[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11886-S11917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





  Sec. 343, Certification Requirements for Foreign Healthcare Workers

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if Senator Simpson

[[Page S11887]]

would clarify the intent of a provision in the conference report on 
H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996, which is now Division C of H.R. 3610, the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, 1997. I am interested in the intent of 
section 343 with regard to the establishment of a procedure for the 
approval of organizations to prescreen foreign healthcare workers.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is Congress' intent that the Attorney 
General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, shall establish a procedure for the review and approval of 
credentialing organizations equivalent to the Commission on Graduates 
of Foreign Nursing Schools for the purpose of prescreening aliens 
seeking to enter the United States for employment as healthcare 
workers. It is our intent that the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services will actively review entities that 
petition to perform this prescreening and approve those that qualify.


                      homestead, fl's eda project

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning an economic development project 
of great significance to South Dade County, FL.
  Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to engage the Senator from Florida in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my colleagues will remember that in 1992, 
Hurricane Andrew, one of the worst natural disasters in our Nation's 
history, struck the city of Homestead and South Dade County, FL with 
terrible flurry. Today, 4 years later, the physical devastation to the 
community can still be seen. The residents of the area continue to 
experience severe economic hardship due to the destruction of homes and 
businesses, the loss of income and tax revenue, and the dislocation of 
residents. I dare say that there are few places in the country that 
deserve economic development assistance more than Homestead/South Dade.
  In recent years, the city of Homestead has brought forward a public/
private partnership project which promises to become a significant 
economic development engine for the community. The project is a 60,000 
square foot motor sports exhibition and education facility to be 
located at the existing South Dade/Homestead Motorsports Complex. This 
project is expected to attract more than half a million visitors per 
year, generate considerable tax revenue, and create hundreds of new 
jobs.
  The city of Homestead will shortly approach the Economic Development 
Administration to request an economic development assistance grant 
which will be matched equally by State and private contributions.
  Mr. President, I strongly support this project which I believe will 
build upon the economic development success of the Motorsports Complex. 
This hard-hit community is doing the right thing in putting together 
public-private partnerships to share the cost burden of such economic 
development projects. The proposal to EDA for fiscal year 1997 funds 
deserves favorable consideration, and I am hopeful that the chairman of 
the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee will lend his 
support, as well, to this worthy project.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Florida 
that I am well aware of the devastation experienced in Homestead and 
South Dade and the work he has done to revitalize the community. The 
need for further economic development assistance in the area is 
abundantly clear. I would, therefore, be happy to work with the Senator 
in brining the city of Homestead's proposal to the attention of EDA and 
doing what I can to see that the proposal for funding receives fair 
consideration.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the most egregious differences 
between the immigration bill passed by the Senate many months ago and 
the bill now thrust on us for final passage is the permanent and 
nationwide waiver of our environmental laws for border control 
activities.
  Like most of the American public, I am fed up with attacks on our 
important environmental laws. Failing to gut the Endangered Species Act 
and the National Environmental Policy Act, some Members of Congress 
have resorted to backdoor stealth attacks on these laws. Now 
Republicans include a gratuitous attach on our wildlife and ecosystems 
through, of all things, an immigration bill.
  The nationwide scope of the environmental waivers in the immigration 
bill reaches far and beyond the goals of strong immigration control. By 
exempting all road construction, bridge construction, and barrier 
construction along the entire U.S. border from the Endangered Species 
Act, the waiver will permanently weaken national and international 
wildlife conservation.
  Like many provisions in the immigration bill, this provision was 
inserted during the Republican-only House-Senate conference, and now 
the bill grants a permanent and nationwide waiver of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the fundamental charter of our environmental 
protection.
  Claims that the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental 
Policy Act delay or stop the INS from controlling illegal immigration 
are wholly unsubstantiated. These laws should not be waived or exempted 
without full congressional consideration, hearings and public debate, 
and need not be waived in these circumstances.
  Simply put, the ESA requires all Federal agencies to avoid adverse 
impacts on endangered and threatened species. Immigration and 
Naturalization Service staff are not biology experts. When the INS 
makes plans to build a road through a remote border area on public 
lands they consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service biologists to 
ensure that their plans are ecologically sound. For instance, when INS 
wanted to build a border bridge in Texas, biologists asked them to 
minimize impact on nearby wetlands by lifting the bridge out of the 
flood plain 2 feet. That was all that it took.
  Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is painless--it 
usually costs little in time or money to the INS, but it can mean the 
difference between recovery and extinction for a border species like 
the Sonoran Pronghorn antelope or the ocelot, an endangered cat.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has consulted with Federal agencies 
over 195,000 times in the last 16 years. Only 0.05 percent of those 
projects have been withdrawn or canceled because of the ESA. The ESA is 
flexible enough to accommodate even emergency situations and Fish and 
Wildlife biologists can review an INS construction project in a matter 
of hours when necessary.
  The National Environmental Policy Act, signed by President Nixon in 
1969, requires INS to give taxpayers a chance to review and comment on 
the environmental impacts of INS projects. Republicans now want to 
shortchange citizen's opportunities to participate in decisionmaking 
affecting their communities. NEPA also requires INS to examine 
reasonable alternatives to a project before investing taxpayer funds.
  It is also flexible enough to accommodate emergency situations. For 
example, Bureau of Land Management recently requested an expedited NEPA 
review to build roads and a helicopter landing pad near the border 
area. It seems that high illegal alien use and high forest fire risk 
required quick action. The NEPA review was completed within 24 hours 
and the road construction took place immediately.
  In a September 16 letter, Janet Reno, Bruce Babbitt, and Katie 
McGinty stated their unequivocal opposition to these waivers in the 
immigration bill. They know, as I do, that granting future Attorneys 
General the ability to sidestep important environmental laws will mean 
disaster for our Nation's environmental integrity.
  The administration is currently negotiating environmental agreements 
with Canada and Mexico, and the passage of these waivers could 
undermine the future of these agreements. How can we possibly expect 
Mexico to take actions to protect their ecosystems on one side of the 
border when we so flagrantly disregard the laws protecting our own 
natural heritage?
  I object to the immigration bill because it differs so wildly from 
the bill we passed earlier this year. The stealth environmental waivers 
in this bill are unnecessary, unjustified, and mean-spirited. They will 
harm our children's right to inherit an environmentally-sound nation 
and set a terrible precedent for environmental waivers.

[[Page S11888]]

                               division d

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Small 
Business Programs Improvement Act of 1996, which has been incorporated 
as division D of the omnibus appropriations bill. The language of this 
bill comes includes the substitute amendment to H.R. 3719, which I 
offered with the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business, 
Senator Dale Bumpers. H.R. 3719 is a comprehensive bill that proposes 
to change numerous programs at the Small Business Administration, which 
are discussed in this statement. Most of the changes will go into 
effect on October 1, 1996.


                 access to capital for small businesses

  Earlier this year, when the Clinton administration and the Small 
Business Administration submitted their fiscal year 1997 budget 
request, it was revealed that SBA's flagship loan programs had been 
experiencing considerably higher losses than had previously been 
revealed to the Congress. In the case of the 7(a) Guaranteed Business 
Loan Program, the credit subsidy rate, which is the calculation by OMB 
that projects losses from loans that are originated in fiscal year 
1997, was increased from 1.06 percent to 2.68 percent, an increase of 
150 percent. The losses facing 504 Development Company Loan Program are 
even greater, and the credit subsidy rate has increased from 0.57 
percent to 6.85 percent, an increase of over 1,200 percent.
  As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I was alarmed by the 
size of these increases, which were so large as to threaten the future 
of both programs. These two programs, however, are critical to tens of 
thousands of small businesses, who each year have come to rely on the 
availability of Government guaranteed financing to assure them adequate 
access to capital. They provide a very important source of capital to 
startup small businesses and to established small business seeking to 
expand to create more jobs. Because of the great importance of these 
programs to small businesses, the Senate and House Committees on Small 
Business chose to make some fundamental changes in the programs in 
order that they can continue through fiscal year 1997.


                      504 development loan program

  With a credit subsidy rate of 6.85 percent in the fiscal year 1997 
budget request--versus 0.57 percent in fiscal year 1996--Congress would 
need to appropriate over $220 million to fund fully the 504 loan 
program in fiscal year 1997. Although such an increased appropriation 
would not be possible, committee staff worked on a solution that would 
combine additional program fees and a modest appropriation. This 
legislation adds new fees to be paid by the lender, the development 
company and the borrower and will support a $2 billion program level in 
fiscal year 1997.


                 7(a) guaranteed business loan program

  The legislation before us today includes a section calling for SBA to 
issue a regulation covering the sale of the unguaranteed portion of 
7(a) loans by banks and Small Business Lending Companies [SBLC's]. 
Under current SBA regulations, only SBLC's are permitted to pool and 
sell the unguaranteed portion of 7(a) loans to outside investors. It is 
the intent of the bill to expand this authority to banks by directing 
SBA to promulgate new regulations requiring a uniform set of rules 
governing this transaction by banks and SBLC's. In addition, SBA is 
directed to set safety and soundness standards, including appropriate 
reserve requirements, to protect the taxpayers' exposure under this 
program.
  Last year, when the Senate unanimously adopted S. 895, we agreed to 
lower the government's guarantee rate on most 7(a) loans to 75 percent. 
Our intention was to increase SBA lenders' exposure on each loan in 
order to focus the lenders' attention on the quality of their loan 
making activities. Although this section the bill will allow SBA 
lenders to reduce their exposure on these loans, it is our belief that 
SBA can craft sufficient safeguards to protect the Government's 
position while granting the lenders an opportunity to raise more 
capital which can be loaned to small businesses. When the Senate 
Committee on Small Business takes up the 3-year reauthorization of SBA 
early next year, it will be my plan for the committee to study closely 
the impact of the new SBA regulations that are to be adopted as a 
result of this bill.


                    sba finance program improvements

  This legislation directs SBA to create an ongoing system of 
management information about its 7(a) Business Loan Program. In order 
for SBA to monitor the performance of this loan portfolio, which is 
greater than $25 billion, it is essential that SBA collect and 
evaluate, on an ongoing basis, facts about both good and bad loans. 
This legislation emphasizes the importance of this program and expands 
the data gathering requirement to include key underwriting experience 
on each loan.
  In addition, the bill directs SBA to contract with a private firm to 
conduct a comprehensive study of the historical performance of the 7(a) 
Program. Further, it directs that specific attention be paid to the 
economic model used by OMB to calculate the credit subsidy rate. We 
concurred with the House Committee on Small Business in the need for 
this study.


                 strengthening 7(a) program performance

  Over the past 18 months, the Senate and House Committees on Small 
Business have seen time and again evidence that SBA has failed to 
liquidate failed 7(a) loans in a prompt and effective manner. The 
result has been greater program losses, which have driven up the credit 
subsidy rate and caused the need for high borrower and lender fees and 
a larger appropriation. On average, it takes SBA 2 years to liquidate a 
defaulted loan after SBA pays off the guarantee to the bank. On the 
other hand, it takes a commercial bank, on average, 6 months to 
liquidate a loan after it is placed in default.
  The legislation takes a strong step to make improvements in SBA's 
performance in this area. SBA is directed to make better use of the 
expertise of its most experienced lenders who have been designated 
``preferred lenders'' within the 7(a) program. Preferred lenders have 
the staff and ability to take on a greater share of the burden now 
carried by SBA and to increase recoveries for the government after a 
loan fails. In addition, the bill directs SBA to begin using its 
licensed ``certified lenders'' to undertake liquidation efforts when 
the certified lender is deemed to have the experience and capability to 
undertake liquidation efforts.


                        disaster loan servicing

  This legislation directs SBA to undertake a demonstration program to 
have private sector loans servicing companies contract to service SBA's 
disaster home loan portfolio. In our analysis of this demonstration 
program, we concluded that a large sample of home loans would be 
necessary to conduct a fair and conclusive demonstration of the ability 
of the private sector to service these loans. Therefore, the bill 
directs that 30 percent of the disaster home loan portfolio be included 
in the demonstration program. It is our belief that with a sample this 
size, the private sector servicing companies will have a large enough 
pool of loans to create the economies of scale so their performance can 
be evaluated fairly. It is our expectation that SBA will be able to 
solicit bids on this contract within 90 days of passage of this bill, 
and the test can be underway during fiscal year 1997.


                   small business program extensions

  This legislation would extend the STTR Program for 1 year. This 
program allows universities and small businesses that specialize in R&D 
to combine forces and receive modest R&D grants. The STTR program was 
created in 1992, when the SBIC program was reauthorized and extended 
through fiscal year 2000. The purpose of our amendment is to extend the 
STTR program for 1 year, in order that the Committee on Small Business 
can take a closer look at the program next year when it takes up the 3 
year reauthorization of SBA. It is my understanding the proponents of 
the STTR Program would like to see the program expanded, and it is my 
plan that the Committee on Small Business will consider this request 
and other program adjustments next year.
  In addition, the legislation extends the Small Business 
Competitiveness Demonstration Program for 1 year. It is scheduled to 
terminate on September 30, 1996. The House-passed version of H.R. 3719 
included a 4-year extension. It also included some program

[[Page S11889]]

changes, and the supporters of the program have made additional 
recommendations to improve the program. There is sufficient support to 
keep the program alive for an additional year in order that both the 
Senate and House Committees on Small Business can have an opportunity 
to evaluate fully the impact of the program and to consider legislation 
to make a longer term extension with some program adjustments.


     improvements to the small business investment company program

  Earlier this year, the Senate passed unanimously S. 1784, the Small 
Business Investment Company [SBIC] Improvement Act of 1996, which 
proposed numerous changes to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
designed to improve, strengthen, and expand the availability of 
investment capital under SBA's SBIC Program. S. 1784 was considered 
thoroughly by the Senate Committee on Small Business. After the 
committee held a series of hearings on the need for improving the SBIC 
Program, thorough briefings were conducted for the staffs of each 
committee member to explain the program changes that were being 
recommended by committee staff, SBA, and outside organizations such as 
the National Association of Investment Companies [NAIC] and the 
National Association of Small Business Investment Companies [NASBIC].
  Following the input from the above groups and others, I chaired a 
public hearing on a discussion draft of the bill prepared by the 
committee staff. After this hearing, interested parties, including SBA, 
NAIC, and NASBIC, were invited and participated in drafting proposed 
changes to the legislation for consideration by the committee staff as 
it prepared the final version of S. 1784.
  After extensive public hearings and open meetings with all interested 
parties, the Senate Committee on Small Business met in a markup 
session, and recommended S. 1784 to the full Senate by a vote of 18 to 
0.

  Division D of the omnibus appropriations bill includes S. 1784, 
substantially in the form in which it passed the Senate. Prior to its 
inclusion in this bill, some inaccurate charges were made about the 
background and effect of S. 1784. In fact, officials from NAIC, who had 
participated in drafting S. 1784 and whose recommendations were 
included in the bill, found fault with the bill when Senator Bumpers 
and I attempted to bring it to the Senate floor as an amendment to H.R. 
3719, the Small Business Programs Improvement Act. Their objections to 
the bill which they helped draft and which had previously passed the 
Senate unanimously led one Senator to object to Senate consideration of 
S. 3719.
  S. 1784 was written to place the SBIC Program on a sound, long-term 
footing. Historically, this program has been plagued by many abuses 
that have been well chronicled by the press. The purpose of the bill 
was to strengthen the rules and management of the SBIC Program, while 
allowing the program to substantially to meet the investment needs of 
America's small businesses. With the financial future of many small 
businesses depending on passage of this bill, we looked for ways to 
clear up the objections.
  In an attempt to resolve this stalemate, I agreed to several changes 
in the Senate-passed S. 1784 to make it absolutely clear that 
financially sound specialized SBIC's would not be hurt by the terms of 
S. 1784. Still unable to proceed with consideration of H.R. 3719, we 
began to hear from SBIC's and special SBIC's about the importance of 
passing this legislation. Their comments revealed the importance of 
adopting the improvements to the SBIC Program that were contained in S. 
1784, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. A. Fred March, 
president of Ventures Opportunities Corp., a New York-based special 
SBIC, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. President, last week as we approached the end of the 104th 
Congress, I decided to look for another avenue to insure that this 
important bill would become law. As part of this effort, I sought the 
support of the Senate leadership to incorporate S. 1784 in the omnibus 
appropriations bill. At the same time, Jan Meyers, chair of the House 
Committee on Small Business, undertook a similar effort in the House of 
Representatives, and S. 1784 was included in the omnibus appropriations 
bill which passed the House of Representatives on Saturday, September 
28, 1996.
  This legislation builds on the improvements on the SBIC Program 
contained in the law passed by Congress in 1992 by making the following 
changes to reduce the risk of SBIC defaults and losses to the Federal 
Government:
  First, increases the level of private capital needed to obtain an 
SBIC license from SBA.
  Second, requires experienced and qualified management for all SBIC's.
  Third, requires diversification between investors and the management 
team.
  In addition, S. 1784 makes these important changes to the Small 
Business Investment Act to increase the availability of investment 
capital to small businesses:
  First, increases fees paid by SBIC's which reduces the credit subsidy 
rate.
  Second, eliminates the distinction between SBIC's and SSBIC's, while 
grandfathering successful SSBIC's into the new program.
  Third, places a greater emphasis on SBIC investments in smaller 
enterprises or smaller small businesses.
  In 1958, Congress first approved the Small Business Investment Act 
creating Small Business Investment Companies, which are private 
investment companies licensed by SBA, whose sole activity is to make 
investments in small businesses. An SBIC raises private capital which 
is matched by additional funds guaranteed by SBA. The private capital 
and SBA-guaranteed funds are invested by SBIC's in small businesses.
  SBIC's fill a void that is not addressed by private venture capital 
firms, most of which are so large they are usually unwilling to make 
investments in smaller firms, which generally seek investments in the 
range of $500,000 to $2.5 million each. Since the beginning of the SBIC 
program, nearly $12 billion has been invested in approximately 77,000 
small businesses. Some SBIC's make equity investments in small 
businesses, while others make long-term loans, which are frequently 
coupled with rights to purchase an equity interest in the company--
sometimes called warrants. The lending-type or debenture SBIC's provide 
long-term financing that is generally not available from banks or 
private venture capital firms.

  Today, there are 185 active regular SBIC's and 89 specialized SBIC's 
[SSBIC's] in the SBIC Program. SSBIC's invest only in minority owned 
and controlled businesses. Together, these SBIC's and SSBIC's have 
raised nearly $4 billion in private capital and have received $1.02 
billion in SBA-guaranteed funds.
  Today's SBIC Program has been shaped in large part by the Small 
Business Equity Enhancement Act of 1992. The genesis of this important 
legislation resulted from the hard work of SBA's Investment Capital 
Advisory Council, a public-private working group formed in 1991 to 
address the problems confronting the SBIC Program. The 1992 act 
produced the first major change in the SBIC Program since its formation 
in 1958. It created the Participating Security Program, which 
incorporates some of the best practices of the private venture capital 
industry. The 1992 act came about in response to the persistence of my 
good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, who as the 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business held a series of hearings 
focusing attention on the problems under the program. The result of the 
act was to strengthen the SBIC Program and to correct serious 
weaknesses that had been expected by well publicized problems of the 
past.
  Since the 1992 act became law, more than 30 new participating 
security SBIC's with nearly $50 million in private capital have been 
licensed by SBA, and 17 new SBIC's with over $200 million of private 
capital have been licenses as debenture SBIC's.
  There is a significant difference between the SBIC's licensed before 
the 1992 act and the SBIC's licensed under the most strict guidelines 
set forth under the 1992 act. While the 1992 act increased the minimum 
private capital

[[Page S11890]]

threshold for licensing to $2.5 million for each debenture SBIC and $5 
million for each new participating security SBIC, SBA has imposed even 
more strict standards in its regulations. Under the SBA rules, 
debenture SBIC's must have a minimum of $5 million in private capital 
and participating security SBIC's must have $10 million in private 
capital.
  Since the 1992 act has created two distinct types of SBIC's, it 
allows for investments to be tailored to meet the needs of small 
businesses. For example, when a small business needs a loan and can 
meet projected interest payments, the traditional lending-type or 
debenture SBIC's are available to make debt investments. For small 
businesses that need non-interest-bearing investment capital, the 
participating security SBIC's can offer an equity-type investment which 
anticipates an extended period of time, such as 2 to 3 years, before 
the small business is expected to being repayment of this investment. 
In this latter case, interest payments are deferred until the 
investments begin to generate a positive return. Under the 
Participating Security Program, the Federal Government's return is not 
limited to repayment of principal and interest--it can also share in 
the profits of the SBIC.
  During this Congress, I have chaired three hearings investigating the 
success and problems associated with the SBIC Program. Testimony before 
the Senate Committee on Small Business has been supportive and 
positive. Numerous small business entrepreneurs have testified about 
their inability to obtain investment capital from banks and other 
traditional investment sources, and SBIC's are frequently their only 
source of investment capital. Last year, Jerry Johnson, the chief 
executive office of Williams Brothers Lumber Co. located near Atlanta, 
testified that not one bank in the Atlanta area would speak with him 
about asset based lending. After a lengthy search, he and his partner 
turned to Allied Capital Corp., a Washington, D.C.-based SBIC. Within 
60 days of their first contact with Allied Capital Corp., Mr. Johnson 
was able to conclude his financing arrangement. Being able to clear 
this financing hurdle with the help of an SBIC, Mr. Johnson's company 
has grown significantly, adding many new employees and increasing its 
tax base.
  Often we hear about major success stories like Federal Express and 
the Callaway Golf Club Co. that received SBIC funding at critical times 
in their early growth stages. It is, however, far more likely that 
businesses like the Williams Brothers Lumber Co. will be typical 
beneficiaries of the SBIC Program. These are Main Street enterprises 
located across America who have looked to traditional money sources and 
been turned away. The SBIC Program is filling this niche--a large niche 
to say the least--that picks up where banks fear to tread and Wall 
Street is not interested because the investment size is too small. 
There are thousands of companies like Williams Brothers Lumber Co. 
across the country that need investment financing to support growth and 
new jobs and have nowhere to turn but to the SBIC Program to meet their 
demand for capital
  During the past year, the Senate and House Committees on Small 
Business have received a great deal of information about the need to 
strengthen the SBIC Program. In July 1995, Patricia Cloherty, chair of 
SBA's private sector SBIC Reinvention Council, testified on the 
council's recommendation to strengthen and expand the program. In 
addition, last summer the National Association of Investment Companies 
forwarded to the Senate Committee on Small Business a copy of their 
recommendations to improve the SSBIC program, which was also submitted 
to SBA's SSBIC Advisory Council.
  The involvement of the private sector in analyzing the performance of 
the SBIC program and the insight provided by these recommendations are 
commendable--and very helpful to this committee. In 1995, the SBIC 
Reinvention Council recommended that new fees be imposed to lower the 
credit subsidy rate so that the program can provide a significant 
increase in leverage to licensed SBIC's. It also recommended certain 
administrative changes to improve the management and operations of the 
SBIC Program.
  The National Association of Investment Companies [NAIC], which 
represents SSBIC's, also recommended in 1995 that all statutory and 
regulatory distinctions between SBIC's and SSBIC's be eliminated, 
including the deletion of all references to social or economic 
disadvantage from the Small Business Investment Act. NAIC proposed 
creating a single, combined SBIC Program that would retain an important 
focus on investments in small business at the smaller end of the 
eligible size standards. They recommended sensible improvements to make 
more investment capital available to more small businesses and proposed 
to remove the current restrictions that prohibit Specialized SBIC's 
from investing in companies not owned by socially or economically 
disadvantaged persons. This legislation includes many of their 
recommendations.


                          new fees for sbic's

  The President's fiscal year 1997 budget request included a 
recommendation that fees paid by SBIC's be increased to finance a 
significant reduction in the credit subsidy rate. The Office of 
Management and Budget, recognizing the positive effect of some of the 
regulatory changes already implemented by SBA, now is using a lower 
projected default rate, thereby reducing the credit subsidy rate for 
debenture and participating security licensees under the SBIC Program.
  The administration's recommendation to lower the credit subsidy rate 
by increasing fees is similar to one made last year in their amended 
fiscal year 1996 budget request for the 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan 
Program. Accompanying their request for a fee increase were statements 
by SBA about how well the 7(a) program was performing.
  What happened following SBA's positive predictions for the 7(a) 
program has been alarming. Based in part on SBA's glowing report card 
on the 7(a) program, Congress passed legislation to raise fees and 
lower the subsidy rates of the program. The changes became law in 
October 1995, which is about the same time SBA and OMB were beginning 
to work on their most recent budget request which raises the 7(a) 
credit subsidy rate by 150 percent and the cost of the program by $180 
million. This higher cost is the direct result of greater losses from 
loan defaults and lower recoveries from liquidations.
  The Senate and House Committees on Small Business believe it is 
prudent for Congress to take steps so that we do not allow a repeat of 
the 7(a) problem with the SBIC Program. Based on the experience of last 
year, Congress should not approve any decrease in the credit subsidy 
rate through the increase of fees without taking some corresponding 
steps to strengthen the safety and soundness of the SBIC Program.


