforts in the final hours were 
of great help. I very much appreciate his commitment to the victims of 
domestic abuse and for his friendship, notwithstanding my repeated 
phone calls to him to discuss this legislation.
  I also want to publicly thank those who work in my office and in the 
Senate and many others here in Washington and around the country who 
have helped make this possible. Over 30 national organizations got 
behind this effort. Many, many people made significant contributions.
  I particularly am appreciative of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control for 
raising this issue at the Democratic convention and giving it the 
public attention that it required and deserved.
  I want to thank the American Bar Association, whose public statement 
on a weaker alternative version was critical in persuading my 
colleagues not to try to water down the proposal. Also, the Coalition 
to Stop Gun Violence, who took the initiative to build support among a 
wide variety of other organizations, and the Violence Policy Center, 
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network 
Against Domestic Violence, all of whom helped sound the trumpet about 
this legislation.
  Many other groups also played important roles.
  Mr. President, for the historical record, I would like to take the 
opportunity to discuss some of the history behind the domestic violence 
gun ban, and the changes in the legislative language that are 
incorporated into the final agreement.
  Mr. President, I originally introduced the domestic violence gun ban 
as S. 1632 on March 21 of this year. After extensive negotiations with 
the Republican leadership, including Senator Lott, Senator Craig, and 
Senator Hutchison, the proposal was then modified slightly and 
incorporated into an antistalking bill by a voice vote. Unfortunately, 
the House failed to act on the antistalking bill. I then offered the 
modified version of the legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 
1997 Treasury, Postal Service and general Government appropriations 
bill, and the amendment was approved by a vote of 97 to 2. However, 
Senator Lott pulled the Treasury, Postal bill from the floor, and a 
version of that legislation has now been incorporated into this omnibus 
spending bill.
  The language in the final agreement was worked out early Saturday 
morning, September 28, through further negotiations with the Republican 
leadership. Initially, opponents of my legislation had proposed to gut 
the legislation, primarily by inserting three major loopholes. First, 
they proposed to exclude child abusers from the ban, by limiting its 
application only to crimes against intimate partners. This outrageous 
proposal was withdrawn once it was held up to public scrutiny.
  Second, opponents of the gun ban proposed to limit the ban only to 
offenders who had been notified of the ban when they originally were 
charged. This effectively would have exempted all currently convicted 
offenders from the ban. It also would have meant that most offenders in 
the future would escape the ban, since there was no requirement that 
they actually be notified. In effect, gun ban opponents wanted to say 
that ignorance of the law would be an excuse for wife beaters, even 
though it is not an excuse for anybody else. Eventually, this proposal, 
too, was dropped.
  The third major loophole proposed by gun ban opponents was to limit 
the ban only to offenders who had been entitled to a jury trial. This 
would have rendered the ban close to meaningless, as the vast majority 
of these cases are heard before a judge, in a bench trial.
  Those who proposed this new loophole eventually agreed to drop it 
entirely. Therefore, the ban will apply to all wife beaters and all 
child abusers, regardless of whether they were convicted in a trial 
heard by a judge or a jury.
  Mr. President, after agreeing to drop the jury trial requirement, 
opponents of a strong gun ban continued to express concern that gun 
rights should not be lost without an assurance that offenders will be 
provided with all appropriate due process protections. To reassure them 
on this point, we agreed to include in the final agreement a provision 
that has no real substantive effect, but that may help to assure some 
people that nobody will lose their ability to possess a gun because of 
a flawed trial. This provision, in essence, states that the ban will 
not apply to someone who was wrongly denied the right to a jury trial. 
More specifically, the language protects from the ban anyone who had 
been entitled to a jury trial, but who did not receive such a jury 
trial, or who did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a 
jury trial.

  Of course, Mr. President, if an offender was wrongly denied the right 
to a jury trial, he was not legally convicted. And so this language 
really does not change anything. But, again, as it provided needed 
reassurance to some, I agreed to it in order to facilitate the final 
agreement.
  I do want to make very clear, however, that this language should not 
be interpreted to indirectly include any requirement of notice for a 
waiver to be considered to have been made knowingly and intelligently. 
That is, one can plead guilty or otherwise effectively waive one's 
constitutional right to a jury trial, and in considering the validity 
of such a waiver it is irrelevant whether the individual knew that a 
conviction will lead to a firearm ban. Although that should be clear 
from the face of the statute, given opponents' efforts to seek a notice 
requirement, I wanted to state this definitively for the record. This 
point was made very explicitly in the negotiations, and was agreed to 
by all sides.
  Mr. President, the final agreement does include some minor changes to 
the Senate-passed version that actually strengthen the ban slightly. 
Let me review some of them now.
  First, the revised language includes a new definition of the crimes 
for which the gun ban will be imposed. Under the original version, 
these were defined as crimes of violence against certain individuals, 
essentially family members. Some argued that the term crime of violence 
was too broad, and could be interpreted to include an act such as 
cutting up a credit card with a pair of scissors. Although this concern 
seemed far-fetched to me, I did agree to a new definition of covered 
crimes that is more precise, and probably broader.
  Under the final agreement, the ban applies to crimes that have, as an 
element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened 
use of a deadly weapon. This is an improvement over the earlier 
version, which did not explicitly include within the ban crimes 
involving an attempt to use force, or the threatened use of a weapon, 
if such an attempt or threat did not also involve actual physical 
violence. In my view, anyone who attempts or threatens violence against 
a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, 
and should be prohibited from possessing firearms.
  Mr. President, another new provision in the final agreement clarifies 
that a conviction will not lead to a firearm disability if the 
conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is for an offense for 
which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored. 
This language mirrors similar language in current law that applies to 
those convicted of felonies.

  I would note that the language on civil rights restoration, as it has 
been applied in the past, and as it should be interpreted in the 
future, refers only to major civil rights, such as the right to vote, 
to hold public office, and to serve on a jury. Loss of these rights 
generally does not flow from a misdemeanor conviction, and so this 
language is probably irrelevant to most, if

[[Page S11878]]

not all, of those offenders covered because of the new ban. But I want 
to make it clear that the restoration of any firearm rights under state 
law would not amount to a civil rights restoration for these purposes. 
In fact, any such State law effectively would be preempted by this 
language, and so could not have any legal effect.
  Mr. President, I now want to take a moment to briefly discuss the 
implementation of this new law.
  Mr. President, the final agreement does not merely make it against 
the law for someone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic 
violence from possessing firearms. It also incorporates this new 
category of offenders into the Brady law, which provides for a waiting 
period for handgun purchases. Under the Brady law, local law 
enforcement authorities are required to make reasonable efforts to 
ensure that those who are seeking to purchase a handgun are not 
prohibited under Federal law from doing so.
  Mr. President, convictions for domestic violence-related crimes often 
are for crimes, such as assault, that are not explicitly identified as 
related to domestic violence. Therefore, it will not always be possible 
for law enforcement authorities to determine from the face of someone's 
criminal record whether a particular misdemeanor conviction involves 
domestic violence, as defined in the new law.
  Mr. President, I would strongly urge law enforcement authorities to 
thoroughly investigate misdemeanor convictions on an applicant's 
criminal record to ensure that none involves domestic violence, before 
allowing the sale of a handgun. After all, for many battered women and 
abused children, whether their abuser gets access to a gun will be 
nothing short of a matter of life and death. I am hopeful that law 
enforcement officials always will keep that in mind as they implement 
this requirement.
  Having said this, Mr. President, I recognize that there are limits to 
the ability of many law enforcement agencies to conduct in depth 
investigations of large numbers of applicants for handgun purchases. 
The law requires that these agencies make a reasonable effort to 
investigate applicants. What is a reasonable effort depends upon the 
local law enforcement officials' available time, resources, access to 
records, and their own law enforcement priorities.
  In my view, the reasonable effort requirement should not be 
interpreted so broadly that it would substantially interfere with the 
ability of a law enforcement agency to carry out its central mission of 
apprehending criminals and protecting the public from crime. At the 
same time, it should not be interpreted so narrowly that it would allow 
law enforcement agencies to routinely ignore misdemeanor convictions 
for violent crimes, without further exploration into whether these 
crimes involved domestic violence. So long as an agency makes a 
reasonable effort to do so, the requirements of the law would be met. 
However, again, I would strongly urge law enforcement officials to make 
this a top priority.

