[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11922-S11936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 
1995 goes to the heart of the safety and security of the citizens of 
the United States. Each of us relies on the police officers and fire 
fighters in our community to protect our families, and to keep us safe.
  This provision allows State and local public safety agencies to set 
mandatory retirement and maximum hiring ages for their police and fire 
fighters--the same authority the Federal Government already has with 
respect to Federal police officers and firefighters.
  If police officers and firefighters cannot adequately perform their 
duties, people die and people get hurt--and the officers themselves are 
endangered. As one fire fighter put it,
  ``Firefighters and police officers must work as a team. We depend on 
the other members of our crew to have the strength and savvy to save 
our life if the need arises. If we are unable to do our job, people 
die.''
  This provision provides a necessary, narrow and appropriate exemption 
from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for State and local 
public safety officers--necessary and appropriate because numerous 
medical studies have found that age directly affects an individual's 
ability to perform the duties of a public safety officer.
  Reflexes, sight and other physical capabilities decline with age, 
while the risk of sudden incapacitation--heart attacks and strokes for 
example--increases six-fold between ages 40 and 60. Although 
firefighters over 50 comprise only one-seventh of the total number of 
firefighters, they account for one-third of all firefighter deaths.

  The Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1995 gives State 
and local governments the same right to set mandatory retirement ages 
for their police and firefighters as the Federal Government.
  I want to emphasize this point. We in Congress already made the 
decision to allow mandatory retirement ages for Federal public safety 
officers. This amendment simply extends that same right to State and 
local governments.
  And, this provision merely allows State and local governments to set 
mandatory retirement and maximum hiring ages if they so choose--it is 
not a mandate.
  The Federal Government has deemed mandatory retirement ages necessary 
to provide for the safety and security of the Federal firefighters and 
police officers and the citizens they protect--State and local 
governments should be able to make that same decision.
  The Federal police officers, agents, and firefighters covered by 
mandatory retirement ages, include: the U.S. Park Police; the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; the Department of Justice law enforcement 
personnel; the District of Columbia firefighters; the U.S. Forest 
Service firefighters; the Central Intelligence Agency; and Federal 
firefighters.
  The Capitol Police--the men and women who protect the Members of 
Congress--have a mandatory retirement age.
  All too often in the past, Congress has treated itself differently 
than other Americans. With the passage of the Congressional 
Accountability Act, this Congress made it clear that it is committed to 
ending disparate treatment. Every Senator who voted for the 
Congressional Accountability Act should vote for this bill.
  The Federal Aviation Administration recently extended it's mandatory 
retirement age of 60 to all pilots that fly 10 or more passengers to 
increase safety on commuter planes.
  These pilots take twice yearly physicals, they have a copilot at 
their side ready to take the controls if anything happens, and still 
they must retire at age 60. After age 60, the risk of incapacitation 
becomes too great--too many lives are at risk in the air. These same 
lives are at risk on the ground if our police and firefighters are 
unable to do their job--and all too often, our police and firefighters 
don't have a copilot waiting to assist in an arrest or a burning 
building.
  As a general rule, the Age Discrimination Act prohibits employers 
from discriminating against workers solely on the basis of age, and 
generally prohibits the use of mandatory retirement and minimum hiring 
ages.
  Police officers and firefighters and all public employees were exempt 
from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act until a 1983 court ruling 
placed public employees under the act. State and local governments were 
then required to either prove in court that mandatory retirement and 
minimum hiring ages for police and firefighters were bona fide 
occupational qualifications [BFOQ's] reasonably necessary for the 
normal operation of the business or else eliminate them.

  Although this approach sounds reasonable, courts in some 
jurisdictions ruled limits permissible, while identical limits were 
held impermissible in other jurisdictions. For example, the Missouri 
Highway Patrol's minimum hiring age of 32 was upheld while Los Angeles 
County sheriff's minimum hiring age of 35 was not. East Providence's 
mandatory retirement age of 60 for police officers was upheld while 
Pennsylvania's mandatory retirement age of 60 was struck down.
  As a result, no State or local government could be sure of the 
legality of its hiring or retirement policies. They could, However, be 
sure of having to spend scarce financial resources to defend their 
policies, regardless of the outcome of their suits.
  A suggested alternative to mandatory retirement ages is testing that 
screens out those individuals who may still retain their strength at 
the age of 60 or 70. The 1986 Amendment to the Age Discrimination Act 
authorized State and local governments to set minimum hiring ages and 
mandatory retirement ages until December 31, 1993. It also ordered the 
EEOC and the Department of Labor to conduct a study to determine: 
whether physical and mental fitness tests can accurately assess the 
ability of police and fire fighters to perform the requirements of 
their jobs; which particular types of