                         sbic's in liquidation

  In addition, evidence before the Committee on Small Business about 
the failure of SBA to maximize its recoveries from failed SBIC's is 
alarming. SBA acknowledges there are assets with a value of 
approximately $500 million tied up with SBIC's in liquidation. To make 
this situation even more alarming, many of these failed SBIC's have 
been in liquidation for over 10 years, including one that was 
transferred into liquidation on January 5, 1967.
  S. 1784 directs SBA to submit to the Senate and House Committees on 
Small Business, no later than January 15, 1996, a detailed plan to 
expedite the orderly liquidation of all licensee assets in liquidation. 
This plan should include a timetable for liquidating the liquidation 
portfolio of assets owned by SBA.
  In addition, SBA needs to take a hard look at how it manages failed 
SBIC's that are in receivership. It is not a sufficient explanation for 
SBA to claim it is at the mercy of the court system in winding up the 
affairs of SBIC's in receivership. In each case, the court acts in 
response to SBA's petition, has named SBA the receiver, and SBA has 
retained independent contractors to act as principal agents for the 
receivership. These principal agents are paid hourly and appear to have 
little or no incentive to wind up the affairs of an SBIC. In fact, the 
opposite is true, and the real incentive appears to be to drag out the 
receivership as long as possible. Based on SBA replies to requests for 
information from the Committee on Small Business, we have learned that 
these principal receivers agents bill significant hours each year. In 
fiscal

[[Page S11891]]

year 1995, one principal agent billed over 3,200 hours for one year, 
the equivalent of over 8 hours per day for 365 days. Other principal 
agents billed over 2,500 hours each for fiscal year 1995.
  At the time of the committee's inquiry into these billing practices, 
SBA gave no indication that it felt they were unusual. It is clear to 
me that without incentives to complete action on these SBIC's in 
receivership, the current system used by SBA will allow these abuses to 
continue. Although the committee did not reach a consensus on my 
proposal to create an incentive based system to improve recoveries from 
SBIC's in receivership, we will continue to monitor SBA's performance 
closely in this area.
  For several months starting late last year, the Senate Committee on 
Small Business worked on draft legislation to strengthen and enhance 
the SBIC Program. The small business investment company improvements 
section of this bill is the result. It incorporates recommendations 
from SBA's SBIC Reinvention Council, the National Association of 
Investment Companies, the National Association of Small Business 
Investment Companies, and the President's fiscal year 1997 budget 
request.
  Legislation essentially equivalent to the SBIC provisions of this 
bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Small Business by a 
unanimous 18 to zero vote and later was passed unanimously by the full 
Senate. It makes substantial progress toward our goal of strengthening 
the SBIC Program, while allowing the program to expand, providing more 
investment capital to small businesses as the cost and risk to the 
Government declines. It was only after nearly 18 months of study and 
investigation that we were able to produce such a bill. It is sound 
legislation that improves the safety and soundness of the SBIC Program 
and makes more investment capital available to small businesses. And it 
accomplishes all of these goals while reducing the risk of loss to the 
Government.
  Mr. President, this legislation is very important to small businesses 
across the United States and the millions of employees who work for 
these small companies. I urge all my colleagues in the Senate to vote 
``yes'' on this landmark bill.

                             Exhibit No. 1


                                  Venture Opportunities Corp.,

                                 New York, NY, September 24, 1996.
       Dear Congressman LaFalce: Recently, I received a copy of a 
     memo that you distributed to the Democratic members of the 
     Small Business Committee urging them to oppose the SBIC plan 
     set forth by Senator Bond. The reason for your opposition is 
     its provision for the elimination of the distinction between 
     SSBICs and SBICs, thereby melding the two programs and 
     effectively converting 301(d) licensees into regular SBICs. 
     As the president of Venture Opportunities Corporation, an 
     SSBIC licensed for over 18 years, I firmly oppose your 
     position and support Senator Bond's call for combining the 
     two programs.
       For the last several years, all SSBICs have been operating 
     businesses without any clear understanding of the future of 
     the industry. We have been attempting to establish and grow 
     our businesses in spite of the pushing and pulling that has 
     been all too evident in this most recent Congress. One think 
     though, has been made very clear--all the incentives for 
     making investments in minority-owned and controlled 
     enterprises and maintaining our SSBIC licenses have been 
     stripped from us. Subsidized debentures, which were the 
     primary advantage for establishing and operating an SSBIC, 
     were eliminated without any possibility of being reinstated. 
     Leverage has been hard to come by. Regulations and new 
     reporting requirements are excessive and work against any 
     SSBIC trying to expand or raise fresh capital. Why do you 
     think that, in spite of the tax advantages for rolling over 
     investment profits into an SSBIC, not one investor of any 
     size has invested in any of our companies? The answer lies in 
     the fact that there is no true advantage to being an SSBIC 
     and that the existing regulations and uncertain political 
     environmental present clear disadvantages.
       If SSBICs are not included in the mainstream SBIC program, 
     we will cease to exist as a vehicle to make investments in 
     the minority community anyway. No one will have any incentive 
     to remain active in a dying program which offers no 
     subsidies, little leverage, excessive regulation, and limited 
     deal flow. By including us in the mainstream program, the 
     additional investment opportunities will strengthen our 
     companies without diminishing our commitment to make 
     investments in the ``disadvantaged'' communities for which we 
     were originally licensed.
       I urge you to please look at the reality of the situation. 
     What you are proposing is the worst of all worlds. I, too, am 
     a Democrat who wants to help minority communities. I put my 
     own money into this business over 18 years ago to set up a 
     profitable investment business while, at the same time, 
     helping ``socially or economically disadvantaged'' 
     individuals create their own businesses. I have been 
     successful. The results of your opposition to the current 
     proposal, however, only serves to lock our company, and our 
     fellow SSBICs, into a dying industry without any incentive to 
     continue to make ``minority investments.'' We have already 
     faced the reality of the loss of our SSBIC advantages. At 
     least allow us the freedom to become regular SBICs while 
     continuing to remain true to ourselves and voluntarily make 
     investments in the minority community.
       Thank you for your time. I look forward to a satisfactory 
     resolution of this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                    A. Fred March,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I was pleased to see that the House of 
Representatives incorporated the Small Business Administration 
authorization bill into the omnibus appropriation bill. This is 
important legislation. Before we go to final passage of the 
appropriation bill, I wonder if I could get the distinguished chairman 
of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, to comment on a proposal 
I have, related to small business development centers.
  Mr. BOND. I would be happy to.
  Mr. CHAFFEE. I thank the Senator, and I will be brief. Very simply, 
my proposal would create a 1-year pilot program aimed at linking SBDC's 
with export assistance centers.
  Right now, some 35 colleges and universities across the country have 
both an SBDC and an export assistance center on their campus. Bryant 
College in Rhode Island is one such facility. The folks up there have 
done a super job on behalf of our State's small businesses. But in no 
instance that I am aware of are two of these important facilities 
connected to each other. I think a lot of good could come out of taking 
that step. Therefore, my proposal would permit eligible SBDC's to do 
two things: one, hire export professionals to work on-site, and two, 
make the technological adjustments necessary to establish a computer 
link with an export assistance center.
  Mr. BOND. If the Senator would yield for a question, is it his 
thought that such a proposal would make it easier for small business to 
start exporting their products overseas?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Most definitely.
  One of the key services offered by the export assistance centers is 
access to a system called the International Trade Data Network. The 
ITDN works as follows. A small businessperson will come into an export 
assistance center, anxious to learn how to export a particular product. 
And by logging on to this system, the individual can find out what 
countries are interested in that product with a just few simple 
keystrokes. As I understand it, a small businessperson can even get 
information about potential contracts.
  Unfortunately, under the contract arrangement, it is impossible to 
connect to that computer network at the SBDC. Instead, the individual 
must find the closest export assistance center, and develop a 
relationship with an entirely different staff, in order to learn what 
international trade opportunities might be available. The ITDN has 
proven to be a very successful tool for opening foreign trade markets. 
In my view, therefore, small businesses in Rhode Island and States 
across the country stand to benefit greatly from better access to it.
  Now, my preference would have been to offer this proposal as an 
amendment to the SBA authorization bill. I understand, however, that 
the chairman and the members of the committee would like more time to 
mull over the idea before signing on to it. In that case, I wonder if 
the chairman would be willing to consider including the SBDC proposal 
in next year's bill?
  Mr. BOND. As my friend from Rhode Island may know, the Senate Small 
Business Committee is scheduled to undertake a regular, 3-year 
authorization of our small business programs early next year. I long 
have been a strong supporter of efforts to increase American exports, 
particularly when it comes to small businesses. For this reason, I want 
to assure the Senator that the committee will take a hard look at this 
SBDC proposal as part of our review process. We would welcome his input 
at that time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator for his willingness to examine this 
matter further, and look forward to working with him on it. I yield the 
floor.

[[Page S11892]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of 
the chairman of the Small Business Committee with respect to language 
in division D of the omnibus appropriation bill, which incorporates the 
Senate substitute amendment to H.R. 3719 relating to the sale of the 
unguaranteed portion of loans made under the 7(a) program. It is my 
understanding that until the Small Business Administration issues a 
new, final regulation setting forth the terms and conditions under 
which the unguaranteed portion of 7(a) loans may be permitted, or until 
March 31, 1997, whichever is earlier, lenders currently eligible to 
securitize may continue to do so under the existing regulation.
  Mr. BOND. My colleague from new Jersey is correct. The securitization 
language contained in this legislation in no way preempts the existing 
SBA regulations that currently apply to participants in the 7(a) 
program on the sale of the unguaranteed portion of such loans until SBA 
finalizes a new regulation on this matter or until March 31, 1997, 
whichever occurs first.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Missouri and I would like to 
commend him for crafting another bipartisan small business bill. It is 
my hope that we will work closely together next year to provide 
guidance from the Small Business Committee to SBA as they are 
formulating their new securitization regulation.


                Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, section 114 of the Interior portion of 
this omnibus appropriations bill addresses the Elwha River Ecosystem 
and Fisheries Restoration Act, Public Law 102-495. I would like to 
reflect on some of the legislative history of that section.
  While section 114 slightly amends the Elwha Act, it also sustains and 
confirms the Elwha Act itself. The amendment simply provides for one 
new option in this restoration process: The State of Washington may 
purchase the dams for $2 after the Federal Government has bought them 
for $29.5 million from the current private owner.
  Should the State wish to acquire two aging dams, it must enter into 
an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to discharge all of the 
obligations of the Federal Government, as established in the Elwha Act. 
Although it is almost impossible to envision a basis on which the State 
might choose to purchase these projects, this amendment at least makes 
such a decision possible.
  It is important to reiterate, the State may acquire the dams only if 
it agrees to remove the two dams, restore the fisheries, provide 
numerous tribal obligations, protect the local water quality, and do 
everything the Federal Government was committed to doing under the 
original Elwha Act. I specifically want to stress that the State must 
undertake all of the obligations of the Act, including section 3 (a), 
(c), and (d), as well as sections 4, 7, and 9.
  In case my colleagues were not aware of the current State 
responsibilities for fisheries in Washington, the State manages fishery 
resources within State waters. It is required to manage these resources 
in a manner consistent with the Boldt decision regarding tribal treaty 
rights to fishery resources. The obligations under the Elwha Act are 
far more expansive.
  I need to clarify a mistake made this weekend. Senator Gorton and my 
staff agreed Friday to report language that provided: ``None of the 
requirements of the Elwha Act are changed unless the State elects to 
exercise its option to purchase and remove the projects.'' As a 
colloquy between Senator Gorton and myself at the end of the bill 
reflects, that is the intent of the managers.
  This colloquy makes clear an implied intention of the amendment: If 
the State does not exercise its new option, then the Secretary and the 
United States remain fully obligated under this act to acquire the 
dams, remove them, restore the river's ecosystem and fisheries, and 
deal honorably with the tribes. Until such time as the binding 
agreement provided for in this amendment is offered by the State and 
approved by the Federal Government, the Federal Government must 
continue to carry out its responsibilities under the Elwha Act with all 
due speed.
  I do not support the approach taken by this amendment. However, 
my solace lies in my belief that the State would not--and should not--
accept this option. Restoration of the Elwha ecosystem is a Federal 
responsibility. It is on Federal land, in one of this nation's most 
amazing parks and rainforests, the Olympic National Park. Only the 
Federal Government is responsible, via its trust obligations, to the 
S'Klallam people who have sacrificed so much as others have destroyed 
an historic religious and cultural icon, the abundant salmon runs of 
the Elwha.

  Despite reservations about this amendment, I am pleased with the true 
appropriations work done in this bill, that is allocation of funds to 
acquire these dams. I strongly support the $4 million appropriated for 
fiscal year 1997. The Congress provided the same amount last year. I 
look forward to working to ensure the next administration demonstrates 
its commitment to this project with a substantial increase in its 
budget request for this important fisheries restoration project.
  The Elwha River and ecosystem are precious to the tribes, 
environmentalists, Olympic Peninsula communities, commercial and sport 
fishers, and other people throughout the region and country. This river 
system was one of the most productive salmon rearing and spawning 
resources in the Pacific Northwest. Today, those fisheries are 
devastated. I appreciate the nearly $300,000 allocated in this bill for 
emergency measures to provide some relief for species currently 
imperiled.
  I am committed to working with Senator Gorton and the next 
Administration in the 105th Congress to ensure the Elwha ecosystem is 
fully restored as soon as possible.


                               Elwha Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would the senior Senator from Washington 
yield for a question on the bill language amending the Elwha Act 
included in the Interior section of the omnibus appropriations bill?
  Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Is it a correct interpretation of the language in 
section 114, that none of the requirements of the Elwha Act are changed 
if the State of Washington elects not to purchase the projects?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.


                      appropriations for children

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to address my colleagues 
about a matter that concerns the American public deeply--the well-being 
of their children.
  I have come to the floor myself several times these past 2 years to 
talk about our children's future. Since January of last year, when the 
House voted to cut school lunches and other nutrition programs; to this 
past spring, when I reported on my children's forums in Washington 
State; to just a month ago, when the Senate finally voted to require 
hospitals to allow new mothers to spend at least 48 hours in the 
hospital when delivering a baby, I have been a frequent and avid 
speaker on issues affecting children and families.
  I have always tried to present children's issues in three basic 
categories: Their health, their education, and their ability to 
contribute to society in the long term. In my view, those ideas are 
pretty straightforward: every child has a right to good health; every 
child has a right to an education; and every child has a right to grow 
up in strong, nurturing communities. The cycle is simple: a child who 
is healthy is able to learn; a learned child is able to participate in 
society; a society of contributing adults is able to uphold its 
responsibilities to the children. Again, and again, and again.
  This has been a very strange 2 years for children's policy. There 
have been great victories, such as health insurance portability and 
mandatory maternity care. Threats have been turned aside, such as cuts 
in school lunches, jeopardizing Medicaid services for children, and 
elimination of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. And there have 
been defeats--reductions in student loans and direct lending, and a 
radical welfare bill that leaves millions of poor children in limbo.
  As we near the end of the 104th Congress, I would like to take a 
moment to explore some of the highs and lows for children, some of the 
accomplishments we have made that will help children, and some of the 
problems we still face, and which will require our continuing attention 
in the next Congress.

[[Page S11893]]

  After much wrangling, the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
continues our investment in young people's well-being in some important 
areas:
  In infant health, the Healthy Start Program has made significant 
gains against infant mortality in several high-rate communities around 
the Nation. In spite of initial attempts to cut it, Healthy Start 
funding was increased from $75 million to $96 million. Healthy Start 
has proven itself across partisan lines by creating effective models 
for other communities. And, like many other children's health programs, 
it is very deserving of an increase.
  Also, the maternal and child health services block grant was funded 
at $681 million. The block grant supports local communities in their 
efforts to provide many essential health services, including prenatal 
care, newborn screening, and care for children with disabilities.

  Other health areas, such as funding for the National Institutes for 
Health, and funding for the Ryan White Act, and for AIDS research, also 
met at least minimum targets in the bill.
  Head Start works toward the improvement of the health and education 
of needy youngsters. Arguably, this program has done more for young 
children in terms of getting them healthy and ready for school than any 
other. It demands to be retained and expanded. The level of $3.98 
billion in this bill will allow the program to keep pace with 
inflation. This is good, but this will be an obvious program to expand 
next year.
  In the area of education funding, once Head Start has readied 
children for school, we must make sure they stay on equal footing with 
their peers. One way to do this is to assure they have access to 
educational technology. If we do not continue to give students access 
to the technology of today, they will not be able to get or hold the 
jobs of tomorrow. I am glad the appropriations bill continues our 
investments in new education technology and technology challenge 
grants.
  We have made other positive efforts this year, such as my legislation 
which will put surplus government computers in schools. But these 
efforts will be less effective unless we are also investing in new 
technology, including networking capability, new hardware and software, 
and teacher training that schools will need to succeed.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program also fares better under this 
bill than I had hoped. This program increased by $56 million, which 
pays for educational curriculum specifically designed to give students 
options to the violence and drug use we see young people combat daily 
in today's society. Every school district in the country gets some of 
this money, because there is no community in which drugs do not present 
a threat to the potential of young Americans.
  Beyond technology, funding the School-to-Work Program is vital. 
School-to-Work shows students the connection between what they learn in 
the classroom and what they must know in the workplace. These programs 
have been funded at $400 million, which is a $50 million improvement 
over last year's level. There is no better investment we can make for 
the 75 percent of high school graduates who do not end up with a 
college degree.
  When it comes to education, we too often forget adult students. In 
most areas of this bill, we were only able to hold the line, and to 
survive. But in at least one area that is supported by Members of both 
parties, we were able to provide a much-needed increase for adult basic 
education--adult literacy. The students here are some of the most 
heroic people in our country.
  Many adults in this country are unable to read to their own children, 
or are faced with tests in the workplace that mean the difference 
between employment and unemployment. It is very difficult for these 
same adults to go to programs at their local community college, or run 
by a nonprofit organization, and learn to read. It is truly courageous. 
As they learn, they get better jobs, they provide better help to their 
children in school, and they contribute more to our society. This was a 
great next step; but especially with the welfare bill taking effect now 
and in the near future, we need to do more.

  In areas of citizenship, one of our best investments is Americorps. 
Americorps builds on the best traditions of the Civilian Conservation 
Corps, the G.I. bill, and the Peace Corps, by rewarding people for 
working to improve their communities. It was eliminated in the House 
version of the VA-HUD bill, so I am glad to see that Americorps 
programs were returned to their 1996 levels. We should have new 
investments here, but at least we are continuing our investment.
  There are still several areas of this Appropriations Act that do not 
meet the test of providing at least the minimum basic standards for all 
young people in this country.
  In basic child health, child immunization funding is $20 million 
lower than the level necessary. To underfund such a vital area, when we 
have seen outbreaks of measles and other diseases in my State and 
around the Nation, is a move I do not understand and find troubling. We 
must move forward, and expand immunization to deal with the needs we 
know are out there. The prevention we provide, compared to the cost of 
treating the diseases we allow, is not only cost effective, but also 
the right thing to do. Additional appropriations would allow us to fund 
the infrastructure, education, and registries which would get 
immunizations to the underserved children who need them most.
  On education, the huge task before us is in the area of teacher 
training. Goals 2000 was increased in this appropriations bill, but 
Eisenhower professional development activities were cut this year. If 
our schools succeed in the next century in teaching job and thinking 
skills to students, it will be because of our teachers.
  Our current teaching corps is aging and many will soon be retiring. 
Research shows that for one teacher to learn one new skill that she or 
he can reproduce in the classroom, they need to spend several hours 
practicing that skill under supervision of a master teacher.
  When I look at the investments we must make to allow young people to 
be the best possible citizens in our communities, I see that the Senate 
has again made a mistake. The Summer Youth Employment Program is funded 
equal to 1996 funding, but here is one area where extra investment 
truly would pay off with results for our communities. Young people are 
always telling adults that they do not have anything to do, especially 
when school is out. Summer Youth Employment helps teach the skills of 
work and work attitudes that will reduce violence, and improve young 
people's confidence and self-control. Earlier versions of the bill 
would have meant 134,000 fewer jobs for young people this summer. When 
we are all working so hard to keep young people involved and interested 
in productive activities, this cut is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
  Children and young people deserve their Senator's very best 
decisionmaking. I would argue that children and young people need our 
attention and best efforts more than any other group of people in our 
country. What we have done here in this Appropriations Act, is to 
reject the open assaults on children's programs we saw earlier in this 
Congress. In order to get beyond a survival level, to a place where we 
can say we are actually investing in the future, we must expand funding 
in preventive areas: in access to preventive health services, in the 
improvement of teacher training, and in the expansion of productive 
activities for youth.
  This Congress has shown that it can muster the foresight and 
compassion it takes to deal with issues affecting children. This 
Congress has also made some decisions I fear may have disturbing 
effects on countless young people. I have worked hard during this 
Congress, as have others, to do the very best for all of our children. 
Let us build upon this fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act, so our 
actions will be remembered well by this Nation's children when they are 
old enough to vote.


                                 amtrak

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am especially pleased with the 
additional funding included in this continuing resolution for Amtrak.
  Funding for Amtrak's capital accounts has followed a very torturous 
path this year. The administration's budget request for fiscal year 
1997 embodied its endorsement of the concept that Amtrak should strive 
for self-sufficiency--that it should be free of a

[[Page S11894]]

Federal operating subsidy within the next 6 years.
  The administration recognizes that the key to self sufficiency for 
the railroad is substantially increased investment in its capital 
plant--that a self sufficient Amtrak will require state-of-the-art, 
first-class, reliable equipment--clean stations and modern, efficient 
service.
  In its budget request for 1997, the administration called for a $232 
million increase in funding for Amtrak's principle capital accounts.
  Unfortunately, our House colleagues met this challenge with a 
transportation bill that singled out Amtrak for devastating cuts. The 
House-passed transportation appropriations bill slashed Amtrak capital 
funding by $145 million, more than 42 percent--providing zero for the 
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program--[NECIP].
  Fortunately, thanks to the help and wisdom of Chairman Hatfield and 
many of my colleagues, the Senate bill provided Amtrak an overall 
increase for these crucial capital accounts including the full $200 
million requested by the President for NECIP.
  While the conference agreement on the regular transportation 
appropriations bill was still a substantial improvement upon the House-
passed bill, funding for NECIP ended up 42 percent below the 
President's request.
  During conference on the regular fiscal year 1997 transportation 
bill, I stated I would seek additional funding for NECIP in the 
continuing resolution. So I was pleased to work with Chairman Hatfield 
to construct a provision for this continuing resolution that added $60 
million to NECIP while simultaneously providing $22.5 million to keep 
several routes in operation--routes in various parts of our country 
that were slated for termination due to Amtrak's current financial 
difficulties. This funding was completely offset with a series of 
noncontroversial rescissions.
  Mr. President, I have said time and time again that the key to 
Amtrak's future is the expeditious completion of the major 
infrastructure improvements in the Northeast corridor. Amtrak's own 
studies indicate that all of the increased revenue Amtrak can hope 
to capture in the near term will come from the Northeast corridor.

  I have also long believed that we should have a financially healthy 
and adequately capitalized national railroad that serves as many areas 
as possible. As such, I was pleased to support Members' efforts to 
maintain service to their States and throughout the country.
  But as we work to keep the national Amtrak network together and avoid 
route terminations, it has to be recognized that the key to Amtrak's 
self sufficiency--the key to Amtrak generating enough revenue to 
operate lines throughout the Midwest and the West, is adequate funding 
for Amtrak's Northeast corridor.
  This is not just the opinion of a Senator from the Northeast. It is 
written clearly across Amtrak's balance sheet. The Northeast corridor 
carries half of all of Amtrak's riders and generates well over half of 
Amtrak's passenger-related revenues.
  Indeed, Amtrak's President, Tom Downs, recently testified to the 
Senate Commerce Committee that, were it not for the recent positive 
financial performance of the Northeast corridor, the trains that were 
slated for termination in the next few months would have been 
terminated several months ago.
  As such, I am very pleased that this continuing resolution includes 
our amendment providing the additional $82.5 million for Amtrak, 
including the additional $60 million for NECIP. This will bring the 
final funding level for NECIP to $175 million. While this is still $25 
million below the administration's request, it is well above last 
year's level.
  This funding is essential to assure the development of efficient 
high-speed rail service throughout the entire Northeast before the end 
of the century. It will be that kind of service that will produce the 
revenue to allow Amtrak to avoid service cuts elsewhere in the country.
  I thank my many allies in this effort. Most notably, I want to thank 
our Chairman, Senator Hatfield, who stood firm throughout his 
negotiations with the House on this item. Also, Senator Wyden, Senator 
Biden, Senator Roth, Senator Hutchison, Senator Bumpers, Senator Pryor, 
Senator Pell, Senator Shelby, and the majority leader Senator Lott.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address section 330 of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act, which amends the Rhode Island Claims 
Settlement Act to preclude the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode 
Island from conducting gaming on its lands under the authority of the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Contained in the general provisions of the bill relating to the 
Interior Department appropriations and the narrative which accompanies 
section 330, is a colloquy that I engaged in with Senators Pell and 
Chafee on September 15, 1988.
  Should the inclusion of this colloquy in the measure be perceived as 
an indication of my support for this provision, I feel that I must set 
the record straight.
  I believe that the record should show that at the time of our 
colloquy, there was an underlying premise upon which our discussion was 
based, which I have since learned, was erroneous.
  That underlying premise was that there had been no intervening events 
of legal significance that would warrant any change in the provisions 
of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act.
  At the time that the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement was agreed 
to in 1978, the Narragansett people were organized as a State-chartered 
corporation. Given that status, it is perhaps understandable that the 
settlement act provided for the extension of State criminal, civil, and 
regulatory laws to the settlement lands.
  But in 1983, the Narragansett Indian Tribe achieved federally-
recognized status, and in 1988, a few days before the September 15, 
1988 colloquy, the tribe's settlement lands were taken into trust by 
the United States.
  These two intervening events are important because federally-
recognized status generally confers upon tribes exclusive jurisdiction 
over their lands, and when their lands are taken into trust, the 
protections of Federal law are extended to the lands, and the 
combination of Federal and tribal law and jurisdiction over the lands 
acts to pre-empt the application of State laws to such lands.
  Indeed, the legal significance of these intervening events was of 
such import, that in 1994, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded 
that the provisions of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act 
were affected by the two events, and that the State no longer has 
exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement lands. The first circuit 
held, instead, that the State's jurisdiction was concurrent with that 
of the Narragansett tribe.
  Let us be clear about what section 330 of the Omnibus Appropriations 
measure has as its objective--it will effect a return to the State of 
the law as it was in 1978, notwithstanding the fact that the tribe is 
now federally-recognized and would otherwise enjoy the status of other 
federally-recognized tribes, and notwithstanding the fact that the 
tribe's settlement lands are now held by the United States in trust for 
the tribe and would otherwise not be subject to the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island.
  Some might question why this extraordinary action is being taken--why 
this provision was so important that the jurisdiction of the 
authorizing committees was circumvented and this amendment to 
substantive law, which by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with 
the appropriation of funds in fiscal year 1997--was included in this 
spending bill. The answer, as I understand it, is to prevent the tribe 
from operating a bingo hall on tribal lands.
  In my 17 years of service on the Committee on Indian Affairs, in my 8 
years of service as the committee's chairman, and for the last 2 years, 
as the committee's vice-chairman, I have, for the most part, been proud 
of the manner in which the United States has dealt with the Indian 
nations on a government-to-government basis.
  We have attempted to reverse or at a minimum address the effects of 
some of the darker chapters of our history as a Nation when it comes to 
our treatment of the indigenous people of this land. We have resolved 
to consult with them on any law or policy which will affect their lives 
or their Governments, and indeed, Federal law requires that we do so.