  Finally, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge some of the many people 
who have played a role in moving this legislation forward.
  As I noted earlier, I am especially grateful to President Clinton for 
his strong support of this initiative, which was absolutely essential 
to its enactment.
  I also want to again thank many of the organizations and people who 
have supported the effort. In addition to those I mentioned earlier, 
these include the American Academy of Pediatrics; Children's Defense 
Fund; Consumer Federation of America; Family Violence Prevention Fund; 
the National Center on Women and Family Law; the Center for Women 
Policy Studies; American Ethical Union; Church of the Brethren; 
American Friends Service Committee; Friends Committee on National 
Legislation; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; American Public 
Health Association; American Jewish Committee; AYUDA; Church Women 
United; Congress of National Black Churches; Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in America; YWCA of the USA; United Methodist Church, General 
Board of Church and Society; Peace Action, National Clearinghouse for 
the Defense of Battered Women, National Urban League; NOW; National 
Council of Jewish Women; Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Presbyterian Church 
USA; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Unitarian Universalists 
Association; United Church of Christ; and Justice for Kids.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will 
save the lives of many battered wives and abused children. And it will 
send a message that, as a nation, we are determined to take the problem 
of domestic violence seriously.
  Mr. President, getting this legislation enacted has been a long and 
very difficult struggle. We had to overcome intense opposition from one 
of the most powerful special interests in American politics. We have 
overcome one roadblock after the next, and there have been several 
times when I did not think we would make it.
  But throughout it all, the supporters of this bill have always kept 
in mind that we were fighting for literally a matter of life and death. 
That knowledge has helped sustain us and make us that much more 
determined as we have worked our way through the legislative minefield.
  So, in the end, we have a glorious victory, a victory for America's 
frightened, battered women, a victory for our abused children, a 
victory of life over death.
  I am honored and humbled to have been able to play a part in this 
legislation. We hope that the enforcement of the law will be as rigid 
as the law very simply defines it. If you beat your wife, if you beat 
your child, if you abuse your family and you are convicted, even of a 
misdemeanor, you have no right to possess a gun. That is the way it 
ought to be. Lord willing, it will be. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for 4 minutes and Senator Helms be permitted to 
speak for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I may not use all of my time.
  Mr. President, first, I want to say this is not a pretty bill. There 
are plenty of reasons to be against it. But there are far more reasons 
to be for it, not the least of which is the fact that this bill will 
close out the appropriations for the year and the Government of the 
United States will continue to operate for the next 12 months.
  Having said that, I think there are a couple of people we should 
thank: First of all, the chairman of the full committee, Senator Mark 
Hatfield, for his hard work, long hours, and diligent insistence on 
getting this done. To our distinguished majority leader, who, in a 
short time as leader, has understood these processes better than most 
of us who have been here a long time. Indeed, he did what most of us 
thought was the right thing to do, and he got right in the middle of it 
and got this job done. My compliments go out to him.
  Mr. President, I have commented here on the floor and included an 
amendment heretofore in the foreign operations appropriations bill with 
reference to the drugs that are coming across the southwest border. I 
have not been very congenial with the Mexican Government because I 
believe they are not doing everything they can to prosecute the drug 
kingpins residing in Mexico. I think these kingpins are going to bring 
Mexico's Government to a standstill in the very near future.
  So, to make sure that the United States is doing its share with 
respect to the southwest border, where 70 percent of the cocaine comes 
into America--it does not come other ways, it comes right across the 
land of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California--many of us said we 
better do as much as we can to make sure that the border is as well 
protected as possible.
  I want to say to the U.S. Senate and to the people of this country 
that we have done that in this bill. There is total funding in this 
bill for the U.S. attorneys of $987 million, including a setaside of 
$4.6 million to prosecute cases on this southwest border where there is 
an enormous overload because of this drug trafficking.
  There is over $1 billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency, an increase 
of

[[Page S11879]]

$200 million over last year. This includes a southwest border 
initiative which provide the following: $9 million for cooperative 
efforts with the FBI to penetrate command and control communications of 
Mexican drug traffickers; $8 million and 50 agents to investigate leads 
obtained from new wiretap authority to be used against drug dealers on 
the border; over $2 million to focus on methamphetamine trafficking; 
and $4 million for classified intelligence research; $11 million for 
130 new special DEA staff and field office needs to support the mobile 
enforcement teams on that border. The DEA funding also includes $55 
million to expand the DEA's current supply reduction efforts and 
restore funding for international drug control Program to the same 
level as it was in 1992. It has been reduced since then, and it is now 
back to that 1992 level. Mr. President, this bill also includes $2.1 
billion for the INS, including $121 million for 1,000 new Border Patrol 
agents, $27 million for equipment, including infrared scopes and 
censors to track and intercept drug smugglers, and $12 million for 150 
new land border inspectors.

  I believe this is an excellent commitment on the part of the U.S. 
Government, and when signed into law it will do as much as we can to 
control drugs on the border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when Hurricane Fran swept across North 
Carolina on September 5, it left a path of unprecedented destruction; 
thousands of citizens lost their homes, their cars, their farms, or 
their businesses. The cost of the damage exceeds $5 billion, making 
that the most devastating disaster in North Carolina's history.
  I am delighted that after weeks of negotiations, North Carolina will 
receive a total of $1.8 billion in disaster aid. This much needed 
assistance will assist farmers, homeowners, and small businessmen in 
getting back on their feet.
  From the outset, we worked closely with the North Carolina delegation 
and with Gov. James B. Hunt in developing a package to provide adequate 
funds for disaster relief. We made clear that in light of the enormous 
damage to North Carolina, we would seek a total of $2 billion. Last 
week, we secured $1.3 billion for FEMA for funds to provide emergency 
assistance, temporary housing, and debris removal.
  Mr. President, the pending legislation allocates an additional $500 
million for various programs that provide needed services. For example, 
the Department of Agriculture is authorized to provide emergency loans 
to farmers, the Army Corps of Engineers can perform debris removal, 
dredging, and beach renourishment, and the Small Business 
Administration can help out with low-cost loans.
  I am deeply grateful to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Assistant 
Majority Leader Don Nickles, and the chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Mark Hatfield, the ranking member, Senator 
Robert C. Byrd, and others, for standing firm and helping preserve the 
$1.8 billion total.
  In the process, President Clinton proposed in effect to cut North 
Carolina's request by $434 million. It was reported that the President 
sought an increase of $225 million of the U.S. taxpayers' money to be 
given to the United Nations and the State Department while cutting the 
disaster aid to North Carolina.
  In the end, we worked with Senators Lott, Nickles, Byrd, Hatfield, 
and others to ensure that sufficient funds would be allocated for 
disaster relief irrespective of any request for funds filed by the 
White House.
  North Carolinians have unfailingly supported other States where 
disasters have struck. So we are thankful that other states have now 
supported our efforts to secure adequate funds for North Carolina in 
its effort to recover from disaster.
  The road to recovery will be a long one, but I hope that these 
Federal disaster funds will make the process a bit easier for our 
citizens who have suffered so much.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate contains the 
conference agreement reached by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
with the House on the bill H.R. 3610, the Fiscal Year 1997 Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act. I am proud of this bill, and urge all 
Members to support the conference report.
  We initially reported this bill to the Senate on June 21, 1996. We 
passed the bill in July, and intended to proceed to conference. Sadly, 
the House chairman, Bill Young, was temporarily out of action due to 
heart surgery. I am pleased to report that Chairman Young's vigorous 
and determined leadership this past month testified to his complete 
recovery from the problems that caused his brief absence in July.
  Despite this delay, we completed our work on Thursday, September 12, 
and expected the bill to come back before Congress the following week. 
Intervention by the White House resulted in the delay that brings the 
defense bill before the Senate today, as part of this omnibus 
appropriations package. Happily, the content of the bill remains as set 
by the conferees earlier this month.
  The conference report provides a total of $243.946 billion in new 
budget authority for the Department of Defense for 1997. That total is 
$950 million less than the level passed by the Senate, and $1.3 billion 
less than the House passed bill.
  Compared to the President's budget, the bill provides $9.268 billion 
more than he sought for 1997. But when compared to the 1996 level, 
including all the supplementals for Bosnia and other overseas 
contingencies, this bill is effectively a freeze at the 1996 level. In 
my view, the amounts provided in this bill are the bare minimum that 
can be provided for our national defense.
  This conference report remains true to the priorities set by the 
Senate in its version of the bill. We have fully funded the pay raise 
for military personnel, and added funds above the President's request 
for housing, barracks, and health care. This conference report truly 
enhances the quality of life for military personnel, their families, 
and retirees. That is our obligation and duty, and we have discharged 
that responsibility in this bill.
  The increases in the bill compared to the President's budget are 
spread among all titles. Personnel spending is increased by $233.7 
million. Operation and maintenance spending is increased by $701 
million. Procurement spending is increased by $5.7 billion, but remains 
$253 million less than the amount provided by Congress for 1996. 
Research and development accounts are increased by $2.7 billion, an 
increase of $951 over the level provided for 1996.
  The increase for R&D addresses the commitment of this Republican 
majority Congress to put us on the path to a meaningful ballistic 
missile defense program. I especially note the increase of $325 million 
for national missile defense, including funds for the Air Force 
Minuteman II based national missile defense concept. We must accelerate 
to the maximum extent technology will permit work on a real national 
missile defense system. The funds in this conference report keep us on 
that path.
  Additionally, we provide $137 million for breast cancer research in 
the conference report, and $45 million to establish a new prostate 
cancer research initiative through DOD. I want to note Chairman 
Hatfield's leadership in expanding the funding in the bill to fight 
prostate cancer.
  I want to close by thanking my friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, 
for his commitment to getting this bill through, and working to achieve 
a true bi-partisan consensus. Additionally, it was a great pleasure to 
work once again with the House subcommittee, led by Chairman Bill 
Young, and the ranking member, Jack Murtha.
  This conference report is a compromise. We sought to accommodate the 
concerns of the Joint Chiefs, our colleagues, and the Secretary to the 
maximum extent possible. I ask all my colleagues understanding where we 
were not able to fully fund their concerns--we started this conference 
with a difference of $16 billion between the two bills. I believe the 
bill reflects a fair settlement between the House and Senate positions, 
and I urge adoption of the conference report by the Senate.