[[Page S11923]]

tests are most effective; and what specific standards such tests should 
satisfy.
  Finally, the 1986 amendment directed the EEOC to promulgate 
guidelines on the administration and use of physical and mental fitness 
tests for police and firefighters.
  While the Penn State researchers who conducted the study concluded 
that age was a poor predictor of job performance--because they could 
not find an exact age at which people are unable to perform their 
duties--they failed to evaluate which particular physical and mental 
fitness tests are most effective to evaluate public safety officers and 
which specific standards such tests should satisfy.
  Despite the very clear mandate in the 1986 amendment, neither the 
EEOC nor its researchers were able to comply with that mandate. There 
were no guidelines developed to assist State and local governments in 
the design, administration, and use of tests, as Congress directed. As 
a result, State and local governments now find themselves without a 
public safety exemption from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 
and also without any guidance as how to test their employees.
  The provision included in this bill authorizes the National 
Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH] to conduct a study 
of fitness tests for police and firefighters, to begin when sufficient 
funds are appropriated, that produces useful information for public 
safety agencies working to protect citizens and the officers and 
firefighters.
  The provision also includes an exception to the exemption whereby 
NIOSH will identify valid job performance tests and public safety 
agencies utilizing mandatory retiement ages will provide public safety 
officers who have reached retirement age with an annual opportunity to 
demonstrate their fitness using the NIOSH tests.
  I firmly believe that Congress must avoid exempting whole classes of 
employees from the protection of civil rights laws unless it is 
absolutely necessary. But this is not a civil rights issue. This is not 
a new exemption.

  The Federal Government already exempts public safety officers from 
ADEA. State and local fire and police agencies should have the same 
exemption so that they too can protect and promote the safety of the 
public and of the officers.
  As many of you in this body know, I come from a law enforcement 
background. My father was a police officer. My uncle was a police 
officer. My brother still is a police officer. It is the police 
officers and firefighters themselves that have asked for this 
amendment.
  Rank and file public safety officers have besieged my offices with 
calls and letters and visits in support of the amendment. As Terry 
Gainer, director of the Illinois State Police, testified before the 
Labor Committee hearing on this legislation.
  ``The demands of public safety necessitate a high degree of physical 
fitness and mental acuity. What we see today are offenders who are 
increasingly younger and more violent; police manpower shortages 
translate into less backup * * * terrorist acts such as we saw in 
Oklahoma City or at the world trade center require * * * arduous duty. 
It is the quality of police and fire response . . . that is at issue.''
  I strongly believe that we in Congress must do everything we can to 
ensure that our rank and file officers have everything they need to do 
their jobs.
  This provision has the support of the: Fire Department Safety 
Officers Association; Fraternal Order of Police; International 
Association of Fire-Fighters; International Association of Chiefs of 
Police; International Brotherhood of Police Officers; International 
Society of Fire Service Instructors; International Union of Police 
Associations, AFL-CIO; National Association of Police Organizations; 
National Sheriffs Association; National Troopers Coalition; American 
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; National Public 
Employer Labor Relations Association; New York State Association of 
Chiefs of Police; and city of Chicago Department of Police.

  This provision is also supported by the: National League of Cities; 
National Association of Counties; National Conference of State 
Legislatures; and U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  Let me conclude by clarifying what this amendment is and is not 
about.
  This provision is not about inequity. This provision is about equity 
for State and local governments--giving them the same ability to set 
mandatory retirement and maximum hiring ages that the Federal 
Government enjoys.
  This provision is not about discrimination. This provision is about 
public safety--providing the people of this country with the most 
capable protection and assistance possible.
  And this provision is not about mandates. This provision is about 
State and local control--letting local and state governments decide how 
best to protect their citizens.
  On behalf of the police officers and firefighters of this country, on 
behalf of their families, and on behalf of the millions of citizens who 
rely on local police officers and firefighters every day, I thank my 
colleagues for for including the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Amendments of 1995 in this legislation.