[[Page S11895]]

  But today over the strenuous and adamant objections of this tribe, we 
are enacting into law a provision that holds the potential to forever 
change their lives, without the benefit of hearings, in the absence of 
any record that would serve to justify our action, and without any 
consultation with the affected tribe.
  I have advised my colleagues from Rhode Island that I could not 
support this provision. I also so advised the President of the United 
States, the minority leader, and the Members of the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees. And so, Mr. President, it will come as no 
surprise to my colleagues, when I state my intention, as I do today, to 
call for hearings early in the next session of the Congress on this 
matter.
  And further, I want to put others on notice that as long as I 
continue to serve in this body, the action we approve today, will not 
serve as a precedent for similar action affecting other tribes, nor 
will it define the manner in which we deal with the Indian people.
  Mr. President, our constitution establishes a distinctively different 
framework for our relations with the Indian tribes, and 200 years of 
Federal law and policy have been constructed on that foundation. We are 
a Nation which prides ourselves on our honor and integrity in our 
dealings with all people. We owe no less to this Nation's first 
Americans.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote for the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill today.
  I will vote for this bill because the funding levels it provides will 
help to meet the day to day needs of working Americans and their 
families.
  This bill addresses Democratic priorities. Democrats are working for 
health security, paycheck security, personal security and national 
security. The American people have made clear that these Democratic 
priorities are theirs as well. So I am pleased that this bill provides 
support for programs in each of these areas.
  Let me speak first about health security. I am pleased that health 
programs will receive increased funding so that scientists and 
researchers can continue to search for the cure for diseases like 
cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Funding for the National 
Institutes of Health is increased. Funding for breast cancer research, 
AIDS and childhood immunization all receive needed funds to continue 
critical life saving work.
  This funding is particularly important for Maryland, both in terms of 
the number of jobs generated by the NIH and the impact of the research. 
Institutions such as Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland fund 
critical research programs through the NIH. Keeping the funding at 
needed levels for the NIH will truly save lives and save jobs in 
Maryland.
  Democrats also value economic security, and know that support for 
education is a key part of the opportunity structure that will create 
jobs now and in the future. I strongly support the education spending 
levels in this bill. The bill increases education spending over Fiscal 
year 1996 levels for key programs, including Goals 2000, Safe and Drug 
Free Schools, Title I, the Pell Grant program, and the TRIO Program.
  For my State of Maryland, this means additional funds for cash-
strapped local school districts. Maryland will receive nearly $7 
million for Goals 2000 reforms. These funds will enable local 
school districts to implement curriculum reform efforts to raise 
academic standards.

  I am pleased that funding for safe and drug free schools has 
increased. Maryland will receive over $7 million to help combat crime 
and drugs in schools. Title I is an important program to help 
disadvantaged students learn basic reading and math skills. Maryland 
will receive $91 million for title I funding. Pell Grant funding has 
increased to $2,700 for low-income college students. This means more 
funds will be available for thousands of Maryland college students.
  The funding levels for the TRIO program have increased. TRIO provides 
college opportunities like Upward Bound to minority students. TRIO 
provides thousands of minority students in Maryland with access to 
higher education.
  In addition to increased education funding levels, the omnibus 
spending bill increases funding for the Department of Labor's job 
training program and dislocated worker assistance program. I strongly 
support these initiatives, because thousands of Maryland residents will 
continue to receive job training assistance and help with job search 
and relocation assistance.
  Programs that help to provide personal security are also well funded 
by this legislation. These programs help ensure that our communities 
will be safer and our children will be better protected from drugs and 
crime.
  Perhaps most significant is that funding for the COPS program is 
preserved. This program has been one of the great successes in fighting 
crime. Thanks to this program, over 900 new police officers are 
patrolling the streets in Maryland's cities and towns. I am a strong 
supporter of this program because it is making a real difference--
protecting our communities by putting more cops on the beat. This bill 
also includes more money to fund the Violence Against Women Act, and 
funds to fight juvenile crime and keep our kids away from drugs through 
drug prevention programs.
  This bill also addresses important national security concerns. It 
funds the President's antiterrorism initiatives. It is a sad day that 
we must face the reality that terrorism has come to our communities. 
We must ensure that we do not experience another Oklahoma City. The 
best way to fight terrorism is to prevent it. This legislation takes 
concrete steps to prevent terrorism by upgrading the security of our 
public buildings, increasing our intelligence capability, and expanding 
the number of criminal investigators to fight and prevent terrorism.

  So key Democratic priorities are well-funded in this legislation. 
People will be safer in their homes and their communities, critical 
health research will be supported, and education and training so vital 
to a promising economic future will be provided. These are mainstream 
American values, and I am pleased to see that these values are implicit 
in this legislation.
  In addition to providing appropriations for the agencies and 
Departments of the Federal Government for which individual 
appropriations were not approved, this bill also contains a major 
authorizing program. I refer to the illegal immigration bill. I am 
pleased that the negotiations on this portion of the bill have produced 
a measure which is tough on those who violate our immigrations laws, 
but which is not punitive to those who have entered this country 
legally.
  The illegal immigration legislation will strengthen our efforts to 
prevent undocumented immigrants from entering our country and obtaining 
employment. It will increase border patrols, create a voluntary pilot 
program for employment verification, and require additional INS 
investigators .
  I had strong reservations about the conference report on this bill 
because of provisions which would have denied Federal assistance to 
legal immigrants. After all, legal immigrants have played by the rules, 
they pay taxes just like any U.S. citizen, and they contribute to the 
economy. I am pleased that the concerns I had have been addressed in 
this final compromise measure.
  Under this compromise, we now focus on putting a halt to illegal 
immigration, which was our goal when we passed the Senate version of 
the bill. It is especially important that the so-called Gallegly 
amendment was dropped. Many of us were strongly opposed to this 
provision which would have denied a public education to illegal 
immigrant children. Children should not be punished for the errors 
of their parents.

  I am very disappointed that we were not able to include the Senate-
passed provisions for those seeking political asylum. The United States 
has always reached out to those fleeing persecution. The Leahy 
amendment which the Senate approved would have made sure that people 
seeking asylum were treated fairly. It would have given them the time 
they needed to present their case, and ensured that no Immigration 
official could send them back to their country without a fair hearing. 
It is disappointing that this good provision was not included in the 
measure. I hope we will be able to take care of this problem in the 
next Congress.

[[Page S11896]]

  This omnibus appropriations bill represents the triumph of mainstream 
values. It rejects extremism. It addresses the concerns of America's 
families. The funding it provides for programs important to personal 
security, to national security, to economic security, and to health 
security ensure that we keep the promises we have made to help our 
working families and senior citizens. So I will vote to support this 
bill, and hope my colleagues will join me.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce our success in 
passing the Shelby-Mack regulatory relief bill which is included as 
part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This bill will allow banks to 
devote additional resources to productive activities, such as making 
loans and extending credit to small businesses and potential 
homeowners. This hard fought, thoroughly debated legislation 
streamlines disclosure requirements, eliminates duplicative regulation 
and removes unnecessary filing and record keeping requirements.
  I have been working diligently on a regulatory relief package for 
many years. It is only with tireless effort, conviction in market 
principles, and the blessing of a Republican Congress have we been able 
to turn the tides of banking legislation and provide significant 
regulatory relief for America's financial sector. In doing so, we have 
strengthened America's banking system and produced an environment 
conducive to competing in the rapidly changing, global financial 
market.
  While I am convinced this bill will encourage economic growth and 
opportunity, by no means do I believe our job in Congress is complete. 
Over the years, we have witnessed an accumulation of banking laws with 
complete disregard to the burden it has placed on financial 
institutions and with very little value-added in terms of safety and 
soundness. I continue to believe that a more thoughtful structure of 
banking laws accentuating free market principles and jettisoning the 
heavy hand of Government regulation is the only way to ensure American 
financial institutions have the ability to complete in the dynamic 
marketplace of the 21st century. The Shelby-Mack bill is just the first 
deregulation bill a Republican Congress will give the American people. 
Next year I intend to move forward with another bill to increase the 
access of credit to consumers as well as strengthen the safety and 
soundness of the U.S. financial system.
  In particular, the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA] places an 
enormous regulatory burden on banks--especially small banks. The truth 
of the matter is that banking, financial and labor regulations drive up 
the cost of low and moderate income housing for the very people they 
are intended to help. Indeed, Federal Reserve Governor Lawrence Lindsey 
has stated that ``[a]n urban policy that increases the flexibility and 
creativity allowable under CRA and recognizes the wide variety of 
financial services and the enormous diversity of the markets involved 
could be a powerful tool to those in the business of community 
development.'' It is my intention to address these regulatory 
inequities in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. President, as consumers and politicians realize the benefits of 
the efforts of the 104th Congress, it is my sincere hope that 
legislators will understand the value of independent thinking and the 
economic freedom we seek to bestow upon every American in the United 
States.


asset conservation, lender liability, and deposit insurance protection 
                              act of 1996

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would also like to pose a question to the 
chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to clarify the intent of the 
Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection 
Act of 1996 with respect to EPA'S authority to issue rules defining the 
scope of Superfund liability.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I would be pleased to take part in such a colloquy.
  Mr. SMITH. As you know, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit rules that CERCLA does not authorize EPA 
to issue binding rules that define the scope of liability under 
Superfund. Kelley v. EPA, 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 25 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 1994). Title V of this bill gives EPA limited and specific 
rulemaking authority on two narrow issues. The first one is the 
recognition of additional fiduciary capacities under new section 
107(n)(5)(a)(i)(XI) of CERCLA. The second one is the involuntary 
acquisition of property by the United States Government under 40 CFR 
section 300.1105.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that in granting EPA the authority 
to issue rules on these two narrow issues, title V does not in any way 
disturb the central holding in the Kelley case, namely that absent a 
specific delegation, that CERCLA, today, or as amended by this act, 
does not authorize EPA to issue rules defining the scope of CERCLA 
liability. I would like to confirm that my interpretation is the 
correct one, in order to avoid possible confusion and uncertainty in 
the future.
  Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct.
  Mr. SMITH. Finally, it is also my understanding that title V does not 
seek to confer upon EPA the authority to issue rules on any Superfund 
liability issues other than those actually specified in this bill. I 
would like to confirm this important point so that the actions of the 
Congress in adopting this legislation are not misinterpreted in the 
future.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Again the Senator is correct. EPA is given authority 
only to address the two specific issues covered by title V. No other 
rulemaking authority is conferred or affected by this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under the 
terms of the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit 
Insurance Protection Act of 1996, the liability of a fiduciary cannot 
exceed the assets held in its fiduciary capacity.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And, would the chairman further agree, in determining the 
fiduciary's liability, the language is meant to apply to the value of 
the assets after any improvement due to any cleanup activity which may 
be undertaken? In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is the intent of this entire 
provision to create incentives for cleanup and the productive reuse of 
contaminated properties.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss language that has 
been included in the continuing resolution regarding clarifications to 
the liability of lending institutions under Superfund. During the past 
year, I have been working closely with Senator John Chafee, the 
chairman of the Environment Committee, to enact comprehensive 
legislation to reform the Superfund program. The bill we introduced, S. 
1285, the Accelerated Cleanup and Environmental Restoration Act of 
1996, includes language to address the issue of lender liability. A 
version of our lender liability language is contained in the continuing 
resolution that we will be voting on today.
  Unfortunately, S. 1285 will not make it into law before we adjourn. 
Despite months of daily negotiations with Senator Max Baucus, the 
ranking member of the Environment Committee, Senator Frank Lautenberg, 
the ranking member of the Superfund Subcommittee, as well as 
representatives of the Clinton administration, we were unable to obtain 
bipartisan agreement on this legislation. This is unfortunate, because 
I fervently believe that the Superfund program is badly in need of 
reform.
  During the 104th Congress, Senator Chafee and I actively opposed 
efforts to carve out various liability concerns, deciding instead that 
issues such as lender liability should be included in a comprehensive 
reform package. Nonetheless, after discussing this issue personally 
with Senator Alphonse D'Amato, the chairman of the Banking Committee, 
both Senator Chafee and I agreed that we would have our respective 
staff work together to include the provision contained in the 
continuing resolution. So, while I am saddened that we could not enact 
comprehensive Superfund reform legislation, I am pleased that we are 
able to address the problem of lender liability this year.
  I would like to take a few minutes to discuss why this language is so 
important. As many of my colleagues may

[[Page S11897]]

know, liability under Superfund is strict, retroactive, joint and 
severe. As Superfund has been interpreted by the courts, banks that 
merely take possession of Superfund contaminated property by 
foreclosure, risk the possibility that they themselves could be held 
liable for any cleanup that may be required. Thus, a lender who had no 
direct involvement at the site could be on the hook for cleanup costs 
far exceeding the original value of the underlying property.
  Because of the specter of potential Superfund liability, financial 
credit that is needed for redevelopment or cleanup is not extended. The 
results of the current liability provisions are all too evident. 
Homeowners cannot refinance homes, brownfields sit uselessly in our 
cities, and companies do not take part in voluntary cleanups for want 
of funds.
  The language that Senator D'Amato and I have included in the 
continuing resolution moves to correct this situation by clarifying 
when a lender is liable for environmental contamination. Lenders will 
not be liable unless they take an active role in management of the 
site. This change will significantly reduce lender concerns about 
making loans at these sites and will significantly increase the amount 
of redevelopment funding available in our Nation's inner-city 
brownfield areas. This development is vitally important to restore the 
large number of brownfields to productive use, to allow homeowners 
access to funds to refinance their homes, and companies to continue 
voluntary cleanups. The liability provisions in this bill will go a 
long way toward making these things possible.
  I do want to clarify one issue; the language we are adopting today is 
not a liability carve out. Indeed, Superfund as originally passed, did 
not intend to hold lending institutions liable for this type of 
business activity. Unfortunately, a series of conflicting court 
decisions over the authority of the EPA to issue rules clarifying 
lender liability has left this issue unsettled. Thus, the language we 
are adopting today merely clarifies a liability outcome that was 
already intended by Congress.
  The issue of brownfield redevelopment is a matter that has been long 
spearheaded by Republicans, most notably John Chafee, and by making 
this one very logical change, we will be able to spur reinvestment by 
private financial markets in the blighted parts of our country.
  As I alluded to earlier, although this issue is clearly within the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee of Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk 
Assessment, I was pleased to work with Senator D'Amato to include this 
enlightened provision in the continuing resolution. I believe this is a 
positive change to Superfund, and I thank Senator D'Amato for working 
with me on this issue of mutual concern.


                    paying-up at the united nations

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, one aspect of the continuing resolution 
which troubles me deeply is the level of funding for assessed U.S. 
contributions to the United Nations and other international 
organizations of which the United States is a member. The 
administration's adjusted request for this account was $1.002 billion. 
The bill provides $892 million. This level is $110 million less than 
the request. It does not provide funds to pay any of our arrearages, 
and because it is insufficient to cover our assessments, the result 
will be further U.S. indebtedness, not only to the United Nations but 
also to some of its specialized agencies.
  I know that many on the other side of the aisle, and perhaps some on 
this side as well, believe that the only way we can force the United 
Nations to make the administrative and management reforms we all seek 
is to withhold some or all of our contributions. I think they 
misunderstand the nature of the United Nations, and the U.N. 
environment, and also the degree to which our contributions provide 
leverage.
  Certainly the United States is the last remaining superpower and the 
largest single contributor to the United Nations. But we are not the 
only power in the United Nations, and we cannot simply impose our 
demands on the organization. The United Nations is an organization 
comprised of 185 members. Many of the administrative and financial 
reforms that we hope to achieve must be voted on by the General 
Assembly. In order for us to succeed in that body, we must convince a 
majority of States that the proposed reform make sense, and do not 
hinder their own interests. For example, our effort to reduce the 
percentage of U.S. contributions to the United Nations will impact on 
the contributions made by other States, no doubt in the end requiring 
them to pay more. Certainly there are states that today can afford to 
pick up a greater share of the U.N.'s operating expenses. But we cannot 
force them to do so. We have to convince a majority of them, 
particularly the other major powers such as our European allies and 
Japan that changes in the assessment levels will, in the end, 
strengthen the United Nations as an institution, and thus be in the 
interest of all states.
  Our ability to build support for reforms at the United Nations has 
been eroded by Congress' refusal to provide the necessary funds for the 
United States to pay its dues to the United Nations. Initially, the 
threat of withholding contributions may have been effective. It isn't 
anymore. This tactic has simply made the United States into a deadbeat 
debtor. As of this month the United States owes a total of $1.7 billion 
to the United Nations--$414 million for the regular U.N. budget, $771 
million for peacekeeping and $542 million for the specialized agencies. 
Our failure to pay has subjected us to sharp criticism, particularly 
from our key European allies who also contribute a fair share of the 
U.N. budget, and it has decreased, not increased, our leverage, 
particularly to promote reforms desired by the Congress.
  The United Nations is very much an unruly debating society. Every 
member has a voice and a vote. Consensus is the primary method of 
decision-making. Certainly the positions of the United States carry 
great weight but our demands and needs, even with our veto, are not the 
only defining factor.
  If we are serious about reforming the United Nations, we need to be 
serious about fulfilling our financial obligations to that institution. 
I hope that next year Congress and the administration will have a 
meeting of the minds on this issue. There must be agreement on a set of 
reforms that can be achieved over a reasonable time period and a 
formula for payment that will enable the United States to become 
current on its financial obligations. This kind of plan would make it 
clear to other U.N. members that the United States is serious, not only 
about reform but also about paying its dues. In my view, this is 
imperative if the United States is going to lead a successful reform 
effort at the United Nations.


                     national institute of justice

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman in a 
brief colloquy to acknowledge the committee's support for initiatives 
under the National Institute of Justice [NIJ] account. In particular, I 
would like to address the NIJ's efforts to undertake a national study 
on correctional health care.
  Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to accommodate the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, let me first 
acknowledge the chairman and the committee for their diligent efforts 
to produce a fiscal year 1997 Commerce, State, Justice, and Judiciary 
appropriations bill.
  Within the bill the committee has included language under the NIJ 
account that provides funding for a study on the potential health risks 
of soon-to-be-released inmates. This language is quite important to our 
Nation's criminal justice system and to nonprofit organizations devoted 
to assisting States with correctional health-care programs. For 
example, in my home State of Michigan, the National Commission on 
Correctional Health Care has been working with health and correctional 
officials to stem escalating costs and other problems associated with 
correctional health care. In light of the potential health risk 
associated with the nearly 11 million persons released each year from 
jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities, the National 
Commission is committed to assisting correctional and public health 
officials nationwide with correctional health-care concerns.
  In addition to efforts at NIJ, I am also aware that the Centers for 
Disease Control believes an initiative along

[[Page S11898]]

these lines would be beneficial to its efforts to suppress the spread 
of infectious and highly communicable diseases within correctional 
settings. As we look to advance efforts to provide pertinent data 
relevant to the correctional system, we should encourage efforts like 
that of the National Commission, which effectively contributes to the 
development of information relevant to correctional and public health 
officials.
  Mr. GREGG. My colleague from Michigan makes a strong case in support 
of this initiative and the work of the National Commission. I, too, 
appreciate the importance of NIJ programs and of nonprofit 
organizations that provide a better understanding of correctional 
health care.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his sensitivity 
to correctional health care issues.


                     law enforcement support center

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would ask if the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Senator Gregg, would join me in a colloquy regarding a 
provision included in the Senate report for the appropriations bill 
funding the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would be pleased to join in a colloquy 
with the senior Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. President, the 
appropriations bill reported from the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary included within the immigration 
examinations fees account $3,325,000 for the Law Enforcement Support 
Center in Vermont. It is my understanding that the $567,550,000 
provided in the omnibus appropriations conference report for 
immigration examinations fees includes the $3.325 million for the Law 
Enforcement Center. Does the Senator from New Hampshire agree with my 
interpretation.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Vermont is correct. The funding provided 
for immigration examinations fees does include $3.325 million to fund 
the Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont.


       federal law enforcement dependents assistance act of 1996

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to bring to Chairman Gregg's 
attention the passage of S. 2101, the Federal Law Enforcement 
Dependents Assistance Act of 1996, which I introduced with 10 
Republican and Democrat cosponsors. S. 2101 authorizes, for the first 
time, educational and job training assistance for the spouses and 
children of Federal law enforcement officers killed or totally disabled 
in the line of duty. These benefits will be subject to the availability 
of appropriations and will be distributed to eligible dependents based 
on an application to be devised by the Attorney General.
  This legislation passed the Senate on September 20 by unanimous 
consent and passed the House of Representatives on September 26, which 
was too late to be taken into account by the Appropriations Committee 
in the fiscal year 1997 bill we are considering today. I would ask the 
Senator from New Hampshire for his thoughts on funding for this 
valuable program.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised an 
important issue. The Federal Government has a responsibility for 
helping the families of Federal law enforcement officers who are lost 
or disabled in the line of duty. Educational and job training 
assistance is one appropriate response and deserves the support of the 
Congress. I would encourage the administration to consider 
reprogramming funds to support this effort.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Small Business would like to comment on the Senate 
substitute amendment to H.R. 3719, the Small Business Programs 
Improvement Act of 1996. Am I correct in my understanding that this 
legislation is included in the omnibus appropriations bill that will be 
considered by the Senate today, and that it contains important 
provisions designed to preserve and strengthen several SBA finance 
programs that benefit small businesses throughout the country.
  Mr. BOND. The distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee is 
correct. Today the Senate will have an opportunity to pass a bipartisan 
bill that makes many improvements to the Small Business Act and the 
Small Business Investment Act and assures continued availability of 
capital and financing to small businesses through SBA's 7(a), 504 and 
SBIC programs. I thank the Senator for his longstanding and consistent 
support of small businesses, and for his understanding of their special 
needs in the financing area. This legislation includes the provision 
the chairman of the Banking Committee and I jointly developed to 
enhance the availability of SBIC leverage. I commend the Senator for 
his creativity and his support for new ways to improve small business 
access to capital.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I am pleased that this very important new provision is 
included in this legislation. I believe it is appropriate for the 
Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist small businesses, by making 
additional leverage investments in SBIC's, as an element in fulfilling 
the Federal Home Loan Banks' community and economic development 
mission.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
record a short statement describing this new statutory provision and 
expressing the joint views of the Banking Committee and the Small 
Business Committee on this matter.


   banking committee and small business committee joint explanatory 
                               statement

  The small business investment company improvements provisions 
included in the omnibus appropriations legislation contains a 
conforming amendment to the Federal Home Loan Bank Act that preserves 
and strengthens existing law specifying that stock, obligations or 
other securities of certain small business investment companies are 
authorized investments for Federal Home Loan Banks. The current Federal 
Home Loan Bank Act provision refers only to small business investment 
companies formed pursuant to section 301(d) of the Small Business 
Investment Act.
  This legislation amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to make clear 
that Federal Home Loan Banks are permitted, subject to any regulations, 
restrictions and limitations that may be prescribed by the Federal 
Housing Finance Board, to invest in stock, obligations or other 
securities of any small business investment company licensed and 
operating under the supervision of the Small Business Administration. 
This authority exists independently of whether the SBIC is owned by or 
affiliated with a banking organization. This amendment is intended to 
encourage Federal Home Loan Banks, on a prudent and financially sound 
basis, to play a part in satisfying the needs of small businesses for 
the kind of venture capital for business start-up or expansion that is 
made available by small business investment companies.
  A Federal Home Loan Bank's loans to or investments in an SBIC will 
not be counted as private capital of the SBIC within the meaning of 
Section 103(9) of the Small Business Investment Act. The structure of 
the Small Business Investment Act contemplates that an SBIC, rather 
than raising its original private capital from governmental or quasi-
governmental sources, should demonstrate an ability to raise a 
significant amount of capital from private sources that demand a 
market-based financial return. Once an SBIC has raised this private 
capital and has become licensed by SBA, however, Federal Home Loan 
Banks would be furthering the legitimate objective of economic and 
community development through promoting small business investment and 
growth.
  In order to be attractive to SBICs that will, in most cases, be 
making long term portfolio investments, Federal Home Loan Bank 
investments to provide SBIC leverage should be made on a long term 
basis as well. Federal Home Loan Banks now routinely make long term 
advances to members in the normal course of business. However, under 
some circumstances a Federal Home Loan Bank may wish to sell or 
liquidate an SBIC investment prior to its stated maturity or prior to 
the date by which the Federal Home Loan Bank expects to receive a 
complete return on its investment. Because the Federal Home Loan Bank 
Act does not require that an investment in an SBIC be acquired directly 
from the SBIC, a Federal Home Loan Bank would be permitted to acquire 
and dispose of SBIC

[[Page S11899]]

investments in secondary transactions, including transactions with 
other Federal Home Loan Banks. In addition, a Federal Home Loan Bank, 
for purposes of liquidity, diversification or otherwise, may want to 
structure its investments in SBIC's through a trustee relationship or 
other special purpose intermediary. This structure is permissible under 
the Federal Home Loan Bank Act as long as the Federal Home Loan Bank's 
beneficial ownership interest in the SBIC investment is sufficiently 
documented and the trustee or special purpose intermediary holds only 
stock, obligations or other securities of an SBIC or other authorized 
Federal Home Loan Bank investments.
  The Small Business Investment Act prescribes limits on the amount of 
SBA leverage made available to an SBIC. These statutory limits on SBA 
leverage are designed in part of achieve a fair distribution of SBA 
leverage among all SBICs in a situation where there may be more 
requests for leverage than SBA has authorization or appropriations to 
satisfy. A Federal Home Loan Bank should not invest in a single SBIC an 
amount in excess of any aggregate limits or percentages established by 
the Bank or by the Federal Housing Finance Board, but the statutory 
maximum on SBA leverage set forth in the Small Business Investment Act 
does not apply to Federal Home Loan Banks.