        fiscal year 1997 department of defense conference report

  Mr. LOTT. If I could get the attention of the distinguished chairman 
of the Defense Subcommittee, I would

[[Page S11880]]

like to discuss a matter of great importance to our National Guard and 
Reserve forces.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to engage in a discussion with the 
distinguished majority leader in any matter dealing with enhancements 
of our Reserve component forces.
  Mr. LOTT. As the chairman is well aware, the primary antitank missile 
system deployed by Reserve component forces is the 1970's vintage 
Dragon missile. While the Active forces are just now beginning the 
initial procurement and deployment of the vastly superior Javelin 
missile system, the Dragon will remain the mainstay in the Reserve 
components' inventory well past the turn of the century. Being that 
this is the case, the National Guard Bureau has identified the need to 
develop safety and capability improvements to the Dragon system to make 
National Guard units more compatible with Active component forces. As I 
have been briefed, this will be a two part process.
  The first issue the National Guard Bureau wishes to address is safety 
modifications to the Dragon missile. A majority of the on-hand 
inventory has a safety flaw that has been identified and for which a 
solution has already been developed. In fact, the Marine Corps has 
already contracted to have their Dragon assets modified to resolve this 
safety shortfall. There is an urgent need to apply this modification to 
the Army's missile inventory.
  Mr. STEVENS. The majority leader is well informed about this critical 
safety shortfall in the Dragon missile system and because of his 
leadership on this issue, the Senate-passed Defense appropriations bill 
included $4.9 million to complete safety modification on the entire 
inventory of National Guard Dragon missiles. I am also pleased to 
inform the leader that because of his interest and support, the 
conference report before the Senate today includes the full amount 
proposed in the Senate bill for the safety modifications.
  Mr. LOTT. I am very pleased the Senate was able to prevail on this 
critical safety enhancement for our Reserve component forces and that 
these funds are included in this conference report. I would, however, 
like to also point out that there is a capability shortfall identified 
by the National Guard that also need to be addressed by this body.
  With the knowledge that the Dragon missile may remain in the Reserve 
components' inventory for as much as 10 more years, I believe it is 
imperative that the National Guard Bureau look at all possible 
modifications that can improve the range and lethality of the Dragon 
system. My staff and I have been briefed on a modification known as the 
Super Dragon that can potentially improve the current generation 
Dragon's capability to 95 percent of the Javelin missile system. The 
modification will significantly increase the Dragon's range, minimize 
its launch signature, double its speed, and give the Dragon missile the 
capability to defeat all known modern armor threats. Much of the 
development work has already been completed and with a modest 
investment of an additional $25 million, development, pre-production 
engineering and system qualification work can be completed in less than 
16 months.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to inform my distinguished colleague from 
Mississippi that this conference report includes explicit directions to 
the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees, no later than April 1, 1997, detailing the 
requirement, cost, and schedule for the various Dragon upgrade options 
under consideration. Further, the conference report also includes $100 
million of miscellaneous procurement funds under the direct control of 
the Chief of the Army National Guard, a portion of which, could be used 
for the Dragon development effort. If the report from the Secretary of 
the Army is supportive of the Dragon modification, I would expect the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau to give immediate consideration to 
using miscellaneous procurement funds under his control to proceed with 
this development effort.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for his 
support in this conference report for Dragon missile system 
improvements and look forward to the Secretary of the Army's report on 
this important issue to our National Guard forces.


               environmental restoration database funding

  Mr. SPECTOR. Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the 
distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee an 
important provision in the Defense Department appropriations conference 
report. In particular, I would like to confirm my understanding that 
the Department of the Air Force is expected to provide initial start-up 
funds in the amount of $72,000 for the establishment of a comprehensive 
database which incorporates data from current and future environmental 
investigations at the former Olmsted Air Force Base, to be located at 
Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, PA.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Pennsylvania 
knows, the conference report provides $123,000 over 5 years for 
establishing and maintaining the database, which is necessary for 
safety and hazard mitigation after the site is delisted from the 
national priority list of Superfund sites. I understand that the 
initial start-up costs are a disproportionate amount of the total 
$123,000 and would occur that the Department should provide at least 
$72,000 in fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. SPECTOR. I thank my good friend, the chairman, and again express 
my appreciation for his effort on the Olmsted AFB cleanup issue.