                          Illegal Immigration

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 2202, legislation to combat the problem of illegal 
immigration. As you know, this measure has been included in the omnibus 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  The conference report is an important step forward in our Nation's 
fight against illegal immigration to this country. As a member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee and a conferee to the negotiations with the 
House, I am pleased to have been part of the hard work, commitment and 
bipartisanship that yielded this good, balanced bill, of which we can 
all be proud. My friends, Ted Kennedy and Alan Simpson, deserve much of 
the credit.
  Mr. President, this legislation provides the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service [INS] and other law enforcement officials with 
new resources to prevent aliens from entering or staying in the country 
illegally: 1,000 new border patrol agents for each of the next 5 years, 
additional INS investigators to combat alien smugglers and visa 
overstayers, and enhanced civil penalties for illegal entry, to name 
just a few.
  The conference report also gives the INS and businesses tools to keep 
American jobs and paychecks out of the hands of illegal aliens--tools 
to prevent illegal aliens from securing employment that rightfully 
belongs to American citizens or legal immigrants who have played by the 
rules and respect the law. Specifically, this legislation provides for 
three pilot programs to move us toward a workable employer verification 
system and a framework for the creation of more fraud resistant 
documents. The original Senate approach, which included more privacy 
and antidiscrimination protections, was preferable to the one adopted 
by the conference; however, the pilot projects in this bill still 
deserve a try. We desperately need a more effective verification 
system, Mr. President.
  Finally, I am pleased that the conference report includes my 
amendment on mail-order brides. This amendment launches a study of 
international matchmaking companies, heretofore unregulated and 
operating in the shadows. These companies may be exploiting people in 
desperate situations. The study is not aimed at the men and women who 
use these businesses for legitimate companionship. Instead, it is a 
very positive and important step toward gathering the information we 
need so that we can determine the extent to which these companies 
contribute to the very troubling problems of domestic violence against 
immigrant women and immigration marriage fraud.
  To be sure, there are provisions in this bill which I do not support. 
The triple fence mandate has Congress micromanaging the INS and 
unnecessarily waiving important environmental laws. And I regret very 
much that the Senate positions on summary exclusion and asylum reform 
did not prevail in the final compromise bill. Lastly, we could have 
done more to protect the integrity of the workplace, both by enhancing 
the Department of Labor's ability to enforce employer sanctions and by 
rejecting the Senate-passed ``intent standard'' which may jeopardize 
the rights of American citizens and legal immigrants.
  Despite these flaws, this bipartisan legislation deserves our 
support. The

[[Page S11924]]

United States is a product of an immigration tradition marked by 
generosity, compassion and commitment to hard work. In adopting these 
important changes, we are protecting that tradition by fighting the 
deeds of those who wish to exploit it.
  Thank you.


                   Commerce Department Appropriations

  Mr. ROCKFELLER. Mr. President, because of the scope and magnitude of 
the negotiations over the omnibus appropriations bill, the attention 
that I believe should be paid to the future of technology research and 
development has not exactly been head-line news. Fortunately, the 
results are good news. By and large, critical investments in a series 
of relevant programs are being made through this bill. Once again, we 
have dodged the budgetary and philosophical bullets that have been 
aimed for months at programs that I see as critical to America's 
competitiveness, economic growth, and character.
  The Commerce Department is the only Federal agency that is primarily 
concerned with advancing our Nation's civilian technological 
competitiveness. And the Commerce Department has worked hard--under the 
fantastic leadership of the late Ron Brown and now Mickey Kantor--to 
establish partnerships between Government and industry for our national 
interest.
  This administration and the Commerce Department have been at the 
forefront, establishing and nurturing a web of programs that strengthen 
the Nation's competitiveness. These programs, taken together, represent 
a comprehensive, multi-pronged and efficient effort to prepare the 
Nation for the 21st century.
  I congratulate President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and the 
various Senators, with special mention to Senator Hollings, for their 
steadfast determination to obtain the resources now in this 
appropriations bill to continue investing in technology R&D--so that 
our country is the nation with the cutting-edge jobs, industries, and 
skills in demand.
  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] is doing yeoman's work 
throughout the states, working at the grass roots, helping small- and 
medium-sized businesses use technologies to improve their efficiency 
and profitability. The MEP brings tremendous expertise to businesses, 
helping them to improve production on the shop floor, apply modern 
management methods, and raise environmental quality while decreasing 
costs.
  And the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] is doing for technology 
what the government did for our highway system in the fifties and 
sixties. President Eisenhower recognized that national security and 
economic needs demanded that the Federal Government invest in a 
national highway system--no one could reasonably expect industry to 
build such a system alone. And today, that system is an indispensable 
part of our Nation's infrastructure. Well, the ATP is doing the same--
helping industry build new technologies critical to the growth of 
our economy--technologies that industry would not likely develop, or 
develop as rapidly, without a partnership between government and 
industry.