  In establishing the terms and conditions on which SBIC loans or 
investment will be made, Federal Home Loan Banks may want to take into 
account both the terms and conditions on which SBA now makes leverage 
available to its SBIC licensees, as well as the expected risk-adjusted 
return and other terms on which Federal Home Loan Banks structure their 
advances to members. Some SBIC's receive ``participating security'' 
leverage from SBA, structured as an equity instrument rather than debt 
of the SBIC. Other SBICs obtain traditional debt leverage from SBA 
through the issuance of debentures. The language of the Federal Home 
Loan Bank Act gives Federal Home Loans Banks the discretion to provide 
leverage to an SBIC on terms similar to the equity or debt securities 
SBIC's now issue to obtain leverage through SBA, or on any other terms 
approved by the banks and the Federal Housing Finance Board.
  SBA's participating security leverage offers some advantages for 
SBIC's planning to make equity oriented portfolio investments that are 
not expected to generate sufficient early stage cash flows to satisfy 
regular interest payment requirements. Leverage structured as equity 
also makes its easier for SBIC's to attract private capital from 
certain institutional investors that would not invest private capital 
in an SBIC planning to obtain debt leverage. If a Federal Home Loan 
Bank provides equity leverage to an SBIC, the investment could be 
structured as a preferred investment or otherwise senior in priority 
over the private equity capital of the SBIC.
  If a Federal Home Loan Bank investment in an SBIC is structured as 
debt, the Federal Home Loan Bank could obtain a first priority security 
interest or an unsecured senior position acceptable to the bank with 
regard to SBIC portfolio investments made with the proceeds of the 
Federal Home Loan Bank leverage. If the SBIC has SBA leverage 
outstanding or subsequently obtains SBA leverage, the SBIC's issuance 
of the Federal Home Loan Bank debt would be subject to the Small 
Business Investment Act's provisions dealing with third party debt of 
an SBIC. Section 303(c) of the Small Business Investment Act, as 
amended by this legislation, requires that SBA not permit an SBIC 
having outstanding SBA leverage to incur third party debt that would 
create or contribute to an unreasonable risk of default or loss to the 
Federal Government, and directs SBA to permit SBICs to incur such debt 
only on terms and subject to such conditions as may be established by 
SBA. In furtherance of the public policy objectives of encouraging the 
development of an additional source of reduced-cost leverage and to 
attract additional participation in the SBIC program that will increase 
the amount of venture capital available for small businesses, SBA 
should implement Section 303(c) in a manner that does not limit the 
ability of Federal Home Loan Banks to provide leverage to SBICs.
  Because Section 303(c) applies only to an SBIC having outstanding SBA 
leverage, SBA need not review or approve, and should not establish any 
conditions with regard to, a Federal Home Loan Bank investment in an 
SBIC with no outstanding SBA leverage. For an SBIC with outstanding SBA 
leverage, SBA should allow the SBIC to obtain additional debt or equity 
leverage from a Federal Home Loan Bank as long as the Federal Home Loan 
Bank investment does not give the Federal Home Loan Bank a priority 
claim on any assets of the SBIC attributable to or acquired with the 
proceeds of SBA leverage. Similarly, the existence of any outstanding 
Federal Home Loan Bank leverage should not cause SBA to decline a 
subsequent SBIC application for SBA leverage, as long as the terms of 
the outstanding Federal Home Loan Bank leverage do not give the Federal 
Home Loan Bank a priority claim on SBIC assets attributable to or made 
with the proceeds of any SBA leverage.


                          thrift tax provision

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Finance, it 
is my responsibility to make sure that tax-related measures are 
reviewed and evaluated by the Committee on Finance. Like other 
committees, the Committee on Finance takes very seriously its 
jurisdictional responsibilities. The House Committee on Ways and Means 
similarly exercises its jurisdictional responsibilities on tax-related 
measures in the House of Representatives.
  Historically, the Committees on Finance and Ways and Means have 
opposed the inclusion of tax-related measures in appropriation bills. 
However, because of the unusual circumstances surrounding this 
appropriations bill, Mr. Bill Archer, chairman of the House Committee 
on Ways and Means, requested that the Committee on Appropriations 
include a tax-related measure in the omnibus appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I concur with Mr. Archer's request. But my colleagues 
should be aware that this is a unique situation. The tax-related 
measure will expedite consideration of important banking legislation 
that is also contained in the bill. The tax-related measure does not 
change the Internal Revenue Code. It merely clarifies the current-law 
treatment of special assessments that many thrifts will pay in 
accordance with the banking legislation. The staffs of the Committees 
on Finance and Ways and Means worked together to develop the tax-
related measure.
  Since the tax-related measure was initiated by the Committees on 
Finance and Ways and Means, it should be understood that its inclusion 
in the appropriations bill does not establish a precedent for the 
Committee on Appropriations to initiate or include tax-related measures 
in future appropriations legislation. Mr. Archer made a similar 
statement in his letter to the House Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Archer's letter to 
the House Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Livingston,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding possible inclusion of 
     the so-called ``BIF-SAIF'' provisions in the upcoming omnibus 
     appropriations bill. Specifically, I understand that the BIF-
     SAIF package will include the imposition of a special 
     assessment to capitalize the Savings Association Investment 
     Fund (SAIF).
       As you may know, the Committee on Banking has been in 
     consultation with the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
     Administration to determine whether this special assessment 
     would be deductible for tax purposes. Representatives of the 
     Treasury Department have informed us that they believe that 
     the special assessment would be deductible under current law. 
     We share that view.
       Nonetheless, I have suggested a statutory clarification on 
     this matter for the BIF-SAIF package. This language does not 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code and merely reiterates the 
     understanding shared by this Committee and the Administration 
     on the appropriate tax treatment of the special assessment 
     under current law.
       Historically, the Committee on Ways and Means has opposed 
     inclusion of tax-related measures in appropriation bills. We 
     have

[[Page S11900]]

     also been circumspect in sending to the Senate potential 
     revenue bills which may become vehicles for extraneous 
     legislation. I know that you share my views on these matters.
       However, in order to expedite consideration of the BIF-SAIF 
     package, I have agreed to the inclusion of this clarifying 
     language in the omnibus appropriations bill. This is being 
     done only with the understanding that the omnibus 
     appropriations bill will be considered as a conference report 
     which will not be subject to further amendment in the Senate, 
     that no additional revenue-related matters will be included 
     in the final conference report, and that the language to be 
     included has been prepared by the staff of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means, which is substantially similar to that 
     included in H.R. 2494, reported by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means earlier this Congress.
       This is also being done with the understanding that this 
     Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in 
     the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means in the future.
       Finally, I would ask that a copy of this letter be placed 
     in the Record during consideration of the bill on the Floor. 
     Thank you for your cooperation regarding this matter. With 
     warm personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.


                child pornography prevention act of 1996

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise with my friend Chairman Hatch to 
commend the inclusion of the Hatch-Biden child pornography bill in the 
omnibus continuing resolution. This bill will strengthen our ability to 
track down and crack down on child pornographers.
  Those who produce and traffic in child pornography--who exploit the 
most vulnerable and innocent among us--are, by my lights, among the 
worst of the worst. They cause a harm that is unspeakable and a damage 
that is often irreparable.
  Child pornography is not an art form and it is not a type of 
expression that we must tolerate even though we find it intolerable. To 
the contrary: We have an obligation--a moral obligation, in my mind--to 
protect our children from this type of abuse--which steals their 
innocence and shatters their dreams.
  I consider myself an unapologetic champion of the first amendment. 
Yet I believe that child pornography deserves no, and I mean no, first 
amendment protection.
  Over the years, the computer has become an increasingly powerful 
weapon of the child pornographer and today, technology is making it 
even easier for child pornographers to make and sell their wares.
  What we're seeing now is this: Pornographers are taking pictures of 
children and morphing them, with the help of computer technology, to 
make it look as if the children are engaging in sexual conduct.
  That means that it's not necessary, these days, to actually molest 
children in order to produce pornography that exploits and degrades 
them. All that's necessary is an inexpensive computer, some software, 
and a photograph of the little boy or girl down the street.
  We must move right here and now to put this new generation of child 
pornographers behind bars.
  But we must also be mindful that we live under a constitution which 
includes a robust Commitment to free and open speech and which 
necessarily tolerates what is sometimes called the speech we love to 
hate.
  As a threshold matter, any statute that we write must pass the first 
amendment's test. Otherwise, it will sit on our books, unconstitutional 
and unenforceable, doing not one child one bit of good.
  I am concerned that a provision in this bill which criminalizes the 
depiction of something that appears to be a minor engaging in sexually 
explicit conduct will not pass constitutional muster.
  This proposal would cover purely imaginary drawings, as well as 
depictions of adults who appear to be minors engaged in sexually 
explicit conduct, like a documentary that deals with child sexual 
abuse, featuring a 19-year actress who looks like a very young girl.
  Don't get me wrong: like many Americans, I would like for a lot of 
the stuff that's out there today, even it it's just a figment of 
someone's warped imagination, involving no actual children at all, to 
be banished from the face of the Earth right now and forever.
  But I am not king. And it is our Constitution that still reigns 
supreme and whose first amendment principles will not, in my opinion, 
countenance this sort of broad and open-ended prohibition.
  The constitutional analysis begins with the famous 1982 case of New 
York versus Ferber, in which the Supreme Court first recognized the 
child pornography exception to the first amendment. In the case, the 
Court pointed to a number of compelling reasons to justify a total and 
outright ban of this sort of material:
  It causes psychological and physical harm to children used as 
subjects;
  It creates a permanent record of sexual abuse;
  It fuels the child pornography trade; and
  Its artistic and social value is limited, to say the least.
  At the heart of the analysis, and why the Court justified such a 
categorical and complete restriction on speech, is a very 
straightforward idea: Children who are used in the production of child 
pornography are victims of abuse, plain and simple. And the 
pornographers, also plainly and simply, are child abusers.
  In the cases following Ferber, strict restrictions on child 
pornography are predicated on the same rationale: The creation of the 
pornography hurts the children who are its subjects.
  That's why I am concerned that the appears to be standard, which does 
not in any way involve an actual child in the creation of child 
pornography, will not survive the inevitable constitutional challenge 
to this legislation.
  My view is shared, among others, by Harvard professor Frederick 
Schauer, who was the commissioner of the now famous Meese Commission on 
pornography.
  In testimony before our committee, Professor Schauer expressed the 
opinion that the appears to be standard in the bill would most probably 
fail the Ferber test and would therefore become a failed weapon in our 
crusade against pornography.
  That is why I introduced an amendment to Senator Hatch's proposal, 
which would make it a crime to create a visual depiction that makes it 
look like an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit 
conduct, whether or not the child ever actually engaged in the conduct.
  Here's what this would mean: If a pornographer uses an image, a face 
or other identifying feature of an actual child, and, via computer 
morphing or any other means, makes it look like the child is engaging 
in sex, that will be a crime.
  Unlike images that are completely conjured up in someone's 
imagination, or which employ adults who look like children, these kinds 
of images do cause real harm to real children:
  Although the child may not have actually engaged in the sexual 
conduct, the image creates an apparent record of such conduct. In my 
book, that's abuse and that's harm, period.
  These kinds of morphed images can be used to blackmail a child into 
engaging in sexual activity, by intimidating him, or by threatening to 
show the pictures to others if he doesn't comply.
  Also, as the experts tell us, child pornography has a very long life 
as it often passes among many, many hands, thus victimizing a child 
who's in the picture time and again.
  The definition of identifiable minor in this bill makes it clear that 
proof of the minor's identity is not required for the prosecution to 
make its case, only that the child is capable of being identified as an 
actual person. It also does not matter whether the person depicted is a 
minor at the time the depiction is created, or whether the depiction is 
made from a childhood image of a person who is now an adult.
  I believe that my proposal is consistent with the Ferber standard 
with its bottom line focus on the well-being of actual children.
  Do not get me wrong: I am wholly sympathetic and supportive of 
Senator Hatch's view that even imaginary depictions that do not involve 
actual children can, indeed, cause harm. This kind of stuff can be used 
by pedophiles to entice other children into sexual activity.
  But the point is this: The act of enticement, of course, is itself a 
separate

[[Page S11901]]

crime and I think we all agree that we should throw the book at anyone 
who would do such an unthinkable and despicable thing.
  But the Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to 
the production of the pornography itself and the constitutional line 
stops with the involvement of real children. And again, it is only a 
constitutional law, one that will be upheld and enforced, that will 
serve to protect our children.
  In order to more gracefully bring together my proposal and Senator 
Hatch's, this substitute merges our two approaches into one new section 
to be added to the criminal code. And though I have agreed to this 
stylish accommodation of our two ideas, let there be no mistake:
  We clearly intend that if any portion of the bill's definition of 
child pornography, such as the ``appears to be'' standard, is struck 
down as unconstitutional, the remaining provision, the prohibition on 
material involving an identifiable minor, will stand on its own, 
completely severable.
  Our intention here is made crystal clear in the substitute bill's new 
severability clause.
  I'd like to say a brief word about another aspect of this bill. It 
includes a number of penalties, many of which are properly tough and 
severe. And though I believe that we should give child pornographers no 
quarter, I do not think the creation of new mandatory minimums is smart 
sentencing policy.
  One of the main problems with mandatory minimums is that they treat 
different types of offenders the same, which means that the really bad 
guys get the same punishment as the less blame worthy. For example, 
under the proposal added to this bill by Senator Grassley:
  A person who puts out an ad seeking to buy soft core child 
pornography is going to get the same 10-year mandatory minimum sentence 
as the guy who actually employs or entices an 11 year old to make hard 
core, violent porn. By the same token, that person who advertises to 
buy child porn will get the same 10-year mandatory minimum as the 
parent who markets his child for child pornography.
  Make no mistake about it: All these guys should get a tough sentence. 
But they shouldn't get the same sentence. The same sentence may be too 
tough for the less culpable, and not tough enough for the most 
culpable. That's not smart sentencing policy.
  As Chief Justice Rehnquist has noted:

       One of the best arguments against any more mandatory 
     minimums, and perhaps against some of those that we already 
     have, is that they frustrate the careful calibration of 
     sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other.

  These reservations notwithstanding, I believe that we must get on 
with the very important business at hand which is to stem the tide of 
this new generation of child phonography. We have no time to waste, and 
I am pleased that this bill will soon become law.
  I thank my colleagues for their support.


        objecting to the summary exclusion and asylum provisions

  Mr. LEAHY. I find myself here again on the Senate floor faced with a 
conference report that contains provisions that the Senate and this 
Senator never had a fair opportunity to consider and that will do grave 
damage to the United States' place in the world as a refuge for the 
oppressed and as a champion of human rights.
  I say ``again'' because I first came to the Senate on the issue of 
asylum and summary exclusion last April 17 to oppose similar provisions 
in another conference report. I offered a motion to recommit that 
conference report on S. 735 in order to strike those sections added to 
that bill in the dark of night modifying our asylum processes, 
establishing summary exclusion and precluding judicial review. I 
objected then to those sections of that bill that had not been 
previously considered by the Senate and that had nothing to do with 
preventing terrorism, but were snuck into that conference report to 
alter general immigration law. I failed in that attempt to recommit the 
antiterrorism conference report by a mere 7 votes.
  I knew from the beginning that my motion to recommit has little 
chance of success because Members were intent on passing an 
antiterrorism bill in connection with the anniversary of the Oklahoma 
City bombing. Several Senators came up to me and said that they would 
have an easier time voting with me on the immigration bill and 
encouraged me to fix the problem when the immigration bill was 
considered in the Senate.
  When we considered the Senate immigration bill in May, I continued my 
efforts. With Senators DeWine, Kerry and Hatfield I cosponsored an 
amendment to the asylum and summary exclusion provisions of that bill. 
With the support of a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators 
Kennedy, Chafee, Simon, Jeffors and Hatch, we prevailed. On May 1, 
1996, the Senate approved our amendment 51 to 49 and it replaced the 
summary exclusion provisions that had been in the immigration bill.
  The bill that the Senate passed last May did not undermine our asylum 
processes or require summary exclusion where it was not necessary or 
appropriate. In the only vote by either body on these issues the Senate 
stood with those fleeing oppression and upheld our tradition as a haven 
for the oppressed and for those seeking religious and political 
freedom.
  We have now come full circle. We in the Senate again find ourselves 
confronted by a time deadline and an unamendable bill. I am aware of 
where we are on the legislative calendar and can see other Members 
looking at their watches as they struggle to conclude this Congress and 
return home to campaign for reelection. I suspect that most Members 
have not even had a chance in the waning days of this Congress to 
examine the immigration bill conference report, let alone begin to 
explore what it will mean to those who will be denied refuge from 
oppression in other parts of the world under its provisions. There is 
no time, no real opportunity to educate ourselves or focus attention on 
this important matter. The majority simply rolls it out as part of 
``must-pass'' legislation at the end of the session and it cannot be 
stopped.
  I know that this legislation will pass and I expect that President 
Clinton will sign it--despite concern that these provisions may well 
violate our treaty obligations and undercut our world leadership on 
this issue. I recall that last February President Clinton wrote to 
Congressman Berman and noted his concern that ``we not sacrifice our 
proud tradition of refugee protection and support for the principles of 
the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.'' The President 
wrote: ``This critically important Treaty, which responded to the 
displacement that followed the Second World War, has enjoyed broad 
bipartisan support in the Congress. Moreover, our efforts to urge other 
governments to comply with its provisions has been a major element of 
our diplomacy on international humanitarian issues.''
  Specifically on the matter of summary exclusion, the President wrote 
that he favored ``carefully structured stand-by authority for expedited 
exclusion.'' That is what I would provide, but the approach that the 
conference report rejects.
  With regard to the overall proposals for summary exclusion that the 
House was pressing, the President wrote that they were ``too broad and 
would also result in considerable diversion of INS resources.'' He 
noted that: ``These provisions seem particularly unnecessary in view of 
the successful asylum reforms we have already initiated.'' I agree.
  I look forward to working with President Clinton when we return next 
January to correct the excesses of this bill and to right the balance 
that is needed if we are to honor our commitment to our tradition and 
those in troubled areas of the world who look to America for refuge.
  We did not have an opportunity to craft sensible summary exclusion 
and asylum provisions and this measure does not bear the Senate's stamp 
of approval. All Democratic conferees were barred from even offering 
motions or amendments. I was prepared to offer an amendment to correct 
the excesses of this conference report and to reaffirm the human rights 
of those who look to this great country for refuge, but there is no 
real opportunity today to urge those changes to this legislation. Just

[[Page S11902]]

as its provisions will result in the summary exclusion of some with 
valid asylum claims and its truncated procedures will certainly result 
in the United States returning refugees to countries where their lives 
and freedoms are in danger, so, too, the circumstances in which the 
Senate considers this matter have summarily excluded this Senator from 
participation in the House-Senate conference on this bill and precluded 
any opportunity for amendment or modification of these provisions.
  Let me share with you the stories of some of those who have recently 
succeeded in gaining asylum in this country who would most likely have 
been denied our refuge had the bill and its procedures governed.
  One of the best recent examples of someone who could have lost his 
life had the bill been the law of the land is now a constituent of mine 
in Vermont. His name is Moses Cirillo. Moses is from the Sudan and is a 
Christian. He had served as a translator for Christian missionaries, 
distributed Catholic literature and worked with aid groups in the 
southern part of Sudan. Those are the activities that placed him and 
his family in danger. He escaped to Ethiopia and then to the United 
States on a false passport. He lost his wife and son and brother before 
fleeing.
  When he got to this country, this land of freedom and opportunity, 
Moses Cirillo could not get the INS or an immigration judge to believe 
him or understand the circumstances that brought him here. Fortunately 
for Moses, the Vermont Refugee Assistance came to his aid and pursued 
his cause. This summer, after 3 years in detention, Moses Cirillo was 
granted asylum. The INS agents at the border and an immigration judge 
had ruled against him. It was only when his case was reviewed by the 
Board of Immigration Appeals that he finally prevailed. Had we not had 
the procedural safeguards that will be eliminated by this conference 
report, there can be little question that Moses Cirillo would not be 
free and living in Vermont today.
  Just a few days ago the Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 
71, a ressolution condemning human rights abuses and denials of 
religious liberty to Christians around the world. In that resolution we 
recognized that religious minorities continue to be oppressed and 
persecuted around the world. We termed religious persecution ``an 
affront to the international moral community and to all people of 
conscience.'' We commented on persecution of Christians in such 
countries as Sudan--like Moses Cirillo--in Cuba, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, 
China, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Laos, Vietnam, and countries that 
were formerly part of the Soviet Union. We termed religious liberty a 
universal right.
  We noted ``the United States of America since its founding has been a 
harbor of refuge and freedom to worship for believers from John 
Winthrop to Roger Williams to William Penn, and a haven for the 
oppressed.'' We referred to Pope John Paul II's call against regimes 
that ``practice discrimination against Jews, Christians, and other 
religious groups.'' We proclaimed our ``commitment to human rights 
around the world'' and our international leadership on behalf of 
persecuted religious minorities.''
  We concluded less than 2 weeks ago, on September 17, that the Senate 
unequivocally condemns egregious human rights abuses and denials of 
religious liberty to Christians around the world and recognized Sunday, 
September 29, as a day of prayer recognizing the plight of persecuted 
Christians worldwide.
  It makes little sense merely to condemn religious persecution if we 
turn around and enact procedures that will shut out the oppressed and 
summarily exclude refugees from religious persecution. It rings hollow 
to recall our history of freedom of religion and our station as a haven 
for the oppressed when we are poised and prepared to abandon that proud 
tradition.
  While the Senate of the United States finds it easy to condemn 
religious persecution in Sudan, INS agents and an immigration judge 
initially denied Moses Cirillo asylum claim. It was only the 
extraordinary efforts of human rights advocates in Vermont and their 
persistent pursuit of justice through the procedural safeguards in our 
asylum process that allowed him to prevail. If this bill had been the 
law, those protections would not have been available. I will continue 
to work to ensure that before too long we will choose to act consistent 
with the recognition that religious persecution still plagues so much 
of the world.
  Another recent case is that of Fauziya Kasinga. I first brought this 
young woman's case to the attention of the Senate back in April. Two 
days before, a reporter named Celia Dugger had told Ms. Kasinga's story 
on the front page of The New York Times. She had sought for 2 years to 
find sanctuary in the country only to be detained, tear-gassed, beaten, 
isolated and abused.
  She, too, came to the United States with false documents. In her case 
she obtained a false British passport in order to escape mutilation in 
Togo and traveled from Germany to New York. On June 13, the Board of 
Immigration Appeals granted her application for asylum from female 
genital mutilation in Togo. After 2 years in detention, in a case that 
was initially opposed by INS and rejected by an immigration judge, she 
finally was freed and granted asylum.
  Her case established new law. For when the INS was called upon to 
file a brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals it took the position 
for the first time that fear of female genital mutilation should 
present a sufficient cause to seek asylum in the United States. Hers 
was a precedent setting case. Does anyone doubt that she would have 
been returned to Togo if the summary exclusion provision of the bill 
had been the law? Does anyone honestly think that the immigration 
agents with whom she came in contact at the border or the immigration 
judge who denied her claim would have established such a precedent as a 
case of first impression and rescued her?
  It is ironic that in this immigration bill we require that aliens 
from certain countries be advised prior to or at entry into the United 
States of the severe harm caused by female genital mutilation and we 
create a criminal statute against female genital mutilation on children 
in the United States. Unfortunately, neither of those measures will 
help the young women who are being subjected to this practice in other 
parts of the world.
  In addition, this bill would amend our statutory definition of 
refugee to include persons forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo 
involuntary sterilization or who are persecuted for refusing such 
procedures. It will do no good to amend these definitions if we do not 
have fair procedures and a real opportunity for refugees to establish 
the circumstances from which they flee to America. Summary exclusion is 
wholly incompatible with these expansions of the grounds for asylum.
  I am glad to see that the bill excludes Cuban refugees from the harsh 
provisions of the new exclusionary asylum procedures. I believe that 
this exception should be the rule. Indeed, this exception shows that 
the majority does not trust the procedures that they are imposing on 
refugees from all other countries in the world.
  Let us examine briefly the Cuban exception and how it might or might 
not apply. First, we should notice that it only applies to those who 
are wealthy enough, lucky enough, or skilled enough to arrive by 
aircraft at a port of entry. Thus, not all who escape from Cuba would 
be covered by this narrowly drafted special exception.
  Further, let us consider how the exception might or might not work in 
a real-life situation. Not so long ago Fidel Castro's own daughter came 
to the United States using a disguise and a phony Spanish passport to 
seek asylum. Under the provisions of the bill, she might well have been 
turned away at the border after a summary interview if the INS agent 
who confronted her did not believe that she was Cuban or Castro's 
daughter. Would that INS officer or the immigration judge reviewing the 
summary decision within 24 hours think that this disguised person with 
false documentation had established a ``significant possibility'' that 
she was Castro's daughter? Think about what would most likely have 
happened.
  Next, I ask you to consider the case of Alan Baban. Mr. Baban is one 
of the many Kurds who was jailed and tortured in Iraq. He succeeded in 
bribing a