           federally funded research and development centers

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague and 
chairman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about the 
conference report's treatment of Defense's federally funded research 
and development centers, or FFRDC's.
  These institutions are unique in their capabilities to provide the 
Defense Department (DOD) with specialized scientific, engineering, and 
analytical knowledge important to national security.
  I am very proud that New England is the home of two of the premiere 
defense FFRDC's: the Lincoln Laboratory operated by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, and the Mitre Corporation. Lincoln Lab is 
sponsored by the Air Force, and Mitre is sponsored by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense.
  I want to discuss an issue affecting the Lincoln Laboratory. Lincoln 
Laboratory has been a leader in the fields of ballistic missile 
defense, communications, space and surface surveillance, and advanced 
electronics.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, and as guidance to the Defense 
Department, would the chairman be willing to elaborate on the 
conferees, action regarding defense FFRDC's?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to highlight our action. In past years, 
the annual Defense Department appropriations acts have included a 
statutory ceiling on the total amount of funds which might be allocated 
by the Department for its 10 FFRDC's.
  In response to DOD's request that it be allowed to manage overall 
FFRDC resources through staff years of technical effort instead of 
dollars, the conference agreement for fiscal year 1997 includes such a 
statutory limit.
  The Department is required to control its staff years to maintain 
total FFRDC spending at the fiscal year 1996 level, but the conferees 
did agree that limits on staff years were a more appropriate management 
mechanism for fiscal year 1997. This was a reasonable compromise which 
tries to address DOD's concerns while at the same time not obscuring 
the budgetary impacts of funding FFRDC's, which has been a concern to 
the Defense Subcommittee.
  Mr. GREGG. As the chairman knows, the use of a statutory dollar 
limitation during fiscal year 1996 inadvertently perturbed the funds 
made available to Lincoln Laboratory to acquire industry support for 
major development or demonstration activities. Would the chairman 
comment on this situation?
  Mr. STEVENS. The problem faced by Lincoln Laboratory for fiscal year 
1996 was caused not by the statutory dollar ceiling but by the Defense 
Department. DOD chose--unwisely in my view--to assign a lower priority 
to the lab's allocation and a higher priority to funding the studies 
and analyses FFRDC's. I disagreed with that decision. I wrote to the 
Department and urged it to assign a much higher priority to the Lincoln 
Laboratory programs. The Department chose to do otherwise, and I regret 
its choice.

[[Page S11881]]

  Mr. GREGG. Does the distinguished chairman believe that the 
conference agreement now before us eliminates this dilemma for Lincoln 
Laboratory for fiscal year 1997?
  Mr. STEVENS. I certainly do. The limitation on staff years 
specifically does not apply to the funds needed by Lincoln Lab to 
acquire industry support for major system development or 
demonstrations. It is the conferees, understanding that these funds are 
used to contract with industry and are not used to expand staff years 
of technical effort at the laboratory.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the chairman for this clarification.


    undergraduate flight officer training T-39N AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend and 
distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a 
brief colloquy regarding section 8110 of the Defense Appropriations 
conference report now before the Senate.
  Section 8110 governs the procurement by the Navy of T-39N aircraft to 
conduct undergraduate flight officer training. These aircraft currently 
are provided to the Navy under a services contract. The Navy needs to 
acquire these aircraft expeditiously in order to avoid a break in 
training, and procurement of the T-39N aircraft under the conditions 
outlined in this section is in the best interests of the Navy and of 
the taxpayers.
  In this regard, I understand that some in the Navy need clarification 
about the conditions regarding this procurement contained in section 
137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and 
in Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1997.
  I would like to provide this clarification by discussing the matter 
with the Defense Subcommittee chairman. Would the distinguished 
chairman agree with me that section 8110 states clearly that the 
procurement of these T-39N aircraft should go forward ``notwithstanding 
any other provision of law''?
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with my friend from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Would the chairman also agree that these words were 
included to waive expressly any other statutory language regarding this 
issue, including sections 137 and 124 of the respective authorization 
acts? Would the chairman also agree that the conferees agreed that 
procurement of these T-39N aircraft for undergraduate flight officer 
training is important for our national security and should occur 
without further delay?
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with my colleagues on both statements.
  Mr. BOND. Would the chairman agree further that the inclusion of this 
phrase should remove any doubt in any quarters about which aircraft 
should be procured and under what conditions they should be procured?
  Mr. STEVENS. My colleague is correct. That was the objective of the 
conferees in including this language.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my friend for his clarifying remarks.


                       Attention Deficit Disorder

  Mr. KOHL. I would like to take a moment to discuss language included 
in the statement of the managers to the fiscal year 1997 Defense 
appropriations bill conference report relating to attention deficit 
disorder.
  First, I want to thank the managers, the distinguished chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Stevens] and the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Hawaii 
[Mr. Inouye] for their sensitivity in recognizing the importance of 
this issue. I also want to thank the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] 
for his work on this issue.
  Attention Deficit Disorder [ADD] and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 
Disorder [ADHD], are neurobiological disorders characterized by 
inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. In the past it was 
believed that these were disorders that primarily affected children. 
More recently, however, experts have concluded that this is not true. 
As many as 40 percent of children with ADD or ADHD have functionally 
impairing symptoms which continue into adult life. This is especially 
true of young males.
  As the managers noted, in some cases these disorders can make 
successful service difficult without some accommodations, especially 
for those who require the moderating influence of certain prescription 
pharmaceuticals, the use of which is prohibited by military 
regulations. It is important to note, however, that many individuals 
with ADD and ADHD serve successfully in the military and it is not our 
intention to bar or discourage individuals with ADD and ADHD from 
military service.
  Mr. GRAMS: I want to second the comments of my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Wisconsin, and I, too, want to thank the distinguished 
senior Senators from Alaska and Hawaii for their work in ensuring that 
the conferees addressed the issue of attention deficit disorder and 
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the military before they 
completed action on the fiscal year 1997 Defense budget.
  Unfortunately, it came to our attention that the services had no 
programs in place to educate key personnel about how to recognize and 
treat ADD/ADHD. We became aware of this deficiency through tragic 
circumstances. A constituent, Thomas Swenson of Marshfield, WI, had a 
son who was murdered while serving in the Navy. Aaron Swenson had ADHD. 
As Senator Kohl noted, in its severest form, this disorder can create a 
dramatic level of impulsivity, restlessness, and difficulty modulating 
responses to given situations. Aaron Swenson's parents believe that his 
ADHD--which he concealed at the time of his recruitment--made it 
difficult, if not impossible, for him to serve 6 years in the Navy's 
electronics school at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Further, 
they believe that Aaron's ADHD played a role in putting him in harm's 
way.
  There is widespread public awareness of ADD/ADHD. Yet, after his many 
meetings with Navy officials--some of them very senior officials--
Thomas Swenson concluded that the services have little knowledge of 
ADD. He subsequently met with both of us and urged us to do something 
to educate the services about the prevalence of ADD/ADHD among young 
adults, particularly as these disorders relate to potential recruits.
  Thus, it is our hope that this language encourages the military 
services to do all they can to recognize, treat, and humanely deal with 
recruits and service members with ADD and ADHD.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the work of the Senators from Wisconsin and 
Minnesota on this issue. As my colleagues are aware, the Defense 
Department has informed me that it has a familiarization program to 
help training instructors and health care professionals recognize and 
evaluate recruits with attention deficit disorder and attention deficit 
hyperactivity disorder at basic training bases. The conferees have 
encouraged the Department of Defense to continue this familiarization 
program so that personnel who deal with potential recruits and service 
members beyond basic training are able to recognize the characteristics 
and markers of these disorders.
  Mr. KOHL. I welcome the comments of the senior Senator from Alaska. I 
understand that since we first approached the Defense Subcommittee 
about this issue that the Defense Department has agreed to meet with a 
prominent national organization, Children and Adults with Attention 
Deficit Disorders [CHADD] to discuss these issues further. I am glad 
that the Department of Defense is drawing on the expertise of 
organizations and national experts who already have extensive knowledge 
about ADD and ADHD. I encourage the services to do all they can to 
address the needs and ensure the success of persons with ADD and ADHD 
in the services.


   combating illegal immigration: an opportunity to make a difference

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, we will pass legislation we hope will 
significantly reduce illegal immigration in this country.
  We could have passed this bill in the Senate last week. 
Unfortunately, partisan politics almost derailed efforts of the 
Congress, and particularly the efforts of the chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, Alan Simpson, who, under extraordinary 
circumstances, has worked long and hard to produce a bipartisan, far-
reaching immigration bill.
  That is because, in the end, the Clinton administration threatened to 
veto either the omnibus appropriations