[[Page S11903]]

jailor and escaping. He went into hiding for 3 years and ultimately 
escaped to this country without documents.
  In spite of the notorious persecution of Kurds by the Iraqis and the 
scarring Mr. Baban carries with him for life, the INS agents who 
confronted Mr. Baban at the airport did not believe him and determined 
that he did not have a credible claim of persecution. Having come to 
the United States for freedom from oppression, Mr. Baban was 
imprisoned, again--this time by U.S. authorities.
  A year later he was denied political asylum when the interpreter he 
was assigned at a hearing did not speak or understand his Kurdish 
dialect. As a result, the immigration judge before whom he appeared did 
not believe that Mr. Baban was Kurdish.
  It took 16 months in detention before Alan Baban was finally granted 
asylum on appeal. That appeal will be eliminated by the procedures 
mandated by the bill.
  Consider the case of Ana X. whom I met last April when she came 
forward to share her story. Two-years ago she fled Peru. She had been 
horribly treated and threatened by rebel guerillas from the Shining 
Path there. She came to this country without proper documents and 
gained asylum only after a full and fair opportunity to convince an 
immigration judge at a hearing that she would suffer persecution if she 
was returned to Peru.
  When she tried to share her history with us earlier this year, she 
could not finish her second sentence before she broke down in tears, 
overwhelmed by the memories of what she had suffered. I cannot imagine 
this victim of oppression being able to talk about her suffering to a 
strange authority figure immediately upon her arrival in the United 
States. Fortunately, she had a chance to obtain the help of volunteers 
and was able to present her case to an immigration judge at a hearing.
  Finally, consider the case of Nikolai S. from a former Soviet 
republic and a social scientist. He had been beaten by government 
agents because he is Jewish. He came to the United States in 1994 to 
conduct research and he found it hard to bring himself even to apply 
for asylum. Once he felt that he was ready and had assembled supporting 
evidence of the dangerousness of anti-Semitism in his homeland, he 
applied. Had the arbitrary 1-year filing deadline of the bill been in 
place, his application would have been rejected as too late.
  Human rights organizations like the Lawyers Committee have documented 
a number of cases of people who were ultimately granted political 
asylum by immigration judges after the INS denied their release from 
detention for not meeting a ``credible fear'' standard and numerous 
instances where it took an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
  I note the efforts of the Representative of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees, who has been supportive of our efforts to 
have credible fear judged by the accepted international standard.
  I have heard from many House Members, Republicans and Democrats, who 
feel very strongly about these provisions. Some have sent Dear 
Colleague letters urging that others join us ``in protecting human 
rights around the world.''
  In particular, I have heard from Representatives Christopher Smith, 
Tom Lantos, Ben Gilman, Rick Boucher, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Matthew 
Martinez, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, George Miller, David McIntosh, Henry 
Waxman, Steve Chabot, Eni Faleomavaega, Thomas Davis, Robert 
Torricelli, Mark Souder, Ed Pastor, Jon Fox, Cynthia McKinney, Matt 
Salmon, Eliot Engel, Robert Menendez, and our former colleague Ham 
Fish.
  I also remain deeply concerned that the bill would deny the Federal 
courts their historic role in overseeing the implementation of our 
immigration laws and review of individual administrative decisions. 
This bill will not allow judicial review whether a person was actually 
excludable and will create unjustified exceptions to rulemaking 
procedural protections under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  This bill signals a fundamental change in the roles of our coordinate 
branches of Government and a dangerous precedent. Judicial review has 
often been a source of accountability for the executive branch. The 
bill eliminates that oversight and weakens protection that serves to 
make sure that the Executive is following the law. Over 90 law 
professors had written to us on this point on July 29. Their wise 
counsel is being ignored at our peril.
  The summary exclusion and asylum provisions of the bill remain among 
its most extreme and unnecessarily harsh provisions. At the eleventh 
hour, after the House approved the conference report, there have been 
attempts to meet to create a better bill, but those truncated talks 
have done nothing to improve the asylum and summary exclusion 
provisions on which the congressional Republicans remain insistent.
  Let me briefly outline adjustments that could have been made to 
preserve our asylum system while continuing to reform our processes as 
needed. The bill takes several giant steps backward from the bipartisan 
Senate effort in May to preserve our asylum process. We were successful 
in the only vote taken on the matter of summary exclusion and asylum in 
either House. I feel strongly that the Leahy-DeWine approach is a much 
more fair and balanced approach than that taken in the bill. We are now 
being forced to consider a bill that would have the effect of summarily 
excluding refugees from around the world who seek to come to America 
for freedom from oppression.
  Within the past 2 weeks the Washington Times, the New York Times and 
the Washington Post have each published strong editorials condemning 
the asylum provisions of the Republican conference report. The 
Washington Times concluded: ``As lawmakers weigh these issues, they 
ought to keep in mind the following question: How would I feel about 
these rules if it were I who was applying for asylum?"
  In the interest of bipartisan compromise I was prepared to offer a 
motion and an amendment to preserve the essence of our asylum system 
while adding additional requirements for expedited consideration of 
claims for asylum. It is that motion and amendment that Chairman Smith 
of the House and Chairman Hatch of the Senate ruled out of order at the 
meeting of House and Senate conferees on September 17.
  The Leahy amendment would allow summary exclusion procedures if they 
are needed in an extraordinary migration situation, as designated by 
the Attorney General, rather than require their use at all times. This 
is what the administration requested, in contrast to the universal use 
of summary exclusion that the extremist measures in the bill will 
require. The Department of Justice has indicated that, except for a 
future migration emergency, they can handle asylum claims without 
resort to summary exclusion and the amendment, like the Senate 
immigration bill, would have provided such standby authority.
  The Leahy amendment would incorporate an international recognized 
standard for screening asylum claims rather than forcing refugees back 
into the hands of their oppressors. It would require asylum seekers to 
show that their claims were not manifestly unfounded in order to 
receive a full hearing and examination of their circumstances. That is 
the standard that the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees and 
the international community strongly favors and the standard consistent 
without treaty commitments.
  The Leahy amendment would preserve limited and narrow habeas corpus 
review to provide an opportunity to correct erroneous administrative 
action, which may in many cases by a matter of life or death. The bill 
seeks to choke off judicial review at every turn. We do not need less 
accountable government action and unfettered discretion being exercised 
by overburdened immigration agents to the detriment of refugees fleeing 
oppression. The New York Times wrote that this is one of the principal 
reasons it believes this ``a dangerous immigration bill.'' It observed 
that Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be alarmed by the 
prospect of unrestricted executive power without judicial review and 
accountability.
  The Leahy amendment would treat refugees more fairly during the 
initial interview and tried to eliminate artificial barriers to screen 
out what may be valid asylum claims. By acting summarily before the 
refugee has a sense that it is okay to speak of the persecution and 
fear from which he or she is

[[Page S11904]]

seeking refuge, the bill will screen out the unwary, the unschooled, 
and the uncertain who will be reluctant to talk about the persecution 
that compelled them to seek refuge and freedom in America.
  The Leahy amendment would only impose a limitations period on asylum 
claims that are raised for the first time defensively to ward off 
deportation rather than impose an arbitrary 1-year limit on all asylum 
claims. If the use of asylum claims defensively to ward off deportation 
is the problem, let us deal with that problem and not penalize refugees 
with valid asylum claims who were too traumatized or fearful to come 
forward until they had gotten settled in this new land.
  We need not gut our asylum law by allowing low-level bureaucrats to 
make life-and-death decisions through summary exclusion at the border. 
Our country has a proud tradition of protecting victims of persecution 
and serving as a beacon of hope and freedom. We need not and should not 
forsake it. This compromise Leahy amendment would give real refugees a 
fair opportunity to present their circumstances and seek asylum.
  We do not have to turn our backs on America's traditional role as a 
refuge from oppression and resort to summary exclusion processes that 
the Washington Times, the Washington Post and the New York Times agreed 
are unwise and unnecessary.
  I was pleased last week to appear with Bishop Murry from the National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops and Martin Kraar of the Council of 
Jewish Federations. They along with the American Bar Association and 
many others appreciate what this rewrite of our asylum laws by the bill 
would mean.
  I want to recognize all those who have come forward to work with us 
to try to preserve the asylum process. Support has come from a wide 
variety of sources: The Committee to Preserve Asylum, UNITE, the 
American Jewish Committee, the National Asian Pacific American Legal 
Consortium, the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, the U.S. Catholic 
Conference, the American Bar Association, the American Friends Service 
Committee, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Asian Law 
Caucus, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and 
Refugee Service, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the 
United Church Board for World Ministries, the ACLU, the National Asian 
Pacific American Legal Consortium, Amnesty International USA and the 
Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. I look forward to 
continuing our efforts and ultimately prevailing on these fundamental 
issues.
  The bill fails to take into account the unfortunate but all too real 
circumstances that exist in repressive regimes around the world. 
Refugees flee by all sorts of means, including using false documents 
and escaping through third countries en route to the United States. The 
bill would punish asylum seekers who are afraid to apply to their 
government for proper travel documents and identification papers.
  Raoul Wallenberg received international recognition for rescuing tens 
of thousands from Nazi persecution by issuing Swedish identity papers 
and arranging transport to Sweden. Oskar Schindler saved many lives by 
securing false documents and identities. As many as 10,000 Jews fled 
the Holocaust through Asia with the noble assistance of Chiune 
Sugihara, a Japanese diplomat who disobeyed his government and issued 
them visas. Do we really mean to disadvantage the claims of those who, 
like the beneficiaries of the courageous work of Oskar Schindler, Raoul 
Wallenberg and Chiune Sugihara during World War II, needed false travel 
documents? I hope not.
  I am confident that consideration of asylum claims can take false 
documents into account without making them a barrier to full review. 
The asylum provisions in the bill would place undue burdens on 
unsophisticated refugees who are truly in need of sanctuary but may not 
be able to explain their situation to an overworked asylum officer. Had 
similar provisions been in place during World War II, those saved by 
Raoul Wallenberg, Oskar Schindler and Chiune Sugihara could have been 
summarily excluded because they used false documents to escape the 
Holocaust.
  Refugees seeking asylum in the United States come to us for 
protection. Let us not turn them back. Let us not abandon America's 
vital place in the world as a leader for human rights.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my statement there be printed 
in the Record letters from the UNHRC Lawyers Committee for Human Rights 
and law professors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Branch 
           Office for the United States of America,
                               Washington, DC, September 20, 1996.
     Re Asylum and summary exclusion provisions of the immigration 
         bill (proposed conference report H2202).

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman Hatch: I am writing to you regarding the 
     draft Conference Report referenced above. In our previous 
     letter to you, we expressed our concerns regarding the 
     summary exclusion provisions of the prior House bill. 
     Although the Senate version included Senator Leahy's 
     amendment revising the Senate summary exclusion provision to 
     comport with international standards for adjudicating refugee 
     claims, we note that the proposed Conference Report does not 
     include these changes. Our Office continues to urge the 
     adoption of the Senate version of summary exclusion and 
     remains concerned that the proposed ``expedited removal'' 
     provisions in the proposed Conference Report and several 
     other provisions, if enacted, would almost certainly result 
     in the US returning refugees to countries where their lives 
     or freedom would be threatened.
       The following provisions of the proposed Conference Report, 
     outlined in greater detail below, are of particular concern 
     to our Office:
       1. Expedited Removal (Section 302); (a) Examination at Port 
     of Entry; (b) ``Credible Fear'' Standard; (c) Detention; (d) 
     Administrative Review; and (e) Access to Counsel.
       2. Numerical Limitation on Asylum Grants (Section 601).
       3. Exceptions to Ability to Apply for Asylum (Section 604): 
     (a) Asylum Filing Deadlines; and (b) Safe Third Country.
       4. Bars to Asylum and Withholding of Deportation for 
     Persons Convicted of Aggravated Felonies (Section 241(b) and 
     604).
       5. Asylum Filing and Employment Authorization Fees (Section 
     604).
       6. No Automatic Stay of Deportation pending Judicial Review 
     (Section 306).
       1. Expedited Removal (Section 302)--This section allows the 
     expedited removal, without further hearing or review, of 
     certain ``applicants for admission.'' An ``applicant for 
     admission'' is defined as anyone in the US who entered 
     illegally or a person seeking entry. Section 302(b) would 
     permit an immigration officer to issue a final order of 
     removal for such applicants, if s/he determines that such 
     applicants have false documents or no documents, if; (1) They 
     cannot prove they have been in the US for the prior two-year 
     period of (2) they are arriving in the US and fail to 
     indicate an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of 
     persecution.
       At a port of entry, those who indicate that they are 
     asylum-seekers but who are unable to establish a ``credible 
     fear'' of persecution to an asylum officer shall be similarly 
     removed. ``Credible fear'' of persecution is defined to mean 
     that ``there is a significant possibility, taking into 
     account the credibility of the statements made by the alien 
     in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are 
     known to the officer, that the alien could establish 
     eligibility for asylum.'' Review of the credible fear 
     determination will be conducted by an immigration judge and 
     is to be concluded if possible within 24 hours and no later 
     than 7 days after the removal order. Prior to the credible 
     fear interview, asylum-seekers may consult a person or 
     persons of their choice, but any consultation must be at no 
     expense to the Government and must not ``unreasonably delay 
     the proceedings.''
       UNHCR is concerned that this process fails to incorporate 
     international standards for refugee status determination. We 
     stress that the summary nature of the proceedings in the 
     proposed Conference Report is reflected in the lack of 
     appellate rights, and that, therefore, it is all the more 
     important that the initial examination and interview process 
     not be ``summary.'' We note our concerns below:
       a. Examination at Port of Entry--``Screening'' of arrivals 
     in the US must be conducted with procedural safeguards in 
     place to ensure that refugees are not excluded. Section 302 
     fails to provide these safeguards. Special risks for refugees 
     are inherent in the expedited process as proposed by this 
     section, in which there is no review of an order to exclude. 
     All persons seeking entry must be given guidance as to the 
     procedure, orally and in writing, in a language they can 
     understand, before an initial examination so that they are 
     aware of the consequences of failing to come forward with 
     their asylum claim at that time. Although this section 
     provides

[[Page S11905]]

     that information shall be given concerning an asylum 
     interview, it fails to provide for guidance at this critical 
     point. Given the dual role of the immigration officers 
     conducting the initial examinations (border enforcement and 
     selection of those who merit a credible fear determination), 
     they should have a list of questions designed to identify 
     asylum-seekers, as well as training in interviewing skills. 
     There must be meaningful review of all ``expedited removal'' 
     orders, given the consequences of a mistaken decision.
       b. ``Credible Fear'' Standard--UNHCR urges you and members 
     of the Committee to reject any provision that requires 
     asylum-seekers, before they are allowed the opportunity to 
     present their claims for asylum to an immigration judge, to 
     establish a ``credible fear'' of persecution, as defined 
     above. Such a requirement creates a new, heightened standard 
     which increases the likelihood that a refugee will be 
     returned to a country where his/her life or freedom would be 
     threatened, especially given the fact that review is 
     expedited, applicants are detained during this process, and 
     there is limited access to legal representation. UNHCR 
     recommends that asylum-seekers who establish that their 
     claims are not ``manifestly unfounded'' be accorded the 
     opportunity to present their asylum claims in a hearing 
     before an immigration judge. This provision comports with the 
     international standard for expeditious refugee status 
     determinations as set forth in UNHCR Executive Committee 
     Conclusion No. 30 (1983).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     *Footnotes to appear at end of letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Moreover, certain types of claimants, e.g., torture or 
     trauma victims and those with gender-related claims, will 
     have difficulty stating their claims, much less establishing 
     ``credible fear.'' Some at-risk groups, such as unaccompanied 
     minors, should not be subjected to summary procedures at all. 
     Others, with novel or complex claims, such as persons fleeing 
     situations of international or internal armed conflict, or 
     torture survivors who should be protected by the Convention 
     against Torture, should be provided with a full exclusion 
     hearing. These claimants are at great risk of being returned 
     to persecution if they must meet the heightened standard 
     created by the expedited removal provisions.
       c. Detention--This provision also mandates that an 
     applicant who has been determined to have a credible fear of 
     persecution remain in detention for further consideration of 
     the application for asylum. In the view of the hardship that 
     it involves, as noted in UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 
     No. 44, detention should normally be avoided, particularly 
     when the elements on which the asylum claim is based have 
     been determined. Asylum-seekers who have met this heightened 
     standard should be released pending further consideration of 
     their claims.
       d. Administrative Review--In the proposed Conference 
     Report, the provision for review of a negative ``credible 
     fear'' determination and expedited removal order requires 
     that the immigration judge conduct the review ``as 
     expeditiously as possible,'' and recommends it be concluded 
     within 24 hours. Moreover, this review may be conducted 
     telephonically or by video, inadequate methods when 
     credibility is at issue. Minimum procedural guidelines for 
     refugee status determinations, as set forth in UNHCR 
     Executive Committee Conclusion No. 8 (1977) specify that an 
     applicant should be given a reasonable time to appeal for a 
     formal reconsideration of the decision. These procedures do 
     not comport with the guidelines noted above.
       e. Access to Counsel--The Proposed Conference Report 
     permits an asylum-seeker to consult with a person of his or 
     her choosing, at no cost to the Government and as long as 
     such consultation does not ``unreasonably'' delay the 
     proceedings. These limitations to consultation in the context 
     of an expedited removal process should be consistent with 
     guidelines that asylum-seekers be given the necessary 
     facilities for submitting their claims to the authorities, 
     including meaningful access to counsel and to the services of 
     a competent interpreter and the opportunity to contact a 
     representative of UNHCR. These factors, set forth in UNHCR 
     Executive Committee Conclusion No. 8 (1977), should be taken 
     into consideration in assessing whether a delay is 
     ``unreasonable.''
       2. Numerical Limitation on Asylum Grants (Section 601)--
     This section, which expands the definition of refugee to 
     include persons who have been subjected to or who have a 
     well-founded fear of coercive population control methods, 
     limits to 1000 per year the number of individuals who may be 
     admitted to the US as refugees or granted asylum under this 
     expanded definition. By placing a numerical limitation on 
     this category of asylum-seekers, the Attorney General may 
     return an individual to a country where his or her life or 
     freedom would be threatened merely because the numerical 
     limit has been reached. Such an action would place the US in 
     violation of its obligations under the 1967 Protocol.
       3. Exceptions to Ability to Apply for Asylum (Section 
     604)--This section creates certain bars to the application 
     for asylum. Moreover, there is no judicial review of a 
     decision to bar an application under the following 
     provisions.
       a. Asylum Filing Deadlines--A time limit for filing an 
     application has been included, which, if not met, bars 
     individuals from seeking asylum. Individuals may not apply 
     unless they demonstrate by clear an convincing evidence that 
     the application has been filed within one year after the date 
     of the person's arrival in the US, unless they demonstrate to 
     the satisfaction of the Attorney General either (a) the 
     existence of changed country conditions which materially 
     affect the person's eligibility for asylum or (b) 
     extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing 
     within one year.
       UNHCR recommends that these deadlines be deleted. Failure 
     to submit an asylum request within a certain time limit 
     should not lead to an asylum request being excluded from 
     consideration, as outlined in UNHCR Executive Committee 
     Conclusion No. 15 (1979). The United States is obliged to 
     protect refugees from return to danger regardless of whether 
     a filing deadline has been met. There are a number of 
     legitimate reasons why asylum-seekers would not be aware of 
     or able to comply with a deadline for submitting 
     applications, such as lack of information about the asylum 
     process, preoccupation with meeting basic survival needs, 
     inability to communicate in English, and insufficient 
     resources for obtaining counsel.
       b. Safe Third Country--Individuals may not apply for asylum 
     or may have their asylee status terminated if the Attorney 
     General determines that they may be removed, pursuant to a 
     bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than 
     their country of nationality (or last habitual residence if 
     no nationality)) in which their lives or freedom would not be 
     threatened on account of one of the five grounds and where 
     they would have access to a full and fair procedure for 
     determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary 
     protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is 
     in the public interest for the person to receive asylum in 
     the U.S. UNHCR recommends that these provisions be deleted 
     or modified in light of international guidelines, the 
     wider context of global responsibilities for refugee 
     protection, and principles of international 
     responsibility-sharing. Moreover, these provisions appear 
     to authorize the denial of the right to apply for asylum 
     to certain nationalities or groups. These provisions also 
     authorize the sending of an asylum-seeker or asylee to a 
     country in which she might suffer forms of persecution not 
     rising to the level of a threat to life or freedom. While 
     no universally accepted definition of ``persecution'' has 
     been adopted by the international community, it is widely 
     accepted that other serious violations of human rights, in 
     addition to threats to life or freedom, constitute 
     persecution when linked to race, religion, nationality, 
     membership of a particular social group or political 
     opinion. Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for 
     Determining Refugee Status (Geneva 1988) (hereinafter 
     Handbook) at para. 51.
       4. Asylum and Withholding of Deportation for Persons 
     Convicted of Aggravated Felonies (Sections 241(b), 604)--
     Section 241(b) bars the removal of refugees to countries 
     where their lives or freedom would be threatened and codifies 
     the exceptions to this bar, most of which are exceptions 
     currently found in INS regulations. This section codifies the 
     provision that refugees who have been convicted of an 
     ``aggravated felony (or felonies)'' for which the sentence to 
     imprisonment is at least five years shall be considered to 
     have committed a particularly serious crime and will not be 
     protected from removal.
       Section 604 broadens the definition of ``aggravated 
     felony'' to include a much greater number of crimes than 
     previously were in this category. It would include, for 
     example, certain crimes for which a term of imprisonment 
     imposed is one year (previously this was five years). It also 
     codifies current regulations that bar a grant of asylum to 
     individuals who have been convicted of a particularly serious 
     crime and provide that a conviction of an aggravated felony 
     shall be considered to be a conviction of a particularly 
     serious crime. This section also allows the Attorney General 
     to designate by regulation offenses that will be considered 
     to be particularly serious crimes or serious non-political 
     crimes, permitting further expansion of the categories of 
     crimes that would bar a grant of asylum.
       These sections, therefore, bar individuals from the 
     protection of non-refoulement\2\ if they have been convicted 
     of an ``aggravated felony'' for which the sentence imposed is 
     at least five years, and bar individuals with a well-founded 
     fear of persecution from the protection of asylum regardless 
     of the sentence imposed. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention 
     relating to the Status of Refugees, binding on the US through 
     its incorporation into the 1967 Protocol, requires that 
     before returning a person fearing a threat to life or freedom 
     in his or her country of origin, the country concerned must 
     make a case-by-case determination whether the person has been 
     convicted of a particularly serious crime and constitutes a 
     danger to the community.
       Under current law, the recently enacted Antiterrorism and 
     Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the Attorney General, in 
     her discretion, may grant withholding of deportation to 
     ensure compliance with the 1967 Protocol. It appears that 
     this provision may no longer be in effect if the proposed 
     Conference Report becomes law. It is our opinion that the 
     waiver in AEDPA should still be available and that it permits 
     the Attorney General to conduct case-by-case determinations 
     in the cases of individuals who have been convicted of an 
     ``aggravated felony'' to determine whether the crime is a 
     particularly serious crime and whether the individual is The 
     ``particularly serious crime'' exclusion ground should only 
     be invoked in

[[Page S11906]]

     ``extreme cases'' and only after a balancing test has been 
     applied, weighing the degree of persecution feared against 
     the seriousness of the offense committed. These principles 
     are set forth in our Handbook at paras. 154 and 156. The need 
     for a balancing test is even more urgent in light of the 
     proposed provisions expanding the definition of ``aggravated 
     felony'' to include many crimes for which the sentence 
     imposed is one year, and giving the Attorney General the 
     power to designate other offenses as ``aggravated felonies.''
       5. Asylum Filing and Employment Authorization Fees (Section 
     604)--This section permits the Attorney General to impose a 
     fee for applications for asylum and employment authorization. 
     UNHCR is concerned that any fee imposed for filing an asylum 
     application may have the unintended effect of discouraging 
     refugees from realizing their fundamental right to seek and 
     enjoy asylum. UNHCR's Executive Committee in Conclusion No. 5 
     (1977) ``appealed to Governments to follow, or to continue to 
     follow, liberal practices in granting permanent or at least 
     temporary asylum to refugee. . .'' UNHCR is particularly 
     concerned about the precedent that the imposition of a fee 
     will set for the international community.
       Likewise, UNHCR is concerned about the imposition of a fee 
     for employment authorization, UNHCR Executive Committee 
     Conclusion No. 22 (1981) states that asylum-seekers ``should 
     receive all necessary assistance and be provided with the 
     basic necessities of life, including food, shelter, and basic 
     sanitary and health facilities.'' Under current law, asylum-
     seekers are not eligible for employment authorization unless 
     their claim has been pending for over 180 days. UNHCR urges 
     that a fee not be imposed, especially in light of the fact 
     that asylum-seekers are not eligible for benefits which 
     satisfy the basic necessities of life.
       6. Stay of Deportation Pending Judicial Review (Section 
     306)--This section eliminates the automatic stay of 
     deportation to individuals, including asylum seekers, who 
     have been issued an order of removal by an immigration judge 
     and appeal this decision to a federal appeals court. UNHCR 
     urges the US to preserve the automatic stay of deportation 
     for asylum-seekers in order to ensure compliance with minimum 
     procedural safeguards. UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion 
     No. 8(1977) provides that asylum applicants ``should . . . be 
     permitted to remain in the country while an appeal. . .to the 
     courts is pending.
       Your consideration of UNHCR's views is greatly appreciated. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may provide 
     additional information or assistance to you, your Committee 
     members or other members of Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                            Anne Willem Bijleveld,
                                                   Representative.