[[Page S11882]]

bill--and shut down the Federal Government--or a stand-alone 
immigration bill unless some of our reforms were deleted from title 5 
of the immigration conference report. It is interesting that the 
immigration conference report, with title 5 intact, passed the House 
last week with bipartisan support by a vote of 305-123. Notwithstanding 
this strong support, in order to ensure passage of this historic 
immigration measure, important provisions of title 5 have been deleted.
  One of the most important provisions dropped from title 5 would have 
required that sponsors who bring their immigrant relatives into the 
United States earn 200 percent of poverty in order to bring in extended 
relatives or 140 percent of poverty when they sponsor their spouses or 
their minor children. Revised title 5 changed the income requirement 
for all sponsors to 125 percent of poverty. At that income level, the 
sponsor could already be participating in several welfare-related 
programs, including, but not limited to, food stamps, reduced school 
lunch, Medicaid for pregnant women and children under the age of 6, and 
the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] program. In other words, the 
sponsors may well not be capable of supporting the immigrants they 
sponsor.
  Another provision that was removed from title 5 would have clarified 
the definition of ``public charge.'' Under the House-passed conference 
report, an immigrant could be deported--but would not necessarily be 
deported--if he or she received Federal public benefits for an 
aggregate of 12 months over a period of 7 years. That provision was 
dropped during Saturday's negotiations.
  The House-passed conference report would have required that public 
housing authorities verify the status of individuals who obtain public 
housing benefits. Individuals would have had 3 months to verify their 
status with a public housing authority or they would be required to 
vacate the unit. Revised title 5 will give an illegal alien 18 months 
to vacate the housing unit. In addition, revised title 5 will now give 
discretionary authority to public housing authorities to determine 
whether or not they will verify if someone in this country has a legal 
right to federally-assisted housing. This doesn't make sense to me 
since, in my home State of Arizona, officials of the Maricopa County 
Housing Authority alone estimate that 40 percent of the people 
receiving housing assistance in the county are illegal aliens. In 
Maricopa County, there are 1,334 section 8 units and 917 units 
available. There are over 6,500 individuals on the waiting list there.
  There are other provisions in title 5 that shouldn't have been 
dropped from the immigration conference report. It is my hope that in 
the future, partisan politics will play a smaller role than it did on 
Saturday in efforts to effectively reform our Nation's immigration 
laws.
  Having said that, I do believe it would be a great disservice to the 
people of Arizona and the rest of the Nation if this illegal 
immigration conference report were not to pass the Congress during the 
104th Congress.
  In Arizona's Tucson sector alone, the U.S. Border Patrol has 
apprehended more than 300,000 illegal aliens this year. It is estimated 
that for every illegal immigrant arrested, four slip through 
undetected. These undetected entrants are costing Arizonans millions of 
dollars. In fact, the State of Arizona estimates that it spends over 
$200 million each year on the medical care, education, and 
incarceration of undocumented immigrants. That's about equal to what 
the State spends each year to run Arizona State University.
  With this immigration bill, we have the opportunity to lift this 
financial burden off the States by forcing the Federal Government to 
take responsibility for reducing illegal immigration, and to reimburse 
States for many of the illegal immigration-related costs they incur.
  Perhaps most importantly for Arizona, under the immigration 
conference report, our borders will be better secured. One of my 
amendments to the bill will increase the number of border patrol agents 
by 5,000 over 5 years, nearly doubling the current number of agents. An 
increased border patrol presence in Arizona will help cities and towns 
such as Nogales, Naco, and Douglas, which have experienced surges in 
illegal immigration and border-related crime.

  The immigration bill will also require that the security features on 
the border-crossing card be improved to counter fraud. There will be 
new monetary and civil penalties for illegal entry. In addition, every 
illegal immigration apprehended will be fingerprinted. Preinspection at 
foreign airports of passenger bound for the U.S. will be increased. The 
bill creates a mandatory, expedited removal process for aliens arriving 
without proper documentation, except if they have a credible fear of 
persecution in their home countries. Penalties for alien smugglers will 
be increased and deportation of criminal aliens will be expedited.
  In addition to beefing up our borders, the bill cracks down on those 
individuals who overstay their visas. Half of those who temporarily 
enter the country legally remain here illegally. The bill requires that 
an entry-exit control system be developed to track those individuals. 
Visas overstayers will also be ineligible to return to the U.S. for a 
number of years, depending on how long they overstayed their visas.
  The immigration bill also provides for mandatory detention of most 
deportable, criminal aliens and requires that those aliens be deported 
within 90 days. The bill also authorize $150 million for the costs of 
detaining and removing deportable or inadmissible aliens and increases 
the number of detention spaces to 9,000 by the end of 1997.
  Finally, this immigration bill will remove many of the incentives for 
illegal entry. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates 
that 10 percent of the workforce in Arizona is made up of illegal 
aliens. H.R. 2202 sets up three pilot projects, to be implemented in 
high illegal immigration States, that will determine the employment 
eligibility of workers and thereby reduce the number of illegal aliens 
trying to get U.S. jobs.
  While I may well vote against the omnibus bill to which this 
legislation is attached and while I am very disappointed about the last 
minute changes to the immigration part of the bill, I nevertheless 
believe that part of the omnibus bill should be passed. I am confident 
that this legislation is the keystone we will build upon in the future.


                                  hcfa

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we consider funding for the Health Care 
Financing Administration [HCFA], I would like to commend the conferees 
for including a reference in the Statement of Managers of the 
Conference to a demonstration program that will demonstrate and 
evaluate the best approaches for a community health care center to 
provide services through a health care network.
  We are well aware of the tumultuous changes occurring in the health 
care field as managed care becomes more and more predominant. For those 
who are involved in the services of community health centers, whether 
as providers or patients, the uncertainty of the current health care 
landscape can be overwhelming. As health care networks are formed, 
community health centers can either participate in this phenomenon or 
risk being excluded from the networks. Exclusion is tantamount to 
severely limiting the patient's medical options, which is a repudiation 
of the centers' mission and mandate to serve the less advantaged among 
us.
  One community health center in particular, with which I am familiar, 
is Swope Parkway Health Center in Kansas City, MO. Swope Parkway was 
founded in 1969 and serves about 35,000 patients each year as a 
federally qualified community health center. Its approach to health 
care is uniquely comprehensive, combining medical and behavioral health 
and social services, housing and economic development. Swope Parkway 
has decided to assure its patient continued quality health coverage by 
forming a health maintenance organization [HMO] and developing its own 
network of providers.
  It is my understanding that Swope Parkway is one of the first--but in 
all likelihood not the last--federally qualified community health 
centers in the Nation to assume full risk and has formed a new HMO. 
Given the Federal funding that has been dedicated over the years to 
community health centers, it would seem logical in this time

[[Page S11883]]

of transition to managed care to demonstrate various approaches for 
community health centers to determine and deliver the most cost-
effective way to provide services and maintain the quality of care to 
low-income patients in urban settings.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees are recommending that 
HCFA conduct such a demonstration as part of its Research, 
Demonstration, and Evaluation Program, and I strongly urge them to 
consider Swope Parkway Health Center as the site for this 
demonstration.


                          ryan white care act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to engage the chairman and ranking 
member of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee in a brief colloquy concerning 
pediatric AIDS demonstrations funded under title IV of the Ryan White 
CARE Act.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I, too, would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would first like to commend and thank the chairman 
and the ranking member for their work to ensure our Nation's continued 
strong commitment to our children and families tragically infected with 
HIV by providing a funding increase for title IV of the Ryan White CARE 
Act. Title IV programs are designed to coordinate health care and 
assure that it is focused on families' needs and based in their 
communities. These programs are the providers of care to the majority 
of children, youth, and families with HIV/AIDS in our country, ensuring 
these families have access to the comprehensive array of services they 
need.
  The original Senate report stated that a portion of the title IV 
funds should be used to provide peer-based training and technical 
assistance through national organizations that collaborate with 
projects to ensure development of innovative models of family centered 
and youth centered care; advanced provider training for pediatric, 
adolescent, and family HIV providers; coordination with research 
programs, and other technical assistance activities. Is it correct that 
the managers intend to continue support of national organizations 
providing training and technical assistance, including the National 
Pediatric and Family HIV Resource Center located within the University 
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in this legislation?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, the Senator from New Jersey is correct. The 
committee intends that a majority of title IV funds be awarded to 
existing comprehensive HIV care projects. Title IV also supports 
national training and technical assistance centers that include: The 
National Pediatric and Family HIV Resource, the AIDs Policy Center for 
Children, Youth and Families, and the Institute for Family-Centered 
Care, all of which will be eligible to apply for funding in the coming 
fiscal year.
  Mr. HARKIN. I concur with the chairman.
  LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
support, and for their continued work in this very important component 
of our national HIV/AIDS strategy.