                               Footnotes

     \1\ The UNHCR Executive Committee is a group of 
     representatives from 50 countries, including the United 
     States, that provides policy and guidance to UNHCR in the 
     exercise of its refugee protection mandate.
     \2\ The principle of non-refoulement, incorporated into U.S. 
     law in the withholding of deportation statute, Section 243(h) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is set forth in 
     Article 33(1) of the Convention, as follows: ``No Contracting 
     State shall expel or return (`refouler') a refugee in any 
     manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his 
     life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, 
     religion, nationality, membership of a particular social 
     group or political opinion.'' Article 33(1) of the 
     Convention.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Lawyers Committee


                                             for Human Rights,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 1996.
       Dear Senator Leahy: We write to urge you to vote against 
     H.R. 2202, the pending immigration bill, which we understand 
     will soon come before you for a vote. The bill is 
     fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to restrict the rights 
     of refugees in the context of efforts designed to control 
     illegal immigration. H.R. 2202 contains extreme measures that 
     will severely impair the internationally-recognized right of 
     refugees to seek and enjoy asylum. If the bill is passed, it 
     will transform U.S. law from a system designed to protect 
     victims of persecution to a system designed to punish them.
       H.R. 2202 contains numerous provisions that would threaten 
     the lives of refugees. Some of these provisions were examined 
     and rejected by the Senate; others were never even 
     considered. In particular, H.R. 2202 would: 1) summarily 
     exclude, without meaningful access to counsel or review, 
     asylum-seekers who arrive in the United States without proper 
     travel documents; and 2) apply a strict deadline on the 
     filing of all asylum applications. In our extensive 
     experience representing asylum-seekers, we have seen first 
     hand the many barriers--language, fear for family members, 
     post-traumatic stress disorder--a refugee must overcome in 
     order to apply for and gain safe haven. Blanket summary 
     exclusion and strict time deadlines for filing asylum 
     applications are hurdles that many of the most deserving 
     refugees simply will not be able to cross. Enacting H.R. 2202 
     will, without question, result in victims of torture, rape 
     and other extreme forms of persecution being denied 
     protection. This violates not only our international treaty 
     obligations, but our commitment as a nation to protect the 
     rights of the persecuted. We urge you to do all you can to 
     prevent it.
           Sincerely,
     Elisa Massimino.
     Michael Posner.
                                                                    ____

                                               September 17, 1996.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I, like many Americans, am deeply 
     concerned about the proposed restrictions on political asylum 
     contained in the immigration bill now before Congress. Of 
     particular concern to me are two provisions: a filing 
     deadline on asylum applications and summary exclusion 
     procedures.
       As a member of the Board of Directors of the Lawyers 
     Committee for Human Rights, I have had the unique opportunity 
     to meet and speak with clients of the Committee's pro bono 
     Asylum Representation Program. Asylum seekers are people who 
     must flee from danger in their homelands to safer, more 
     politically stable countries. They are men, women and 
     children, doctors, journalists, students and others from all 
     walks of life who are persecuted in their homelands for 
     religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or race. Some flee 
     to Europe, South America, or Asia; others to the United 
     States. The right of a refugee to seek protection from 
     persecution was incorporated into U.S. law in the Refugee Act 
     of 1980 and is guaranteed under the U.N. Convention Relating 
     to the Status of Refugees. Last year, the U.S. granted asylum 
     to fewer than 8,000 individuals, representing less than one 
     percent of asylum seekers worldwide.
       In the following pages, you will hear the personal stories 
     of six asylum seekers and you will see how the proposed 
     restrictions would have irrevocably and tragically changed 
     the course of their lives. These asylees came to the Lawyers 
     Committee, where they were represented before the INS by 
     volunteer attorneys. The staff and volunteers of the 
     Committee know the obstacles asylum seekers face--the trauma 
     experienced by torture victims, the concern for the safety of 
     family members back home, the disorientation of a new culture 
     and a new language. The Committee also has analyzed hundreds 
     of asylum cases to study the potential effects of the 
     proposed restrictions. Both their findings and experience 
     clearly show that, if enacted, a strict filing deadline and 
     summary exclusion procedures will force genuine refugees back 
     to their homelands to face persecution, torture and perhaps 
     death.
       The United States has long been a symbol of freedom, 
     opportunity and hope for refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, war-
     torn Rwanda, and other ravaged states. Let us defend this 
     legacy and preserve a refugee's right to seek protection and 
     safety. The proposed restrictions would not only violate our 
     international treaty obligations but would betray our 
     nation's commitment to respect basic human rights.
           Sincerely,
     Sigourney Weaver.
                                                                    ____

                                                    July 29, 1996.
       Dear Conferee: We, the undersigned professors of law, are 
     writing to express our concerns about provisions in the 
     pending immigration legislation that would eliminate or 
     severely curtail judicial review. Efficiency in the 
     enforcement of our nation's laws is important, but this goal 
     is not well served by enacting legislation that has 
     potentially serious constitutional problems.
       Proposals are now pending in Congress that would radically 
     reduce and, in some cases, eliminate the most fundamental 
     safeguard of judicial review in individual cases and judicial 
     oversight over the deportation process as a whole. These 
     proposals, like the recently enacted antiterrorism law, are 
     exceptional in their scope and threaten basic principles upon 
     which our legal system is founded.
       The House-passed immigration bill, like the antiterrorism 
     law which, unless repealed in the pending immigration 
     legislation, bars judicial review of deportation orders based 
     on certain nonterrorism grounds, establishes a summary 
     exclusion provision where an immigration officer would have 
     final unreviewable authority to exclude and deport 
     international travelers and asylum seekers, and strips the 
     federal courts of jurisdiction to review any individual claim 
     or class action challenges arising from these procedures. 
     Additionally, the House-passed bill provides that ``no court 
     shall have jurisdiction'' to review certain waiver decisions 
     of the Attorney General, and limits injunctive relief with 
     regard to certain provisions ``regardless of the nature (of 
     the action or claim or of the identity of the parties 
     bringing the action.)'' The Senate-passed immigration bill 
     denies judicial review of Attorney General denials of 
     discretionary relief and orders of deportation based on 
     criminal convictions.
       These proposals grant agency authority to take 
     constitutionally questionable action and raise issues of 
     constitutional dimensions wholly apart from the immigration 
     context and the rights of immigrants. The most basic 
     safeguards of due process are threatened, along with the 
     elimination of a meaningful role for the judiciary to perform 
     its historic function of reviewing the implementation and 
     execution of law. The proposals also implicate the separation 
     of powers structure of our government by undermining the 
     judicial roles to protect due process and safeguard 
     individual rights and to review the actions of

[[Page S11907]]

     the Executive Branch. Congress cannot exercise its power in a 
     way that deprives any person of life, liberty or property 
     without due process of law.
       Moreover, we believe that these legislative proposals are 
     not premised on any study or empirical data demonstrating a 
     need to eliminate a process that affords full and fair 
     hearings with administrative and judicial review. The federal 
     judiciary plays an essential role in this scheme, 
     interpreting the laws and ensuring that the executive branch 
     complies with them. The process of judicial review helps 
     insure that administrative officers implement the laws in a 
     manner consistent with the intent of Congress.
       We believe the proposals in the legislation are of dubious 
     constitutionality and imprudent as a matter of public policy. 
     Congress should take this opportunity to correct the defects 
     in the antiterrorism law and preserve our constitutional 
     traditions
           Sincerely,
       (Institutional affiliations are shown for purposes of 
     identification only)
         Anna Williams Shavers, University of Nebraska College of 
           Law; Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and 
           Political Science, Yale Law School; Harry H. 
           Wellington, Dean, New York Law School; Susan Sturm, 
           University of Pennsylvania Law School; Stephen H. 
           Legomsky, Washington University Law School; Howard 
           Lesnick, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Charles 
           H. Koch, Jr., College of William and Mary Law School; 
           Richard A. Boswell, University of California, Hastings 
           College of the Law; Philip G. Schrag, Georgetown 
           University Law Center; Jeffrey Lubbers, American 
           University, Washington College of Law; Gerald L. 
           Neuman, Columbia University School of Law; Michael R. 
           Asimow, University of California at Los Angeles School 
           of Law; Peter L. Strauss, Columbia University School of 
           Law; Hiroshi Motomura, University of Colorado School of 
           Law; Andrew Silverman, University of Arizona College of 
           Law; William J. Lockhart, University of Utah School of 
           Law; Talbot D'Alemberte, President, Florida State 
           University; Michael G. Heyman, John Marshall Law 
           School; Jean Koh Peters, Yale Law School;
         Deborah Anker, Harvard University Law School; John Allen 
           Scanlan, Jr., Indiana University School of Law--
           Bloomington; Kevin R. Johnson, University of 
           California-Davis School of Law; Neil Gotanda, Western 
           State University College of Law; Pamela Goldberg, City 
           University of New York School of Law at Queens College; 
           Karen Musalo, Santa Clara University Center for Applied 
           Ethics; Jeffrey D. Dillman, University of Michigan Law 
           School; George A. Martinez, Southern Methodist 
           University School of Law; F.J. Capriotti III, Lewis and 
           Clark Northwestern School of Law; Mary Dudziak, 
           University of Iowa College of Law; Yvette M. Barksdale, 
           John Marshall Law School; Burns H. Weston, University 
           of Iowa College of Law; Bessie Dutton Murray, 
           University of Iowa College of Law; Daniel Kanstroom, 
           Boston College Law School; Kenneth J. Kress, University 
           of Iowa College of Law; Marcella David, University of 
           Iowa College of Law; Kevin Ruser, University of 
           Nebraska College of Law; Susan Musarrat Akram, Boston 
           University School of Law; Lori Nessel, Seton Hall 
           University School of Law; William C. Banks, Syracuse 
           University College of Law; Gabriel J. Chin, Western New 
           England College School of Law; Linda S. Bosniak, 
           Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of 
           Law; Berta Esperanza Hernandez, St. John's University 
           School of Law;
         Margaret H. Taylor, Wake Forest University School of Law; 
           Joyce A. Hughes, Northwestern University School of Law; 
           Carolyn Patty Blum, University of California at 
           Berkeley, Boalt Hall Law School; Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, 
           Cornell Law School; Ted Ruthizer, Columbia University 
           School of Law; Craig B. Mousin, De Paul University 
           College of Law; Enid Francis Trucios-Haynes, University 
           of Louisville School of Law; Frank H. Wu, Howard 
           University School of Law; Daniel J. Steinbock, 
           University of Toledo College of Law; Guadalupe Theresa 
           Luna, Northern Illinois University College of Law; 
           Katherine L. Vaughns, University of Maryland School of 
           Law; Devon Carbado, University of Iowa College of Law; 
           Marc R. Poirier, Seton Hall University School of Law; 
           Lenni B. Benson, New York Law School; Isabelle R. 
           Gunning, Southwestern University School of Law; Alicia 
           Alvarez, De Paul University College of Law; Walter J. 
           Kendall III, John Marshall Law School; Enrique R. 
           Carrasco, University of Iowa College of Law; Howard F. 
           Chang, University of Southern California Law Center; 
           Julie A. Nice, University of Denver College of Law; 
           Kathleen Sullivan, University of California, Hastings 
           College of the Law; Cecelia M. Espenoza, University of 
           Denver College of Law; Ann L. Iijima, William Mitchell 
           College of Law; Maryellen Fullerton, Brooklyn Law 
           School;
         Jonathan Weinberg, Wayne State University Law School; 
           Angela P. Harris, University of California at Berkeley, 
           Boalt Hall School of Law; William G. Buss, University 
           of Iowa College of Law; Kent H. Greenfield, Boston 
           College Law School; Gilbert Paul Carrasco, Villanova 
           University School of Law; Douglas Stump, Oklahoma City 
           University School of Law; Eric L. Muller, University of 
           Wyoming College of Law; Karen Engle, University of Utah 
           College of Law; Daniel M. Kowalski, University of 
           Colorado School of Law; Bruce Winick, University of 
           Miami School of Law; Ileana Porras, University of Utah 
           School of Law; Ted Finman, University of Wisconsin Law 
           School; John Martinez, University of Utah School of 
           Law; Alex Tallchief Skibine, University of Utah School 
           of Law; Daniel J.H. Greenwood, University of Utah 
           School of Law; Susan Poulter, University of Utah School 
           of Law; Seth F. Kreimer, University of Pennsylvania Law 
           School; Beverly Moran, University of Wisconsin Law 
           School; Jane Schacter, University of Wisconsin Law 
           School; R. Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin Law 
           School; Martha E. Gaines, University of Wisconsin Law 
           School; Mary Twitchell, University of Florida; Stephen 
           E. Meili, University of Wisconsin Law School; Joseph R. 
           Thome, University of Wisconsin Law School.


                 TELECOMMUNICATIONS REFORM--FCC FUNDING

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I take the 
time of the Senate today to discuss an issue involving the 
telecommunication industry. The Federal Communications Commission--the 
funding of which we are now discussing--has gone far beyond 
congressional intent in an important area that was dealt with in the 
telecommunications law.
  The goal of telecommunications reform legislation, in my view, was to 
promote competition within and among the various telecommunications-
related industries, for example, local and long distance telephone 
providers, cable television, wireless and satellite companies. It is 
not possible to achieve that reform if federal and state governments 
restrict competition by creating excessive regulation.
  While I agree that the State and Federal governments should retain 
some authority to protect consumers and the public interest, it is 
imperative that we remove as much other governmental regulation of the 
telecommunication industry as possible. Too much regulation will only 
hinder industry growth, and deny consumers and businesses the new 
services and products that telecommunication reform will provide. I 
believe less government regulation was the intent of Congress. In his 
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Attorney 
General William P. Barr said ``the real danger to competition is that 
excessive, onerous regulation will prevent incumbent local exchange 
carriers from competing on a level playing field with new entrants. The 
Federal Communications Commission's recent rules purporting to 
implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996 highlight this danger.''
  Mr. President, I have been informed of several problems with the 
FCC's new rulings. I wish to highlight a few. For example, to encourage 
new entrants into the local phone markets while the companies build 
their own networks, I believe that Congress wanted incumbent telephone 
companies to resell its services at wholesale rates to any new 
companies wishing to buy the services. Even though I had concerns at 
the time, I believed that Congress' intent was to encourage more 
competition within the local markets without penalizing those companies 
who have already spent large amounts of capital building a network. 
Instead, the FCC, an entity whose members are not elected by the 
public, has taken the liberty of dictating what happens in the local 
telephone markets. The FCC's new rules will allow resellers to bypass 
the wholesale rate defined by Congress and pay significantly lower 
prices for network parts that are already in place.
  If the FCC's new regulations are implemented, new entrants will be 
able to resell existing network components as a consumer service in the 
local market. The problem with that is that the new competitors will 
have little or no incentive to build their own networks. Existing 
companies will have no incentive to invest in network enhancements if 
their research and development can be used--without proper 
compensation--by any new entrant. As Mr. Barr said during the hearing 
on mergers and competition in the telecommunications industry, ``under 
the

[[Page S11908]]

FCC's system, it makes no sense for any competitor to develop its own 
network. Instead of real competition that spurs investment, creates 
jobs, and improves services, the end result of the FCC's rules will be 
a scheme of contrived `Potemkin competition' in which so-called 
competitors merely rebrand services purchased below-cost from a 
severely handicapped incumbent LEC and create the false appearance of 
competition.''
  Another example of the FCC's overreach is the manner in which it has 
determined prices for certain telecommunication services. Congress 
recognized that a one-size-fits-all price system is not conducive to 
all States. The environment in North Dakota is drastically different 
from New York. Therefore, Congress assigned State public utility 
commissions the task of determining reasonable rates for 
interconnection and unbundled elements. The law requires that the rates 
be cost-based and nondiscriminatory. It also allowed for the rates to 
include a reasonable profit. Instead, the FCC has mandated a cost 
system for States to follow when setting unbundled network element 
prices. The Commission also set default prices for certain network 
elements. I have been informed that, in many instances, these prices 
are far below cost and could place existing telephone companies at a 
disadvantage. Additionally, the rules will place less value on networks 
that have been built while eliminating any incentive for existing 
companies to expand existing networks.
  Clearly, as the 668 pages and 3,276 footnotes of the FCC's First 
Report and Order demonstrates, the Commission has gone far beyond the 
intent of Congress. I would ask that the chairman and ranking member of 
the Appropriations Committee to make note of the FCC's failure to abide 
by Congress' plan for telecommunications reform. I thank them for the 
opportunity to express my concerns.


                         defense appropriations

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will support the Defense 
appropriations bill included in the omnibus appropriations bill that is 
before us today. I am pleased that our colleagues negotiating these 
issues with the administration, stood their ground on providing 
additional funding for defense.
  While this bill and other appropriations bills provide approximately 
$10.8 billion above the President's budget request for defense, this is 
actually $8 billion less for defense, in real terms, than last year's 
level of funding. Does any Senator believe that we will use our 
military forces less in fiscal year 1997 than we did this year? I think 
not.
  As most of my colleagues know, the administration began negotiations 
on the final spending levels, insisting on a substantial transfer of 
funds of $4 to $5 billion, from defense to nondefense discretionary 
accounts.
  It is clear that this administration relies a great deal on our 
military services. It appears more likely every day that our 
commitments in Bosnia will not end in December as we were told. We 
already know that the cost of our commitment there has greatly exceeded 
the administration's original estimate of $2 billion and now exceeds 
$3.3 billion. We do not know what additional commitments might be laid 
on our military forces in the Persian Gulf--or as a result of the 
latest crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. We also do not know 
when or where our forces might be committed next, but I am confident 
that the uptempo for our servicemen and women will not decrease.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the majority leader and other 
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who negotiated 
these agreements. Like all negotiated outcomes and compromises, no one 
gets everything they want. I do believe however that the additional 
funds provided by the Congress for defense, included in this bill, are 
necessary.
  Mr. President, this bill will allow us to provide our servicemen and 
women with more modern equipment, alleviating the administration's 
negative funding trend for modernization; to improve quality of life 
for our servicemen and women, who frequently find themselves deployed 
away from their families for extended periods; and to increase funding 
for the readiness of our forces that has become increasingly strained 
to cover the higher uptempo and increasing costs of ongoing operations. 
This bill recognizes that we must maintain a strong force capable of 
deploying anywhere in the world at any time.
  Mr. President, this bill will provide funding for much needed pay 
raises for our uniformed personnel. It provides funding for anti-
terrorism measures to facilitate the protection of our service 
personnel. It funds shortfalls in the defense health care program as 
well as many other important programs.
  I am pleased that President Clinton is no longer trying to reduce 
defense spending and recognizes the need for additional defense funding 
over his initial request. I commend my colleagues who negotiated this 
Defense appropriations bill. I support this bill and urge my colleagues 
to vote for this important piece of legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.


                           NTIA-TIIAP PROGRAM

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the omnibus 
appropriations bill includes $21.5 million to fund the 
Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program 
[TIIAP] under the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration [NTIA]. TIIAP is an important part of the ongoing effort 
to ensure that every American has access to advanced telecommunications 
services.
  Unfortunately, many communities do not have access to advanced 
telecommunications services. This lack of access is pronounced in rural 
and innercity areas. House appropriators made the wise decision to fund 
TIIAP at $21.5 million. However, for the second year in a row, the 
Senate chose to cut TIIAP funding. The chairman's mark included zero 
funding for this important program. It was only after my insistence, 
and the cooperation of Senator Stevens at full committee, that $4 
million was included for TIIAP. At that time, I made it clear to the 
full Appropriations Committee that I would offer an amendment on the 
Senate floor, as I did for fiscal year 1996, to fully fund TIIAP. After 
negotiating with Senate appropriators and sending a letter of support 
for TIIAP, along with 13 other Senators to Senator Lott , TIIAP funding 
was restored to $21.5 million in the omnibus appropriations package.
  Access to the information superhighway is crucial for economic 
development and delivery of education, health care, and social 
services. We can ensure that every citizen has this access, whether 
they live in rural areas like many residents of my home State of 
Nebraska or metropolitan centers like New York or Washington DC, by 
supporting programs like TIIAP. Competing in the world job market no 
longer simply means working harder than our competitors abroad. Our 
students and workers must have access to and a strong working knowledge 
of the advanced telecommunications services that increasingly drive the 
world economy. Similarly, if we want to continue to provide the best 
health care in the world, Americans must have access to telemedicine 
facilities that allow them to work with health care specialists across 
the country. The importance of TIIAP to developing a strong information 
infrastructure should not be underestimated. I believe the Senate took 
a great step forward today in the battle to ensure that every American 
has access to advanced telecommunications services.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, while I support H.R. 4278, the omnibus 
appropriations bill, I am strongly opposed to the inclusion in this 
bill of the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report. I am opposed to the Defense appropriations 
conference agreement because it provides some $9.5 billion more to the 
Pentagon than it asked for or needs. At a time when we are trying to 
balance the Government's budget and when the cold war is over, we 
simply cannot justify this excessive spending to the American taxpayer.
  As a former Navy pilot, I know all too well the need for a strong 
national defense and and the need to make sure our service personnel 
are properly trained, equipped, and compensated. But like the fiscal 
year 1996 DOD appropriations bill which provided the Pentagon $7 
billion more than it asked for or needed, the fiscal year 1997 
conference agreement contains excessive

[[Page S11909]]

and wasteful spending. It asks American taxpayers to spend five times 
more on the military that the military budgets of all our likely 
adversaries combined. The $9.5 billion add on alone is three times the 
defense budgets of North Korea, Iraq, Iran, or Syria.
  To look at it in terms of my State of Iowa, this add on of $9.5 
billion is more than twice the budget for the entire State of Iowa. 
Iowans could fund their K-12 education system, some 500,000 pupuls in 
about 380 school districts, for over 3 years.
  It's time for some fairness. It's time for some common sense. And 
fairness tells us that the Pentagon shouldn't be exempt from our 
efforts to balance the budget. Commonsense dictates that we can't 
afford $9.5 billion in add ons over what the Pentagon and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff say we need to maintain a strong national defense. I 
opposed the fiscla year 1997 DOD appropriations bill when it was 
considered by the Senate and I did not sign the conference agreement. I 
feel strongly that it should not be approved as a part of this omnibus 
bill.
  I will vote for this bill despite my strong opposition to the 
inclusion of the DOD measure because it contains significant 
improvements in support for education and other critical needs of our 
Nation. This House and Senate had proposed significant cuts to 
education and training. And when I tried to offer an amendment on the 
floor to restore these cuts, the majority objected. So I was very 
pleased to work again in conference on a bipartisan basis with Senator 
Specter and others to provide the support necessary to make college 
more affordable for middle class Americans through increases in Pell 
Grants, Perkins loans, direct lending and college work study. We were 
also able to increase the number of children who will be able to 
participate in Head Start and get special assistance with reading and 
math skills through chapter 1. And we were able to restore unwise cuts 
to the President's requests for critical job training initiatives.
  We must have a well-educated and well-trained work force if we are 
going to increase the incomes and quality of life for our working 
families. So these changes, while hard fought, are a real victory for 
working families and our future.
  I am also very pleased, Mr. President, that this bill contains strong 
measures to combat the growing problem of illegal immigration in my 
State of Iowa and around the Nation. This bill contains a provision I 
offered in the Senate that will guarantee Iowa and other States a 
minimum of 10 INS agents to enforce immigration laws. This will go a 
long way to cracking down on this growing problem.