                              doj section

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides many tools with which 
we, as a nation, can fight crime and drugs. I would like to highlight 
one area about which many law enforcement officials of my home State of 
Washington have expressed growing concern: methamphetamines. The 
Department of Justice, working with other agencies, has developed a 
comprehensive approach to battling the use and manufacture of 
methamphetamines entitled ``National Methamphetamine Strategy'', April 
1996. Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the managers' support for 
interagency and Federal, State, and local law enforcement cooperation 
in combating this growing menace. It is particularly important to 
involve the Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate 
agencies to provide technical and financial assistance to State and 
local law enforcement as they remove hazardous chemicals and waste 
developed in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I agree, Senator Murray. We need a united front to 
reduce methamphetamine use and eradicate clandestine manufacturing 
facilities. The managers support a comprehensive, interagency strategy 
in which the Federal agencies work in partnership with State and local 
law enforcement to solve this problem.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working as a 
member of the Appropriations Committee--unfortunately, without you--
next year to ensure a comprehensive approach is fully funded.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to thank Senator Murray for reminding us of the 
importance of combining resources and expertise to address not only 
methamphetamines, but all narcotics. Senator Murray has been and 
continues to be a leader in protecting and providing for children, 
families, and communities. In this bill, we have supported several 
programs that will assist us in reducing the threats posed by 
methamphetamines. Specifically, the Drug Enforcement Agency's budget 
has been increased by 23 percent from last year. The subcommittee looks 
forward to working with you on the fiscal year 1998 budget.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I note in the report on H.R. 3814 that 
our committee urged the Economic Development Administration [EDA] to 
consider applications for grant funding for several worthwhile economic 
development proposals throughout the country. These were not 
specifically repeated, however, in this Omnibus Appropriations 
conference report.
  Mr. HATFIELD. That is correct. The committee listed nine such 
proposals on page 58 of the report.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to make the Senator from Oregon, the 
chairman of the committee, aware of a particularly meritorious economic 
development project from my home State of South Carolina that was not 
listed in the report. The proposal calls for the renovation of the Main 
Street theatre in Conway, SC Located in the town's historic downtown 
district, the theater has the potential to become a center for 
theatrical and economic activity.
  I ask the Senator from Oregon if, in his opinion, the Conway project 
is similar to those listed in our committee report.
  Mr. HATFIELD. It is, and it certainly appears to meet the same 
criteria for inclusion in the report.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That being the case, I ask the Senator that we deem the 
Conway project part of the committee's recommendation to the EDA.
  Mr. HATFIELD. As the Senator knows, we cannot amend the report or 
statement of managers at this point, however, I speak for this side of 
the aisle in requesting that the EDA evaluate the Conway project in the 
same manner along with those listed in the report. Like the committee 
recommended projects, the Conway proposal should be given every 
consideration by the Economic Development Administration.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree, and thank the Chairman.


                assistance for victims of hurricane fran

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in light of the estimated $5 billion in 
damage to homes, businesses and farms in North Carolina, it is 
imperative that critical Federal disaster relief efforts not be 
delayed, and I am deeply grateful to the distinguished chairman, Mr. 
Hatfield, and the equally distinguished ranking member Mr. Byrd of the 
Appropriations Committee for their fine help in allocating adequate 
funds in this bill for disaster relief.
  A tremendous amount of time was spent last week in working out the 
details of the disaster relief package. Needless to say, I was 
concerned about the prospect of disaster relief funds running out.
  After extensive consultations last week, a total of nearly $400 
million in new funds was provided for various programs to provide 
assistance to citizens affected by Hurricane Fran.
  It is my understanding that existing unobligated funds are also 
available for programs within the Departments of Agriculture and 
Commerce, as well as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and I 
respectfully inquire of the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee if they agree that more than $150 million in 
existing unobligated funds from these programs will be available for 
disaster relief for North Carolina victims of Hurricane Fran?

[[Page S11884]]

  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from North Carolina in bringing the 
Senate's attention to the plight of many Americans who have suffered 
from the fury of Hurricane Fran. I might remind Senators that this 
terrible storm swept over much of the eastern United States, including 
my own State of West Virginia, leaving a path of destruction to homes, 
businesses, and most tragically, injury and loss of life.
  I am aware that the Senator from North Carolina has made a request to 
the Senate Committee on Appropriations for levels of assistance similar 
to and, in some cases, exceeding those submitted to Congress by the 
President. The agreement contained in the continuing resolution 
includes emergency supplemental appropriations of nearly $400 million 
in new budget authority for agencies of the Department of Agriculture, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Economic Development 
Administration, and the Small Business Administration to respond to the 
unmet needs for hurricane relief.
  During negotiations with the administration, an agreement was reached 
to make available an additional $150 million in Federal assistance for 
relief from fiscal year 1996 unobligated funds. These amounts include 
$100 million provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the 
Crops of Engineers. In addition, there are funds remaining at the 
Department of Agriculture for debris removal, utility repair, and 
emergency loans to farmers and ranchers. In all, this brings the level 
of funds available for victims of Hurricane Fran to more then $500 
million which achieves the level included in the request by the Senator 
from North Carolina.

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Is this the same 
understanding of the Senator from Oregon, the chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, this is my understanding.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senators from West Virginia and Oregon for 
this explanation. In addition to these funding levels, have any other 
actions been taken to eliminate obstacles that may affect the 
availability of assistance to North Carolinians?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from North Carolina may be referring to a 
restriction of assistance to landowners requesting assistance from the 
Department of Agriculture for debris removal. Normally, landowners are 
ineligible for this assistance if their lands had received debris 
removal assistance in 2 of the previous 25 years. I have personally 
made an inquiry with the Department of Agriculture relating to this 
restriction as it affects victims of Hurricane Fran. I am glad to 
report that earlier this month, the Department of Agriculture has taken 
administrative action to recognize the extraordinary damage caused by 
Hurricane Fran and provide conditional waivers to my State of West 
Virginia, along with the States of Virginia and North Carolina.
  The announcement by the Department of Agriculture states in part:

       Based on the uncommon severity and extent of damage caused 
     by Hurricane Fran, the provisions prohibiting eligibility of 
     land damaged 3 or more times (including the current disaster) 
     in the last 25 years is waived in counties designated as 
     disaster areas by the President or Secretary.

  Mr. HELMS. Again, I thank the Senators from West Virginia and Oregon 
for making clear the agreement relating to assistance for victims of 
Hurricane Fran in my State and other States.


                             printing error

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will not take much time of the Senate, 
because time is short. There is no doubt that questions will arise with 
regard to this bill. Questions will arise regarding intent. I want to 
take this time to ensure that a printing error in the Treasury portion 
of the bill does not cause any confusion. The manager's statement 
regarding the Internal Revenue Service Tax Modernization System [TSM] 
Request For Proposal [RFP] addressed on page H12010 of Saturday's 
Record uses two dates: July 31, 1997 and July 31, 1999. July 31, 1997 
is the date.
  Mr. President there may be other errors, but I have not found them. 
The Government Printing Office has done an exceptional job in producing 
a lengthy and complex document in a very short time.


                             fcc relocation

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Treasury, Postal 
Service Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, concerning funding 
for the proposed relocation of the Federal Communications Commission 
[FCC]. Mr. Chairman, the Senate version of the fiscal year 1997 
Treasury, Postal appropriations bill contained a provision that would 
allow the Administrator of the General Services Administration [GSA] to 
pay a portion of the costs associated with a proposed relocation of the 
FCC. It this correct?
  Mr. SHELBY. The Senator is correct. At the request of GSA this 
provision was included in the committee report accompanying the fiscal 
year 1997 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill. During floor 
consideration of the bill, this provision was converted to statutory 
language.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understand that this provision has been deleted 
from the omnibus bill before us today.
  Mr. SHELBY. That is correct. Several members have raised objections 
to this provision for a variety of reasons, and as a result, we have 
specifically not included it in this omnibus bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chairman. I have recently become aware of the 
large costs associated with this proposal--more than $40 million in up-
front moving costs and an expensive lease rate--and I think the 
Congress should give this issue a much more careful review before it 
proceeds any further. As I understand it, the proposal calls for the 
FCC to nearly double the amount of space it occupies at the very time 
Congress is considering legislation to reduce the size of the agency. 
Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that by specifically deleting the language 
allowing the GSA Administrator to pay for the relocation of the FCC, 
that is intended that the GSA Administrator specifically not be 
authorized to provide any funding for the proposed FCC relocation?
  Mr. SHELBY. That is correct. The GSA should not use funds 
appropriated to it to facilitate the move. Since the Commerce 
Appropriations Subcommittee denied requested funding for the 
relocation, the proposed move should not go forward until Congress has 
more closely examined the proposal. I would like to work with the 
gentleman from Oklahoma and the relevant Senate committees to fully 
understand whether the proposed relocations are justified and if so, 
how we might go about reducing costs associated with the plan. We 
should take a close look at these issues in the next Congress. Until 
we've had the time to closely examine these issues, however, I do not 
believe the proposed relocation should go forward. Accordingly, we did 
not include language allowing GSA to fund the proposed move and they 
should not use any of the resources provided to them for that purpose.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chairman and I look forward to working with 
him in the next Congress on this issue.


                   aircraft maintenance tax colloquy

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to bring to my colleagues' 
attention a new and hidden tax being imposed by the IRS on American air 
carriers, and those who travel or ship cargo by aircraft. Ignoring 
congressional intent, as codified in sections 162 and 232 of the 
Internal Revenue Code, the IRS is reversing its policy of accepting the 
longstanding industry practice of expense deductions of aircraft 
inspection, maintenance, and repair required by the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
  This IRS change in tax treatment of air carriers constitutes a tax 
penalty on air safety.
  This new and hidden tax penalty on air safety is no small matter. 
When an airline takes delivery of an aircraft, before the FAA will 
issue a certificate of airworthiness allowing that plane to fly, the 
carrier must provide the FAA with a suitable plan for ongoing 
maintenance and repair.
  So here, on one hand, we have one agency of the Federal Government, 
the FAA, working hand in hand with the industry to ensure and to 
enhance the public safety for air travelers. But at the same time, a 
second agency, the IRS, is attempting to impose a tax penalty on the 
cost of ensuring that very safety.
  Mr. FORD. May I inquire of my colleague from Oklahoma, who has told 
us that the IRS is changing its policy and

[[Page S11885]]

thereby imposing a tax penalty on airline safety. How is that possible? 
How can the IRS put this tax penalty on aircraft safety?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will inform my distinguished colleague from Kentucky 
that he is exactly correct. Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code 
provides that the cost of maintenance and repairs to keep property in 
an ordinarily efficient operating condition is deductible in the year 
incurred. Only maintenance which either materially adds to the value or 
substantially prolongs the useful life of the property or adapts the 
property to a new or different use is required to be capitalized. Under 
this test, aircraft maintenance and repair costs are deductible because 
such maintenance and repair does not materially increase the value or 
extend the useful life of the aircraft.
  I will answer the distinguished bill manager. Ignoring economic 
reality and logic, the IRS is reversing its policy of accepting the 
longstanding industry practice of deducting the cost of aircraft 
maintenance in the year incurred. The IRS's new position that these 
repairs should be capitalized and depreciated over a period of years 
assumes that the economic life of an asset should be calculated on the 
assumption that no appropriate maintenance--including Government-
mandated safety maintenance--will be performed.
  Mr. FORD. I would add to my colleague from Oklahoma's remarks that 
the IRS position defies common sense. Requiring airlines to capitalize 
the cost of inspection and repairs in compliance with FAA safety 
regulations that merely maintain the normal operating condition and 
useful life of the aircraft would be like requiring a taxicab company 
to capitalize the cost of oil changes on its cabs because an oil change 
extends the useful life of the engine.
  It simply does not make any sense. The U.S. airline industry has the 
best safety record in the world. As the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, I know first hand how hard this body and 
other Federal agencies have worked to encourage and help maintain and 
improve that enviable safety record.
  It seems to me, that the IRS is working at cross purposes with its 
sister agencies and the Congress.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree with my colleague. However, I would not put it 
quite so delicately. I believe that the IRS is clearly overstepping its 
authority and ignoring clear congressional direction and intent as 
provided by the Internal Revenue Code. This tax penalty on aircraft 
safety is not only wrong in substance, the process by which the IRS is 
adopting this new policy is also flawed. In reversing its historic 
practice of accepting the characterization of aircraft maintenance and 
repair cost as deductible, the IRS is effectively promulgating a major 
regulation. As I understand it, there has been no notice of proposed 
rulemaking and there is at this time no coordinated issue paper. 
Instead, the IRS is challenging taxpayers who can least afford to 
protect their interest against the IRS in court. In other words, the 
IRS is selectively enforcing this new rule on a case-by-case basis 
hoping to develop a new body of regulation, without affording taxpayers 
of the protections provided by the normal rulemaking process.
  If the IRS wants to change their policy and the industry practice, 
the IRS should use the rulemaking process. A change in IRS's policy of 
this magnitude clearly needs to be addressed through full notice and 
comment protections provided in the Administrative Procedures Act. The 
IRS's current process denies stakeholders the opportunity to comment 
before the tax change is finalized. In addition, I would like to send a 
clear message to the IRS that general application of this reversal of 
longstanding tax policy on aircraft maintenance costs would be a rule 
for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. IRS must be prepared to 
defend both their decision and their decisionmaking process before this 
body under the new congressional review provisions of chapter 8 of 
title 5, United States Code.
  Mr. THOMAS. Can the chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Treasury Postal Service tell me why the Thomas 
amendment, which passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 59 to 39, is 
not included in this omnibus appropriations bill? As you know, my 
amendment would have prohibited OMB from expending funds to implement 
any policy that permits any Federal agency to provide commercial goods 
and services to other government agencies, unless a cost comparison 
determines that government agency performance is more cost effective 
than the private sector.
  Mr. SHELBY. The conferees believe existing law, particularly the 
Economy Act and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, address this 
issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. However, hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs and House Committee on Small Business have demonstrated that 
administration implementation of these statutes have failed to 
eliminate Government competition with the private sector and recent OMB 
action has been interpreted as encouraging agencies to market their 
services to other Federal, State and local government entities. Does 
the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee agree with 
this conclusion?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. My committee held a hearing on 
September 24, 1996, and found questionable use and minimal cost 
analysis of interagency agreements. I was a cosponsor of the Thomas 
amendment and was disappointed to see that it was not included in the 
bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Is it the subcommittee Chairman's intent that OMB should 
promptly issue new administrative policy and process to clarify and 
remedy this matter so no Federal organization unfairly competes with 
the private sector, particularly small business?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes, that is the subcommittee's intent. As a cosponsor of 
Senator Thomas' bill, S. 1724, the Freedom From Government Competition 
Act, and a supporter of the Thomas amendment, I am deeply concerned 
about this issue and look forward to OMB revising this policy.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the illegal 
immigration reform bill as it has emerged from conference.
  At the outset, I want to applaud the fact that, after considerable 
debate, this Congress has chosen to separate the issues of illegal and 
legal immigration. We should not lump legal immigrants, who play by the 
rules, together with illegal immigrants, who break them. Moreover, in 
my judgment, the best way to preserve our tradition of legal 
immigration is to address the public's concerns about illegal 
immigration. That is part of the reason why I support the bill before 
us today.
  I would also like to applaud the changes recently made to the bill's 
income requirements for persons who wish to sponsor an immigrant. As 
reported out of conference, section 551 of the bill would have required 
individuals to earn at least 140 percent of the poverty line to sponsor 
a spouse or minor child, and to earn at least 200 percent of the 
poverty line to sponsor any other immigrant--for example, a parent. The 
effect of this provision would have been to block many middle-class 
Americans from sponsoring their close relatives.
  Section 551 has been revised, however, to provide that an individual 
who wishes to sponsor an immigrant must either earn at least 125 
percent of the poverty line or obtain a cosigner who earns that much. I 
strongly support this change, as the revised section 551 arguably 
provides sponsors with more flexibility than does current law.
  Nevertheless, I would like to outline a number of my concerns with 
this bill.
  To begin with, Mr. President, I am concerned about the verification 
pilot projects included in this bill. These projects constitute the 
first steps toward a National Identification System.
  This legislation mandates three pilot projects of 4-year duration.
  Now, as it stands these tentative steps are reversible. We have 
basically postponed the day of reckoning on this issue for 4 years. But 
this is an issue that I believe does not warrant field study.
  Americans should not be subjected to a national identification 
system, period. Any such system will put people's jobs, property, and 
rights at risk of bureaucratic incompetence and abuse for no good 
reason. We can solve our problems without such a system, and that is 
what we must do to preserve our traditions of individual liberty.