                       electronic combat testing

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, for some time now I have been following the 
Department of Defense's plans relative to electronic combat testing. 
Last year, I engaged in a colloquy with the good Senator from Alaska, 
Senator Stevens, to clarify the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee's 
intention in their request that DOD provide Congress with an electronic 
combat master plan. At that time, I believe we made it perfectly clear 
that the master plan should provide optimum asset utilization.
  Given this background, I am sure you can understand my surprise and 
dismay earlier this year when a report came back to the Congress which 
did not contain so much as one dollar sign. Again, I say there was 
absolutely no reference to any cost analysis supporting the 
Department's recommendations in their master plan.
  Since DOD was apparently unwilling or unable to provide any 
justification for their recommendations, I asked the GAO to review 
DOD's electronic combat testing and their master plan.
  After learning of the preliminary results of a now nearly complete 
GAO investigation, I understand why DOD failed to include in their 
master plan any justification for their recommendations.
  Simply put, there does not appear to be any mission or cost 
justification to support DOD's recommendations. Indeed, preliminary 
reports from the GAO investigation indicate that the master plan would 
result in substantially increased costs, while providing diminished 
capabilities.
  Given this background, I am sure you can understand my concern over 
one of the recommendations in this master plan to move test and 
evaluation activities from Eglin, AFC, located in northwest Florida. 
This feeling is exacerbated by the fact that nearly 2 years before the 
issuance of this master plan, the Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission [BRAC] recognized previous DOD findings which ranked Eglin, 
AFB as highest military value of all the DOD electronic combat [EC] 
ranges. Accordingly, the BRAC provided that selected EC capabilities at 
Eglin, AFB be sustained ``to support Air Force Special Operations 
Command (AFSOC), the USAF Air Warfare Center, and Air Force Material 
Command Armaments/Weapons Test and Evaluation activities. . .''
  Unfortunately, it appears DOD's electronic combat master plan 
demonstrates that the Air Force, with the tacit endorsement of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, fully intends to dismiss the 
direction of the BRAC.
  To address concerns about DOD's actions on this matter, the Congress 
has provided funding in the fiscal year 1997 Defense appropriations 
bill to insure that Eglin, AFB range capabilities are adequate to 
comply with the BRAC intent to sustain selected EC capabilities to meet 
present and future requirements of AFSOC testing and training, AWC 
electronic combat testing, and AFMC testing and evaluation.
  I ask the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senator Stevens, his intentions with respect to the funding provided.
  Mr. STEVENS. As my good friend from Florida has already stated, we 
have been following this issue for some time now. I share his 
disappointment over the failure of DOD to provide a useful report by 
which the Congress can evaluate their recommendations.
  I look forward to reviewing the GAO's findings on this matter. I am 
confident that these issues will be discussed during future Defense 
subcommittee hearings with DOD officials.
  In the interim, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has provided 
funding to insure the Eglin range can maintain and improve its EC 
capability, including instrumentation, consistent with the BRAC 
recommendations.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alaska for his 
interest in this matter.
  I would like to elaborate further on what I have been informed is the 
minimum capability required to meet the needs of the users identified 
by the BRAC. It is my understanding that this should include fully 
instrumented, fully capable threat systems/simulators for the SADS-IIR, 
SADS-III, SADS-IVR, SADS-V, SADS-VIR, SADS-VIIIR, SADS-XI, SADS-XII, 
WEST-XR, WEST-XI, and flycatcher threats. Additional technique 
generators, target signature generators, environment generators, on-
site data processing, and site support facilities are required at Eglin 
range sites in order to optimize the development of mission data 
required to support current and future worldwide operations of U.S. 
forces.
  Moreover, I am told that much of the instrumentation and support 
facilities identified herein exist today and are designed to provide 
the flexibility needed for characterizing future threat systems as they 
are identified and become available. I have been informed that upgrades 
to these capabilities are the most cost-efficient approach to 
addressing future requirements and consistent with the BRAC decision.
  The funding provided by the Congress allows for the maintenance and 
improvement of those systems most critical for electronic combat 
training. I appreciate the support of the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee in providing this funding and look forward 
to continuing to work with him on this matter in the coming year.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the continuing resolution is a massive 
piece of legislation. I want to comment on some of the provisions in 
this bill that may not be big-ticket items but are of particular 
significance in addressing the crime problems facing our Nation and 
ensuring that our citizens are able to obtain FBI records to which they 
are entitled under our public access laws.

[[Page S11910]]

            fbi processing of foia and privacy act requests

  The legislation appropriates $3,327,000 to the FBI to address 
backlogs in the processing of requests for agency records under the 
Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] and Privacy Act. By letter, dated 
July 8, 1996, to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, Senator Specter and I urged 
this amount be appropriated. While the FOIA requires that agencies 
respond to requests for agency records within 10 business days, most 
agencies do not meet this legal requirement, resulting in huge backlogs 
of FOIA requests. The FBI's backlog is among the largest. On May 31, 
1996, the FBI had a backlog of 15,259 requests, with some requests 
dating back to 1992. Long delays in access--particularly delays of 
almost 4 years--really means no access at all for many requesters.
  A cornerstone of our democracy is the people's right to know about 
the actions of their Government. The FOIA represents Congress' 
implementation of this basic principle. The FOIA sets out the 
procedures by which people may request information from the Federal 
Government. Federal agencies must provide the information in a timely 
manner, unless it falls within enumerated exemptions from the FOIA.
  The funds earmarked for FOIA and Privacy Act request processing 
represents an important effort to address this huge backlog. In 
addition, the electronic FOIA amendments, which I sponsored with 
Senators Brown and Kerry, provides a number of steps to make the 
process of requesting agency records easier and faster. These 
Electronic FOIA amendments unanimously passed the Congress on September 
18. Even as the size of the Federal Government shrinks, we must keep it 
responsive to the people.


          fbi computer investigations threat assessment center

  This legislation appropriates to the FBI $5,013,000 and 17 agents to 
establish a Computer Investigations Threat Assessment Center [CITAC] at 
FBI headquarters to identify, investigate, and counter illegal 
intrusion into Government computer networks. This is an important 
development.
  As our Federal agencies increasingly depend on computers to perform 
their mission, the risk of computer crime has become a more significant 
threat to our public safety and national security. For example, the 
Department of Defense relies on computers to deploy, feed, supply, and 
communicate with troops. Yet, the GAO recently reported that 250,000 
computer attacks were occurring each year at DOD. We know that in 1994, 
a computer hacker based in the United Kingdom was able to break into 
the Rome Laboratory at Griffess Air Force base in New York. Just last 
week, computer hackers forced the CIA to take down an agency Web site 
because obscenities and unauthorized text and photograph changes had 
been made to the site and unauthorized links had been established 
between the CIA Web site and other sites.

  Undoubtedly, the increased reliance by Government agencies on 
computer systems and networks presents special vulnerabilities to 
computer hackers and spies. I have long been concerned about this 
vulnerability. That is why I worked with the Department of Justice, and 
my colleagues, Senators Kyl and Grassley, on the National Information 
Infrastructure Protection Act, which passed the Senate unanimously, as 
S. 982, on September 18 and also passed the House of Representatives, 
as part of H.R. 3723, on September 18. This bill will increase 
protection for computers, both Government and private, and the 
information on those computers, from the growing threat of computer 
crime.
  This establishment of CITAC will bring vital focus and attention on 
how to prevent computer crime and, when it does occur, how to find the 
perpetrators. The work of the FBI at CITAC, though focused on 
Government computer networks, will also have important applications for 
the private sector.


                             CALEA FUNDING

  The conference agreement provides $60,000,000 to be deposited into a 
newly established telecommunications carrier compliance fund to fund 
the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA]. I was 
the author of CALEA, sometimes called the digital telephony law, in the 
Senate and applauded its passage as a necessary step to protect our 
public safety and national security. This law is also intended to bring 
much-needed sunshine and public scrutiny to the process of how wiretaps 
are conducted.
  CALEA authorized $500,000,000 to pay for any necessary retrofitting 
of existing systems to come into compliance with law enforcement 
capability and capacity requirements to maintain its ability to 
implement court-ordered wiretaps. I am glad that funds are finally 
being appropriated for this new law.
  I had serious concerns with the House proposed implementation plan, 
which was set out as a condition for funding in both the House passed 
CJS appropriations bill, and House terrorism legislation. The modified 
implementation plan in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
1997 makes sense to ensure accountability on the part of the FBI.
  For example, CALEA already requires that the Attorney General publish 
certain information in the Federal Register for public comment, 
including information about law enforcement's capacity needs and cost 
control regulations. The conditions in the omnibus appropriations 
legislation would require that this information be provided on a 
country-by-county basis.

  We should fund the digtigal telephone law. At the same time, the 
conditions in the modified plan for use of the appropriated funds will 
help ensure that the FBI complies fully with the letter and spirit of 
disclosure that is a hallmark of that legislation.


                     Law Enforcement Support Center

  I am delighted that Congress recognizes the contribution that is 
being made to immigration law enforcement by the Law Enforcement 
Support Center [LESC] in South Burlington, VT. This is among the most 
significant capacities being developed to assist Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement deal more effectively with criminal aliens. 
Improving the identification and expediting the decoration of criminal 
aliens responsible for violent crimes are goals on which there is 
universal agreement.
  The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorized 
the Law Enforcement Support Center. Last year, I had a colloquy on the 
Senate floor with the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee chairman 
clarifying that the Senate-passed appropriations bill allowed the LESC 
to continue to receive its authorized funding.
  This is only online national database available to identify criminal 
aliens. It is a valuable and essential asset for improving our national 
immigration enforcement effort. The LESC provides local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement agencies with 24-hour access to data on 
criminal aliens. By assisting in the identification of these aliens, 
the LESC allows law enforcement agencies to expedite deportation 
proceedings against them.
  In its first year of operation, the LESC identified over 10,000 
criminal aliens as aggravated felons. After starting up with a link to 
law enforcement agencies in one county in Arizona, the LESC expanded 
its coverage to that entire State. The LESC is expected to be online 
with California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, 
Texas and Washington, as well as Arizona this year.
  The Law Enforcement Support Center deserves our full support. The 
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for 1997 increases the support 
by adopting the increased authorization that Senator Hutchison and I 
offered to the Senate immigration bill when it was considered last May. 
By increasing to $5 million a year the authorization of the LESC we 
demonstrate our commitment to effective assistance to State and local 
law enforcement.


                 carryover funds for COPS more program

  The conference agreement includes $1,400,000,000 for the Community 
Oriented Policing Services [COPS] and $20,000,000 for the Police Corps 
Program. This funding is to be used to maintain the commitment to hire 
100,000 new police officers. This is a commitment the Congress and the 
President made in the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, and I am pleased 
that we are keeping our promise. Importantly, funds available for prior 
year carryover may be used for innovative community policing programs, 
so

[[Page S11911]]

long as reprogramming requirements are satisfied. This ensures that our 
State and local law enforcement have the flexibility they need to spend 
this money they are granted when and how they need to, within the broad 
parameters set by Congress.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the Interior section of this bill, there 
is a provision dealing with Alaska subsistence. In the official papers, 
the word ``prepare'' is left in the language, contrary to the agreement 
reached with the administration early Saturday. I would like to clarify 
with the subcommittee chairman that this technical error is not 
intended to be a precedent for future years.
  Mr. GORTON. I agree.


        LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill that is before the Senate today 
provides $71.087 billion in discretionary budget authority for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies for fiscal year 1997. Mandatory spending totals $219.5 
billion, an increase of $19 billion over the fiscal 1996 levels.
  The conference agreement provides substantial increases in education 
programs--$3.5 billion over last year. Medical research is increased by 
more than $820 million, and workplace safety programs by almost $79 
million over the 1996 appropriated levels.
  While I support the funding levels for programs within my 
subcommittee's jurisdiction, as I stated on Saturday, I am concerned 
with the process which produced this omnibus appropriations bill. I am 
concerned because the procedure undercut the traditional appropriations 
process. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill never 
even came to the Senate floor because it was anticipated that it would 
be very contentious and that many diverse amendments would be offered. 
Last year's bill was not finished until April 25, but on that bill 
Senate Harkin and I came forward with a bipartisan amendment to add 
$2.7 billion so that we could have adequate funding for Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education. We demonstrated that the 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member can work together in a 
harmonious manner and really get the job done. But this year on the 
Senate floor, we have seen biding wars to gain political advantage by 
adding funding and legislation to appropriations bills. This led us to 
a position where we have had to go to this single omnibus bill, and 
where we had to negotiate with the White House to produce a bill the 
President would agree to before the end of the fiscal year today.

  As I have said, I am proud of the work, the bipartisan, work done on 
the Labor, Health and Human Services portion of this bill. I want to 
thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his hard 
work and help in bringing this bill through the committee and through 
the negotiations with the House and the administration.
  The important programs funded within this subcommittee's jurisdiction 
provide resources to improve the public health and strengthen 
biomedical research, assure a quality education for America's children, 
and job training activities to keep this Nation's work force 
competitive with world markets. I'd like to take the time and mention 
several important accomplishments of this bill.


                          biomedical research

  For the National Institutes of Health, the bill before us contains 
nearly $12.747 billion, an increase of $820 million, or 6.9 percent, 
above the fiscal year 1996 level. These funds will be critical in 
catalyzing scientific discoveries that will lead to new treatments and 
cures, that in turn will reduce materially the cost of health care. Few 
activities of Government provide greater promise for improving the 
quality, and reducing the costs, of health care for all Americans than 
our investment in medical research.


                substance abuse education and prevention

  Substance abuse prevention and treatment programs are increased by 
$207 million over 1996. The bill includes $1.310 billion for the 
substance abuse block grant which provides funds to States for 
substance abuse prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Recognizing 
that drug prevention education needs to start when children are young, 
to teach children the skills they need to resist drug use, the bill 
also provides a $90 million increase for the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
and Communities Program.


                                  aids

  This bill contains over $3 billion for research, education, 
prevention, and services to confront the AIDS epidemic, including a 
nearly $239 million increase for Ryan White. The bill provides $217 
million for AIDS drug assistance programs to assist states in providing 
the new generation of protease inhibitor drugs to persons with HIV.


                             healthy start

  Low birth weight is the leading cause of infant mortality. Infants 
who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol or tobacco in the mother's womb 
are at-risk for prematurity and low birth weight. I became directly 
involved in Healthy Start after visiting hospitals in Pittsburgh and 
Philadelphia and seeing one-pound babies, whose chances for survival 
were very slim. For Healthy Start, the bill provides $96 million, $20 
million more than the President requested, to continue the campaign to 
cut infant mortality rates in half and to give low birth weight babies 
a better chance at survival.


                             women's health

  The committee continues to place a very high priority on women's 
health. The bill before the Senate contains an increase of $15 million 
for breast and cervical cancer screening, these increases will: expand 
research on the breast cancer gene, accelerate the development of new 
diagnostic tests, and speed research on new, more effective methods of 
prevention, detection, and treatment. Funding for the Office of Women's 
Health has also been raised to $12.5 million to continue the National 
Action Plan on Breast Cancer and to provide health care professionals 
with a broad range of women's health related information.


                         violence against women

  The bill contains $123 million for programs authorized under the 
Violent Crime Reduction Act. The bill before the Senate contains the 
full amount authorized for these programs, including $60 million for 
battered women's shelters, $35 million for rape prevention programs, $8 
million for runaway youth and $12.8 million for community schools.
  Domestic violence, especially violence against women, has become a 
problem of epidemic proportions. The Department of Justice reports that 
each year women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent 
crimes, including an estimated 500,000 rapes or other sexual assaults.
  But crime statistics do not tell the whole story.
  I have visited women's shelters in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, where I 
saw, first hand, the kind of physical and emotional suffering so many 
women are enduring.


                               head start

  Head Start receives an increase of $412 million for a total of almost 
$4 billion.


                               education

  The future promise of any nation is dependent on the capabilities of 
its youth and increased funding for education is an investment in the 
future. This bill provides an increase of $3.513 billion over fiscal 
year 1996 education program levels. This is the highest level of 
support in our Nation's history. The bill funds title I at $7.7 
billion, $470 million over last year and increases by $141 million 
funding for the Goals 2000 Program. Education for the handicapped is 
increased by $791 million over last year and vocational and adult 
education is increased by $146 million. The maximum Pell grant is 
increased by $230 to $2,700 per student. The bill increases the TRIO 
Program by $37 million and Education, Research, Statistics and 
Improvement programs are increased by $248 million.


                              job training

  In this Nation, Mr. President, we know all too well that high 
unemployment wastes valuable human talent and potential, and ultimately 
weakens our economy. The bill before us today provides $4.7 billion for 
job training programs, including a $60 million increase for Job Corps. 
These funds will help improve job skills and readjustment services for 
disadvantaged youth and adults.

[[Page S11912]]

                             school to work

  The committee recommends $400 million for school to work programs 
within the Department of Labor and Education. These important programs 
will help ease the transition from school to work for those students 
who do not plan to attend 4-year institutions.


                            workplace safety

  The bill increases workplace safety programs by $79 million over the 
1996 levels. While progress has been made in this area, there is still 
far too many work-related injuries and illnesses. The funds provided 
will continue the programs that inspect business and industry, weed out 
occupational hazards and protect workers pensions.


                   nutrition programs for the elderly

  For the congregate and home delivered meals program, the bill 
provides $469 million, or nearly $19 million above the request. In some 
areas of the country, there are long waiting lists for home-delivered 
meals. The resources provided by this bill will go a long way to ensure 
that the most vulnerable segment of the elderly population receive 
proper nutrition.


                                 liheap

  The bill provides $1 billion for Low Income Heating Assistance for 
this winter and $1 billion in advance for next winter. This is a key 
program for low income families in Pennsylvania and other cold weather 
States in the Northwest. Funding supports grants to States to deliver 
critical assistance to low income households to help meet higher energy 
costs.


                                closing

  There are many other notable accomplishments, but for the sake of 
time, I mentioned just some of the highlights, so that the Nation may 
grasp the scope and importance of this bill.
  I have voted against the omnibus appropriations bill as a protest to 
the procedures which I discussed at some length in floor statements 
today and last Saturday, September 28, 1996.
  In closing, Mr. President, I again want to thank Senator Harkin and 
his staff and the other Senators on the subcommittee for their 
cooperation in a very tough budget year.


           funding for the institute for international sport

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as we approve the omnibus spending bill 
which includes appropriations for the Department of Education, it is 
important to mention that the Appropriations Subcommittee for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education intends 
$800,000 from the fund for the improvement of education intends 
$800,000 from the fund for the Improvement of Education to be used for 
scholar athlete games. The committee report to accompany the 
appropriations bill says ``Within the funds provided, the committee has 
included $800,000 to award grants to nonprofit organizations for the 
cost of conducting scholar-athlete games.'' This small sum is to 
support the scholar-athlete games held by such groups as the Institute 
for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. That is correct. In 1994, Senator Chafee and I were able to 
include a similarly modest sum in the fund for the improvement of 
education for the Rhode Island Scholar Athlete Games. These games--
which brought together young people in our State of varied backgrounds 
to participate in educational and cultural competitions and 
demonstrations, as well as in athletic competitions--were an enormous 
success. This year, the funds will be used for the second World-Scholar 
Athlete Games which will bring together young people from around the 
world.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would just like to emphasize that this is the second 
World Scholar Athlete Games that have been held by the Institute of 
International Sport at URI. The first games were held in 1993, the 
Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island 
conducted the World Scholar Athlete Games with 1,600 students from 108 
countries and all 50 States participating. Through these games 
friendships were formed and understanding was developed between boys 
and girls who would otherwise never have crossed paths. I believe, and 
I am certain that Senator Pell agrees, that through this form of 
interaction bridges between diverse populations are built.
  Mr. PELL. I would say to my colleague, yes, that is exactly correct. 
This sort of enterprise, which has been developed by Dan Doyle at URI, 
is a way to build bridges between nations, just as the Rhode Island 
Games were meant to build bridges between neighborhoods and towns.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The second World Scholar Athlete Games will be held 
during the summer of 1997. Through a partnership between the ``Sister 
Cities International'' and the Institute for International Sport along 
with others, 2,200 students from 125 countries are expected to 
participate.


                      parents as teachers program

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank Chairman Specter for increasing funds for the Parents as Teachers 
[PAT] Program in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
and related agencies appropriations bill. The key to success for our 
children's education is to begin early in life through well-rounded 
early childhood education programs that benefit not only the child, but 
the parent as well. I firmly believe that we must give parents the 
tools they need to fulfill their responsibility to develop their 
children's character, personality and ability to learn as well as to 
provide for their material needs if we are ever to see our social ills 
diminish.
  Title IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act requires at least 50 
percent of funds awarded to each grantee to be used to establish, 
expand, or operate Parents as Teachers Program or Home Instruction 
Programs for Preschool Youngsters [HIPPY]. This will enhance three of 
the four purposes of the legislation as stated in section 401(a):
  The purpose of this title is--
  First, to increase parents' knowledge of and confidence in child-
rearing activities, such as teaching and nurturing their young 
children;
  Second, to strengthen partnerships between parents and professionals 
in meeting the educational needs of children aged birth through five 
and the working relationship between home and school;
  Third, to enhance the developmental progress of children assisted 
under this title; and
  Fourth, to fund at least one parental information and resource center 
in each State before September 30, 1998.
  The purposes clearly focus on parents of young children, and this 
appropriation will carry these purposes forward by awarding funds to 
States who commit to spend at least half of their grant on Parents as 
Teachers or HIPPY, early childhood parent education programs which have 
been proven effective.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for 
raising the importance of the Parents as Teachers Program. The purpose 
of the Parents as Teachers Program is to improve parenting skills and 
strengthen the partnership between parents and professionals in meeting 
the education needs of their school-age children, including those aged 
birth through five. It is my understanding that Federal education funds 
are authorized for grantees who make a commitment to spend at least 50 
percent of their funds on implementing the Parents as Teachers Program 
or Home Instruction Programs for Preschool Youngsters. These are 
effective parent education programs that promote learning and child 
development.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and appreciate all 
of his good work on this bill. As members of the Senate Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee, we want to ensure, from the start, that children are 
ready to learn, physically and emotionally. Parents as Teachers has a 
proven track record of increasing a child's intellectual and social 
skills that are essential when a child enters school, and involving 
parents in creating a healthy and safe environment for their children. 
This program strengthens the foundation for children's educational 
success and healthy development, and I urge my colleagues to continue 
to support the Parents as Teachers Program.


                   efforts to combat hemochromatosis

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wish to engage the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, 
Senator Specter, in a colloquy regarding hemochromatosis.

[[Page S11913]]

  Hemochromatosis, or Iron Overload Disease, is an illness in which too 
much iron is stored in the blood. It leads to massive organ failure if 
it is not caught early, but this tragic outcome may be averted by 
regularly giving blood. Already, the Centers for Disease Control has 
been working to establish guidelines for physicians on diagnosing this 
disease and on its simple treatment, but the effort has just begun. In 
light of the seriousness of the disease and the promise of advancements 
in its treatment, I hope the Centers for Disease Control will use some 
of the increased funds in this bill to expand its clinical screening 
effort and to provide physician education.
  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from South 
Carolina to spread the word on this serious matter. We have been 
careful to provide an appropriate increase for the Center for Chronic 
and Environmental Disease Prevention, and this is an appropriate use of 
these funds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.


   section 2601 within title III, the economic growth and regulatory 
                        paperwork reduction act

  Mr. MACK. Because my good friend from Utah is our resident expert on 
stored value products, and in fact is responsible for the much needed 
study on these products, as well as a 9 month delay in Federal Reserve 
Board rulemaking on these products in this bill, I wanted to ask him a 
question about his intent with respect to these two provisions. Was it 
ever your intent to interfere with the Federal Reserve Board's proposed 
revisions to Regulation E with respect to electronic communication of 
Regulation E required disclosures, and the Fed's revised rules 
regarding error resolution for new accounts?
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend from Florida for the useful question. 
The electric stored value products study should in no way delay or 
otherwise affect the Federal Reserve Board's further consideration of 
these other proposed Regulation E revision, or any other revisions to 
Regulation E not involving electronic stored value products.
  Mr. THOMPSON. May I engage the chairman in a colloquy regarding the 
committee's funding of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Act? As the chairman knows, the authorization for that status expires 
September 30, 1996. And the current statutory language has been the 
subject of considerable criticism.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of these difficulties.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Senator Biden and I introduced S. 1952 in this 
Congress, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize JJDPA. This bill would make 
the most sweeping changes in the JJDPA since its original enactment in 
1974. The Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably to the full 
Senate in August, but the full Senate was not able to take up the bill 
before adjournment. What is the chairman's view of this legislation?
  Mr. GREGG . I commend the Senator fROM Tennessee and the Senator from 
Delaware for introducing thoughtful legislation to update Federal 
Government's law regarding juvenile crime. Much of the current statute 
funds programs that may or may not be effective. And it imposes severe 
burdens on States and localities, especially under the regulations that 
have been promulgated.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the chairman. I would also point out that the 
nature of juvenile crime has changed so much since the original 
enactment of JJDPA in 1974.
  Mr. BIDEN. The legislation that Senator Thompson and I introduced and 
passed through the Judiciary Committee includes some important reforms 
which have bipartisan support. We have worked together on the Judiciary 
Committee's Subcommittee on Youth Violence to update the statute. I am 
disappointed that we were not able to pass reauthorization legislation 
this year. I look forward to trying again next year. I would ask the 
chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee if 
he is concerned that if reauthorization legislation is not passed next 
year, whether that will make it more difficult for the subcommittee to 
fund the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention?
  Mr. GREGG. I would say to the Senator that the committee will 
obviously make appropriations in a way that reflects any changes in the 
authorizing legislation. But given the bipartisan view that the JJDPA 
must be extensively changed, and the likelihood that the Congress will 
change the authorizing language next year, it is unlikely that the 
program will be funded in its current form for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the chairman.


               secton 115 of the interior appropriaitons

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would the senior Senator from Washington 
yield for a question on the bill language amending the Elwha Act 
included in the Interior section of the omnibus appropriations bill.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to yield.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Is it a correct interpretation of the language in 
section 114, that none of the requirements of the Elwha Act are changed 
if the State of Washington elects not to purchase the projects?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.