[[Page S11886]]

  In addition, I am concerned about this legislation's provisions on 
federalized documents.
  The bill would bar Federal agencies from accepting birth certificates 
and drivers' licenses that do not meet new Federal standards.
  This will force States to conform to Federal standards in issuing 
these documents, because States' citizens will want to be able to use 
them for Federal purposes.
  It is an intrusion into an area properly subject to State control and 
another step toward a national identification system. It is unnecessary 
and it should not be undertaken.
  Mr. President, I also have reservations concerning the bill's 
provisions on the deportability of criminal aliens. If these provisions 
are adopted, they will significantly weaken many of the important 
reforms this Congress adopted last session in the Anti-terrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act to facilitate deportation of criminal 
aliens.
  As I have made clear throughout consideration of the immigration 
bill, I draw a sharp distinction between immigrants who come to this 
country to make better lives for themselves and those who come to break 
our laws and prey upon our citizens.
  I have made no secret of my strong concerns about the conference 
report's repeal of important provision this Congress enacted into law 
in the Anti-terrorism Act last spring. Along with my colleague Senator 
D'Amato, I have sent a letter to the immigration conferees outlining 
these concerns, which I would like briefly to mention here.
  First the draft conference report unconditionally restores 
immigration judges' ability to grant so-called hardship or section 
212(c) waivers to large categories of criminals who have committed 
serious felonies. When Congress enacted section 212(c) in 1952 as part 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it made clear that it was to 
apply only to those cases where extenuating circumstances clearly 
require such action.''
  Unfortunately, unelected and irresponsible immigration judges have 
completely and permanently ended deportation proceedings against 
thousands of convicted felons under this provision.
  The Anti-terrorism Act corrected this outrage by barring individuals 
from using section 212(c) if they had been convicted of aggravated 
felonies, firearms, and narcotics crimes, or repeated serious offenses.
  But now the conference report would restore these waivers for all 
criminal aliens other than aggravated felons. Repeat offenders, illegal 
firearms and narcotics dealers and, most shocking of all, terrorists, 
all would now be able to have deportation proceedings against 
themselves terminated.
  And, even in those cases when a waiver is not granted, the request 
itself will delay the deportation process and make it harder to detain 
criminal aliens pending deportation. That means that more criminal 
aliens will be released and will never be found again to be deported.
  Why has this pernicious invitation to immigration judges to abuse 
their power been restored? I have heard no explanation. Yet, if it is 
because my colleagues now believe that these judges can be trusted not 
to abuse their discretion recent experience shows otherwise.
  Even now, with section 212(c) eliminated by the Anti-terrorism Act, 
some immigration judges are granting the relief for criminal aliens who 
are in exclusion proceedings.
  This plainly defies the clear meaning of the statute. The Anti-
terrorism Act applies to aliens who are deportable for having committed 
certain crimes. It contains no reference to any proceedings in which 
the immigrant might be engaged, be they exclusion or deportation 
proceedings. The choice of proceedings is irrelevant. It is the 
commission of proscribed felonies on American soil that dictates the 
criminal alien's removal.
  Fortunately, by establishing a unified system for removing aliens who 
do not comply with our laws, the conference report eliminates the 
availability of this particular misconstruction. But its restoration to 
the same immigration judges who devised this misconstruction of the 
authority to grant these waivers to large classes of criminals is 
simply incomprehensible.
  Removal of these felons will be made even more difficult under the 
conference report because the bill significantly weakens the Anti-
terrorism Act's requirements relating to the detention of criminal 
aliens. Under that act the Attorney General was required to detain all 
criminal aliens who have committed certain serious crimes, pending 
deportation.
  The conference report would allow the Attorney General to release 
large categories of these individuals, on certifying that insufficient 
space exists to detain them, for 2 full years.
  Again, the question is why? The Justice Department has not stated in 
any formal communication to Congress that there is currently or will be 
in the near future insufficient detention space to detain these and 
other dangerous individuals. Indeed, the Department not only failed to 
volunteer that it had any such problem, it made no such statement even 
in response to a letter asking for any concerns the Department might 
have about the Anti-terrorism Act's criminal aliens provisions. The 
closest the Department came was to suggest that it was theoretically 
possible that such a shortage might develop at some point.
  Such hypothetical concerns are no reason at all to grant the Attorney 
General the authority to release thousands of convicted criminals back 
into the population, to prey on our people and perhaps never be caught 
again, let alone deported. If the Attorney General needs that authority 
because the Immigration and Naturalization Service projects an 
immediate shortage of detention space, the Department knows how to ask 
for it. If it did, we could then assess the plausibility of the 
projection, as well as whether the matter could be better addressed by 
providing additional detention space instead. We also could ask why no 
request for additional space had been forthcoming.
  The conference report's decision to grant this unilateral release 
authority without even the justification that the Department, albeit 
late in the day, has said it needs to have that authority on account of 
an imminent shortage, is frankly incomprehensible to me.
  As I believe is clear, Mr. President, I have some rather serious 
problems with this legislation. However, we face a more serious 
problem, for which this legislation, even with its flaws, is needed.
  I am speaking, of course, of the problem of illegal immigration. This 
bill contains a number of provisions that I believe are crucial to our 
fight to bring illegal immigration under control.
  For example, the bill includes the Kyl-Abraham amendment adopted in 
committee. This amendment will increase by 1,000 the number of Border 
Patrol agents in each of the next 5 fiscal years (1997-2001).
  The bill also would sharply increase penalties for alien smuggling 
and document fraud.
  In addition, the bill includes a revised form of an Abraham amendment 
to impose stiff sanctions on visa-overstayers, who make up fully one-
half of the illegal aliens in this country.
  I regret that the ``good cause'' exception in my amendment was 
omitted from final bill. But visa-overstayers must be punished like 
anyone else who breaks the rules.
  Finally, this legislation makes those who sponsor aliens into the 
country legally responsible for their support, and allows the 
Government to collect reimbursement for any welfare moneys spent.
  In sum, Mr. President, I am concerned that identification provisions 
in this legislation are leading us on a path away from America's well-
worn road of personal liberty toward a bureaucratic nightmare. And I am 
worried that this bill will allow too many criminals to stay in this 
country.
  But we are in the midst of a serious conflict. We cannot allow law-
breakers into our country. And that is exactly what an illegal 
immigrant is: someone who willingly and knowingly flouts our laws.
  This legislation makes needed reforms to our immigration system so 
that we may deal more efficiently with these lawbreakers. To my mind 
this is an important step toward a more fair and open immigration 
system.

                          ____________________