                          recreation user fees

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to express a concern about the 
recreation fee demonstration program for America's national parks and 
wilderness areas. These fees were authorized in last year's continuing 
resolution, and I see that there are additional provisions included in 
the 1997 Senate Interior appropriations bill. Do I understand correctly 
that the subcommittee chairman supports expanding this program to more 
of this Nation's parks and refuges?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is correct.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to assure the chairman that I am 
not opposed to the concept of user fees for national parks and 
wilderness areas. In this period of increased fiscal awareness, such an 
approach may help the Forest Service and Park Service maintain these 
important national treasures. I think it is important, however, that we 
clarify who will have to pay these recreation fees.
  As a case in point, the Sylvania Wilderness in Michigan's Upper 
Peninsula has been chosen as one of the recreation fee demonstration 
sites, and the Forest Service is presently taking comments on this 
proposed action. Located on the edge of the Sylvania Wilderness is a 
beautiful body of water known as Crooked Lake.
  When you look at a map of the area, you will note that approximately 
three-fourths of Crooked Lake's shoreline is within the Sylvania 
Wilderness. The remaining one-fourth, however, is privately held by 
about a dozen riparian owners, some of whom have lived on the lake for 
over 50 years. These owners have been good stewards of the land. As it 
stands now, if the Sylvania does institute a recreation fee, there is 
no guarantee that these people will be exempted from having to pay for 
their day-to-day activities.
  It seems to me that, if these owners and their day-use guests wish to 
use the lake for recreational activities such as swimming or fishing or 
boating, they should be exempted from paying the user fee. After all, 
these people lived on the lake and did all these things before the 
Sylvania was even designated a wilderness area. How can we justify 
suddenly imposing a tax on their use of the lake? If one of these 
families hosts a family reunion, for example, should they have to pay a 
recreation fee for each of the children who might wish to swim or wade 
or boat in the lake? And how can a small, family owned resort that has 
operated on this lake for decades justify having to charge each of its 
customers and additional $5 or $10 per person per visit? We need to 
assure these residents, their guests and day-use guests that they will 
not have to purchase a permit to continue their way of life.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield for a 
question?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, does the Senator from Michigan believe 
these resident should pay a user fee when participating in other 
activities within the Sylvania Wilderness such as hiking and camping?

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would inform the subcommittee chairman 
that, if the residents wish to use

[[Page S11914]]

the Sylvania for activities such as camping, hiking, or picnicking, 
paying the same fee as all other visitors sounds reasonable. That is 
clearly a different circumstance, and it seems logical that visiting 
other areas of the Sylvania would require purchasing the same permit as 
all other visitors.
  Now in fairness Mr. President, I do not know if the Forest Service 
had any intention of charging the Crooked Lake residents if the 
recreation fee were instituted. In fact, in conversations about this 
matter, Sylvania's Forest Service personnel indicated to me that 
exempting riparian owners, guests, and day-use guests from fees for 
using the lake seemed sensible and fair. I believe that there must be a 
commitment from the Forest Service and National Park Service to work to 
accommodate the distinctive interests of people living in and around 
this Nation's parks and refuge areas. I would ask the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member if they believe that cases 
such as Crooked Lake's riparian owners merit such consideration.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan raises a good 
point. There may be unique circumstances that should be taken into 
consideration as these recreation fee demonstration projects are 
proposed and established. It is my expectation that, in instances such 
as this, the administrative agency work with the congressional 
delegation to resolve disputes to the benefit and understanding of all 
parties.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would agree with the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for their consideration 
and all their hard work in support of this Nation's parks, national 
forests, and wildlife refugees. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


             maine acadian culture preservation commission

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, in a colloquy.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be pleased to join the Senator from Maine in a 
colloquy.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, during the 101st Congress, the Congress and 
the President enacted Public Law 101-543, the Maine Acadian Culture 
Preservation Act. The purposes of the act were to recognize the 
important contributions made to American history and culture by the 
Acadians in Maine, to assist State and local governments, as well as 
private and public entities, in the identification, preservation, and 
interpretation of Acadian culture and history, and to assist in the 
identification and preservation of sites and objects associated with 
Acadian culture.
  Although the Acadians in Maine represent one of America's oldest and 
most interesting cultural groups, the mission of the act has still not 
been fulfilled, and more work has to be done. I understand that, in the 
current fiscal year, the National Park Service has provided $72,000 
from the Operation of the National Park System account to fund 
activities related to the act, including technical assistance to the 
Maine Acadian Culture Preservation Commission created by the act. I 
further understand that the administration's budget request $72,000 for 
activities related to Maine Acadian cultural preservation in fiscal 
year 1997. Is it the chairman's understanding that the National Park 
Service intends to use funds from the Operation of the National Park 
System account in this bill for these purposes in the next fiscal year?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, the National Park Service's budget does request 
funding in fiscal year 1997, under the Operation of the National Park 
System account, to preserve and interpret Maine Acadian culture, 
consistent with the authority provided by Congress in the Maine Acadian 
Culture Preservation Act. The omnibus appropriations bill includes 
$66.8 million above the fiscal year 1996 appropriations level for the 
operation of the National Park System account.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman for that clarification.


                         u.s. geological survey

  Mr. BENNETT. I would like to raise an issue with the chairman of 
significance to taxpayers in Utah and across the Nation: the extent to 
which the Federal Government is performing functions that, in a free-
market economy such as ours, are better left to the private sector. 
Specifically, it has been brought to my attention that the U.S. 
Geological Survey [USGS] is competing with private sector companies 
when it offers water resources-related engineering, scientific and 
technical services--services that are readily available in the private 
sector--to non-Federal entities at far below market rates. Not 
surprisingly, the non-Federal entities involved often agree to contract 
with the USGS, to the great detriment of private sector firms in this 
field. This practice, some have termed it ``predatory competition,'' 
also appears to involve the USGS in activities far beyond its stated 
mission.
  Mr. President, according to its informative home page on the World 
Wide Web, the mission of the USGS is ``to provide geologic, topographic 
and hydrologic information that contributes to the wise management of 
the Nation's natural resources and promotes the health, safety, and 
well-being of the people.''
  May I ask the chairman if he would agree to investigate this issue in 
the hearing process next year to determine if this is a problem that 
should be addressed?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Utah raises a valid point. Our efforts 
in this area to downsize the Federal Government, including the USGS, 
are intended to reduce the burden on taxpayers by retaining only 
essential research capabilities that for sound policy reasons should 
not, or cannot, be performed by the private sector.
  I would be happy to explore this issue further as we undertake budget 
hearings in the next fiscal year.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the chairman for his views and look forward to 
working with him in this important matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I engage the distinguished chairman 
of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy? A few years 
ago, I sponsored an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill 
regarding the eligibility for Alaska Native villages for the BIA road 
funding program. This amendment was necessitated by an internal ruling 
eliminating Alaska Native villages which populations had fallen below 
50 percent Alaska Native.
  The Alaska Native villages are unique in the country because of the 
special nature of the land settlement under the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act. Unlike lower 48 Indian reservations, these villages 
received title to their land in fee simple; the Federal Government does 
not own the land in trust as with reservations in all other States. 
However, since the land is privately owned, Congress protected it from 
taxation and levy by Federal, State and local government while it is 
undeveloped. This has protected this land from being involuntarily 
conveyed out of Alaska Native corporation ownership because of 
inability to pay taxes, but it has also dramatically reduced the tax 
base in villages which also have municipal governments providing 
municipal services.
  Because of this situation, normal property tax and other municipal 
levies on land in the villages are not permitted unless the land is 
specifically developed. The vast majority of this land is not developed 
and is protected from municipal taxation. That is why I sponsored an 
amendment to change the BIA road funding rule in Alaska requiring 50 
percent Alaska Native population for village eligibility. This 
amendment was passed twice in the subcommittee, and once by the Senate. 
Ultimately, an agreement was worked out with BIA to change this 
qualification standard administratively.
  Mr. President, I am relating this history because I have been 
recently contacted by the same village municipality which brought the 
BIA funding issue to my attention. This time a similar rule has been 
adopted and is being enforced for village sanitation, water, sewer, 
wastewater, and solid waste grants by the Indian Health Service. This 
is the same issue again.
  The exact same arguments and fact patterns apply. The IHS is the 
principal grant agency for village water, sewer, wastewater and solid 
waste for Alaska Native villages. Now it is either changing the rule or 
beginning to enforce a rule which until now has not

[[Page S11915]]

been enforced. Either way, this is unfair for Craig, which is 
completely surrounded by Native village corporation land from two 
villages, Shaan Seet Corp. and Haida Corp. In many ways, Craig is more 
heavily impacted than most municipalities because these two villages 
are so close together that their land selections are adjacent to each 
other.
  What I ask here, Mr. President, is that the same policy adopted by 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for BIA roads apply for IHS 
village sanitation funding. The issues are the same; the result should 
be the same. Can I get the assurance of the chairman of the 
subcommittee that he agrees with this position? It is a direct match up 
with the BIA issue with which this subcommittee has already dealt.
  Mr. GORTON. I agree that there are certain circumstances in which it 
is appropriate for the Indian Health Service to provide sanitation 
facilities funding for Indian homes in non-Indian communities and for 
Alaska Native villages. I understand that the Indian Health Service 
will soon issue an internal guidance document that addresses this 
issue, and this policy will be consistent with the terms of the 
conference report on the fiscal year 1995 Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. (House Report 103-740). I strongly urge the IHS to 
issue this guidance document, and to be sensitive to the unique needs 
of Alaska Native villages, which differ from lower 48 non-Indian 
communities because of the land settlement under ANCSA.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
for his support.


                       lame deer health facility

  Mr. BURNS. I would like to commend the committee for funding the 
replacement facility at Lame Deer, MT. The Lame Deer health care 
facility was totally destroyed by fire last May. In these times of 
fiscal constraint, we were fortunate to be able to fund this much 
needed replacement facility.
  Mr. President, I would like to clarify how the $13,500,000 cost was 
calculated. In order to hold down costs, the Indian Health Service was 
able to use an existing design that can be used as the basis for 
construction of the replacement facility. Without this design and 
without the IHS undertaking the construction of this project, more than 
$2 million in additional funds would have been required.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. The cost for the replacement was 
based upon the IHS using the existing design and doing the construction 
themselves. Because of the urgent nature of this request and because 
the tribe has no other health care resources within close proximity, 
the committee responded to the dire need for a health facility at Lame 
Deer. We expect the IHS to move as expeditiously as possible to 
complete this much needed health facility. I strongly urge the tribe 
and the IHS to work within the funding limitations for this project.
  Mr. BURNS. Will the chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee yield for question?
  Mr. GORTON. I will be delighted to yield to the Senator from Montana, 
Senator Burns.
  Mr. BURNS. As the Chairman knows, I have been pursuing for a number 
of years funding for the Indians Into Psychology program. This program 
helps train Native Americans in the field of clinical psychology and 
has a service requirement that those who receive this training must 
work on the reservations. As the chairman knows, mental illness 
problems among native Americans are pervasive and devastating, and 
there is great need for native Americans trained in the field of 
psychology to work on the reservations.
  The chairman included $500,000 for this program, or a $300,000 
increase over last year's levels in the Senate bill as reported by the 
committee. This is a modest increase for a very important program and 
would permit a second program site to be established. I understand that 
the full $300,000 increase has been eliminated by the conference 
action. Is that correct?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, the Senator is correct. We were forced to eliminate 
this funding without prejudice because of a very constrained spending 
ceiling for the subcommittee.
  Mr. BURNS. I understand that the chairman concurs with me that this 
is an important program. Would the chairman join me and urge the 
Department and the Indian Health Service in identifying a reprogramming 
of funds to provide some level of increase for this program in order to 
permit the initiation of a second program site to be awarded 
competitively?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct. It is my hope that the Department 
and the Indian Health Service will identify a source of funds to 
provide an increase for this program early in the new fiscal year, 
fiscal year 1997 so that a second program site can be awarded 
competitively.


       energy saving performance contracting in federal agencies

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from 
Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service, 
and General Government Subcommittee in a colloquy relating to saving 
energy in Federal facilities.
  In light of falling appropriations for undertaking energy efficiency 
projects at Federal facilities, is it the opinion of the committee that 
Federal agencies should be utilizing private sector financing 
mechanisms such as energy saving performance contracting [ESPC] utility 
sponsored energy conservation measures [ECM] to achieve their 
legislatively mandated targets for energy reduction?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes, the committee supports the increased use of ESPC and 
ECM to reduce energy use by Federal agencies to save taxpayer dollars 
and reduce environmental pollution.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. It has been nearly 4 years since Federal agencies were 
authorized to undertake ESPC and ECM at Federal facilities. In the 
meantime, very few of these agreements have come to pass. I believe 
that this is due to both institutional resistance and inertia. Mr. 
Chairman, I have worked very hard during this year and last to provide 
some legislatively directed incentive for agencies to more aggressively 
undertake these energy-saving methods, and have met with significant 
resistance.
  Mr. President, I believe it's time we stop looking on idly, hoping 
that one day agencies will rise to this challenge. I would like to ask 
that the six agencies which use the most energy enter into a specific 
number of ESPC or ECM contracts during fiscal year 1997. The numbers 
themselves represent a reasonable expectation for response, but ones 
which will result in a significant step forward for the use of ESPC and 
ECM inside the Federal Government. They are: Department of Defense, 10 
contracts; General Services Administration, U.S. Postal Service, and 
Department of Energy, 8 contracts each; Department of Transportation 
and the Veterans Administration, 5 contracts each.
  If we are to move this forward we should also ask that the agencies 
issue a short report to us within 90 days of enactment, as well as 
quarterly through the year to detail their progress in meeting these 
targets.
  Mr. SHELBY. The committee shares your sentiment that Federal agencies 
should get moving toward greater use of ESPC and ECM. And they will now 
be on notice that this is a desire of the committee and that we will be 
monitoring their progress.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman. By taking these short steps, we 
will gain some success in demonstrating the effectiveness of these 
outside financing mechanisms, while identifying legitimate 
institutional barriers with the intention of addressing those in the 
future and expanding use of ESPC and ECM to other Federal agencies.


  emergency rehabilitation of the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife 
                                 Refuge

  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief discussion of the 
use of the emergency firefighting funding that is being provided to the 
Department of the Interior agencies.
  Mr. GORTON. I would be happy to discuss this emergency funding with 
the senior Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the administration has submitted a 
proposal to the Congress for additional funding of $50 million for the 
Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior to 
respond to the severe fire season we've had this year.

[[Page S11916]]

Subsequent to that request, the administration identified an additional 
$26.7 million in damages incurred by several Department of the Interior 
agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. This request 
includes $600,000 for the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in 
New Mexico.
  This past June, a wildfire consumed 4,100 acres of the Bosque del 
Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. It was the worst fire in 
the 57-year history of the refuge.
  The upland desert habitat in the burned area will recover naturally, 
but 2,176 acres of native cottonwood/willow riparian forest habitat 
along the Rio Grande River will not recover without management action. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service needs the requested $600,000 in fiscal 
year 1997 to make significant progress on these rehabilitation needs. 
These funds are to be used for cottonwood forest rehabilitation.
  This is a critical time because this riparian area harbors the 
highest density and diversity of wildlife in the refuge. Without 
immediate action, this area will revert to exotic salt cedar 
vegetation, which thrives in disturbed habitats and is fire tolerant. 
Since 1987, refuge personnel have been actively engaged in riparian 
restoration efforts, successfully controlling over 1,000 acres of 
exotic salt cedar vegetation and reestablishing over 650 acres of 
native cottonwood and willow habitat.
  I would ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee if the 
$600,000 requested for cottonwood forest rehabilitation at the Bosque 
del Apache National Wildlife Refuge is included in the final omnibus 
bill?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, the omnibus bill includes the $600,000 requested for 
the cottonwood forest rehabilitation work at the Bosque del Apache 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance 
in this matter. I will urge the Department to carry through with this 
initiative which is so critical to saving the native habitat at the 
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico.


                     montezuma creek health clinic

  Mr. BENNETT. I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a matter 
that, while it may appear small, is of great importance to the Utah 
Navajo population of San Juan County in the southeastern part of Utah. 
The matter involves the Montezuma Creek Health Clinic in Montezuma 
Creek, UT.
  Over the past several years, my colleague Senator Hatch and I have 
worked with the Indian Health Service [IHS], the State of Utah, the 
local Utah Chapter of the Navajo Nation, the county of San Juan, and 
the Navajo Nation in an effort to improve the delivery of health care 
services in San Juan County.
  In this region, which includes the Navajo Reservation in northern 
Arizona and New Mexico, there are six IHS hospitals and 18 outpatient 
facilities. Unfortunately, none of these facilities are located in 
Utah. In fact, the only IHS facility in the entire State of Utah is an 
outpatient facility located at Fort Duchesne nearly 350 miles from 
Montezuma Creek.
  The need for the Montezuma Creek Clinic is clearly justifiable. It is 
the population center for the eastern portion of the Utah Navajos. 
Approximately 6,000 Navajos live in this area; and, unfortunately, 
their health care needs are greatly underserved.
  Although the building housing the Montezuma Creek Clinic is currently 
functional, it is, nevertheless, in poor condition. The facility has 
undergone repairs and currently is in the process of having its roof 
replaced. Within the near future, the facility will eventually have to 
be replaced in order to continue to provide care to an average of 65 
patients per day.
  The patchwork of repairs will no longer be a viable option.
  Accordingly, it is our desire that, at the very least, $35,000 be 
provided for a preliminary land study, and engineering and 
architectural design for a new facility to replace the existing old 
structure.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield, I want to thank my colleague 
from Utah, Senator Bennett, for his remarks.
  The clinic at Montezuma Creek, UT is absolutely essential in overall 
context of health care in this remote part of Utah and in this region 
of the country.
  In fact, with the recent closing last month of Monument Valley 
Hospital in San Juan County, the clinic is in even greater need by the 
community especially now that there are fewer health providers in this 
large area.
  Over the past several years, I have worked with the Indian Health 
Service in efforts to improve health care services in this part of 
Utah. And, I must say that, compared to other States, the availability 
of IHS facilities and services for Utah Navajos in southeastern Utah is 
extremely deficient.
  Senator Bennett and I want to correct this disparity.
  That is why we need to act now.
  I recognize that the IHS budget is limited. In that regard, I want to 
continue to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee as 
well as on the Indian Affairs and Finance Committees in efforts to 
improve the delivery of health care for Native Americans throughout the 
country.
  One should go to some of these communities to see, first hand, the 
poverty and poor health conditions many native Americans tolerate. 
Native Americans suffer the highest rates of diabetes, tuberculosis, 
and fetal alcohol syndrome of any segment of the U.S. population in 
large part because they do not have access to adequate medical 
treatment.
  The $35,000 we are seeking is not a large amount of money. But, this 
amount would be a significant commitment to the Navajo people of 
southern Utah and northern Arizona. It is a commitment I strongly 
believe we should fulfill.
  Mr. GORTON. If Senator Bennett will yield further, I am aware of 
Senator Hatch's and Senator Bennett's interest and concern over the 
clinic at Montezuma Creek and their efforts ultimately to replace that 
facility. I want to assure the Senators from Utah that I will work with 
them to ensure that the health care needs of Utah's Navajos are met.
  Should the Indian Health Service submit a request to reprogram a 
small amount of funds for a preliminary planning study of a satellite 
facility at Montezuma Creek, I would consider carefully such a request. 
I emphasize, however, that such a request must be consistent with the 
Health Care Facilities Priority System. Current funding constraints 
simply do not allow for activities beyond the scope of the priority 
list.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for his consideration. It is my hope 
and strong desire that we can begin a more comprehensive effort by the 
IHS, the Navajo Nation and the State of Utah to improve the delivery of 
health care in this part of Utah.
  I would also like to say that I believe the IHS is making a good 
faith effort at improving the health care of native Americans in Utah. 
I appreciate the work and spirit of cooperation I have sensed over the 
past year from the IHS. I look forward to working with the IHS as well 
as with all parties at improving the health care for Utah Navajos.
  Mr. BENNETT. I also want to thank the Senator from Washington for his 
consideration. I would urge the IHS to work closely with the local 
Navajo Chapter as well as with San Juan County, the State of Utah, the 
Utah Navajo Trust Fund, and the Navajo Nation in this endeavor. Senator 
Hatch and I strongly encourage all parties to work together, and to 
maximize any federal dollars made available through this request with 
matching funds.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his assistance on this matter.


               doe/fossil energy cooperative r&d program

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Conrad and I wish to engage the 
chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
in a colloquy regarding the Cooperative Research and Development 
Program funded in the Department of Energy's fossil energy 
appropriation account.
  In its action on the fiscal year 1997 Interior bill, H.R. 3662, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $6.2 million for the 
Cooperative Research and Development Program. These funds are shared by 
the University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center 
[UNDEERC] and the Western Research Institute [WRI] in Wyoming. The 
UNDEERC program is a leader in low-rank coal research in the United 
States, and has cooperated on efforts

[[Page S11917]]

to use abundant low-rank coal through advanced clean coal technologies. 
As the ranking member of the subcommittee is aware, UNDEERC has worked 
closely with the expertise found at the Morgantown Energy Technology 
Center [METC].
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct; UNDEERC and METC have worked 
closely together in support of strategic fossil energy research 
objectives. The partnership at UNDEERC, which involves cooperators from 
the Federal Government, industry, and academia, serves as a model for 
jointly sponsored research programs. The non-Federal partners in this 
effort contribute significant cost-sharing to conduct the programs at 
UNDEERC.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me add to what the Senator from West 
Virginia said. Of UNDEERC's funding for the jointly sponsored research 
program, 61 percent came from private sources in 1995. When individual 
businesses are willing to contribute real dollars to this effort, that 
demonstrates strong private sector support for the work of the center 
and its significantly enhances the Federal investment. Since UNDEERC 
was defederalized in 1983, the center has developed more than 400 
private and public sector clients, some of whom have 20 or more 
individual contracts. In 1995 alone, UNDEERC developed 175 contracts 
with clients in 34 States and 8 foreign countries.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee about the funding level for this 
program as recommended in the omnibus continuing resolution.
  Mr. GORTON. I would respond to the Senator from North Dakota that the 
recommendations for the fossil energy appropriation account contained 
in this legislation assume a funding level of $5.1 million for the 
Cooperative Research and Development Program. While this is a decrease 
of $1.1 million from the funding level recommended in the Senate 
version of the fiscal year 1997 Interior bill, it is an increase of 
$1.1 million above the amount recommended for this program in the 
House-passed fiscal year 1997 Interior bill. While the Senate sought to 
protect the full amount recommended by the Appropriations Committee for 
this program, it was not possible to retain the total increase included 
in the Senate bill because of the change in the subcommittee's 
allocation for purposes of reaching closure on the fiscal year 1997 
Interior bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the chairman is absolutely correct. The net 
result of the Interior bill portion included in this continuing 
resolution is that the subcommittee's allocation was essentially cut in 
half from the amount of resources available when the bill was marked up 
in the Senate. Thus, a number of programs which were increased in the 
Senate bill were not able to sustain the full amount of the proposed 
increase in the final resolution. The chairman sought to protect as 
many of these increases as possible.
  Mr. DORGAN. Senator Conrad and I would ask of the chairman and 
ranking member if it would be possible to consider a reprogramming or 
supplemental request from the Department of Energy that would restore 
the final recommendation for the Cooperative Research and Development 
Program to the fiscal year 1996 level, which is the same amount as was 
included in the Senate bill?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if the Department of Energy were to submit 
a reprogramming or supplemental request, the committee would give it 
every consideration as expeditiously as possible. Under the committee's 
reprogramming guidelines, the Department has the flexibility to move up 
to $500,000, or 10 percent, without prior approval of the Committee.
  Mr. BYRD. I say to my good friends, the senators from North Dakota, 
that I will do everything I can to ensure that any effort to increase 
the funding for the fossil energy cooperative research and development 
program is considered promptly by the subcommittee. The chairman and I 
have an excellent relationship in reviewing matters under the 
jurisdiction of the subcommittee, and I am sure that he would seek to 
be helpful if at all possible. I would inquire of the chairman if he 
would agree that the Department of Energy should, at a minimum, review 
its unobligated balances now that fiscal year 1996 has drawn to a 
close, and see if there are any funds that could possibly be considered 
for a reprogramming without affecting adversely the conduct of other 
ongoing activities in the fossil energy appropriation account.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia makes an 
excellent suggestion. While I appreciate the desire of the Senators 
from North Dakota to see additional funding provided for this program, 
I am also sensitive to the many other competing demands within the 
Fossil Energy Program. Overall, this appropriations account is funded 
$52.3 million below last year's level, and some programs are being 
terminated or slowed down to comply with the subcommittee's constrained 
allocation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member. I 
look forward to working with them to see what actions might be possible 
to keep this exceptional Cooperative Research and Development Program 
at UNDEERC functioning without major disruptions.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would also like to express my appreciation to the 
chairman and ranking member for working with us to see what can be done 
to secure full funding for this outstanding cooperative research 
program.

                          ____________________