  The ATP, which was created with bipartisan support, is a highly 
competitive, cost-shared, industry-led partnership program that is 
fostering new technology and creating jobs. Approximately 46 percent of 
all awards go to small businesses or joint ventures led by small 
businesses. More than 100 different universities are involved in about 
150 ATP projects.
  The Commerce Department also has performed a critical role in paving 
another highway--the information superhighway. Commerce has provided 
leadership in advancing the national information infrastructure [NII] 
and is working hard to help hospitals, schools, libraries, and local 
governments access and use the wonders of this new fantastic resource.
  The Commerce National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration [NTIA] Technology and Information Infrastructure 
Applications Program [TIIAP] is a highly competitive, merit-based grant 
program that provides seed money for innovative, practical information 
technology projects throughout the United States. Examples include 
connecting schools to the vast resources of the Internet, improving 
health care communications for elderly patients in their homes, and 
extending emergency telephone service in rural areas.
  And the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] is 
doing the work that the Nation's Founders found so essential to our 
Nation's trade and economy that they included the responsibility in the 
Constitution--caring for our Nation's system of weights and measures. 
NIST laboratories perform world-class work in a way that the Nation's 
Founders could never have imagined.
  For example, the use of fiber optics in telecommunications would not 
have occurred as rapidly without NIST's efforts. NIST's work in 
measures and standards has literally made it possible for fiber optic 
cables to be connected with each other with simplicity and ease--
leading to a world connected by fiber.
  The Commerce programs are providing States such as mine, West 
Virginia, great benefit, enabling us to do things we otherwise could 
not do. The West Virginia Partnership for Industrial Modernization 
[PIM] in Huntington was established in 1995 as a partnership of the 
State of West Virginia Development Office, the Marshall University 
Research Corporation/Robert C. Byrd Institute and the West Virginia 
University Extension Service and NIST. The center serves smaller 
manufacturers throughout the State. WV PIM just received a NIST/EPA 
cost-shared award to help smaller manufacturers reduce or eliminate 
pollution sources in their operations.

  The Advanced Technology Program is working hard to tackle a problem 
that has plagued our health care system--the cost of paperwork. The 
Charleston Area Medical Center and the Statewide Health Information 
Network of Charleston, WV, are participating in two ATP joint ventures 
to improve the technologies and methods used to handle medical 
information. These projects are partnerships of industry, clinical 
facilities, universities and national laboratories, working to 
establish the capabilities necessary to transform fragmented health 
care data into integrated, community-wide computerized information 
resources. These projects have enormous potential for reducing health 
care costs and improving health care service delivery for every 
American.
  The Commerce Technology and Information Infrastructure Applications 
Program [TIIAP] is particularly important to my home state of West 
Virginia, a heavily rural state. A TIIAP grant to the state library 
system will give citizens of West Virginia access to information around 
the globe. And Project InfoMine will expand the existing statewide 
information network to 50 unconnected remote libraries in the outer 
reaches of rural West Virginia. Project InfoMine will enable unemployed 
miners to find off-site work information or retraining opportunities. 
Expectant mothers will be able to find health, diet, and childcare 
information.
  Commerce NIST laboratories have provided assistance to West Virginia 
businesses, by providing weights and measures services that would not 
otherwise be available or affordable. NIST helped West Virginia 
businesses certify their laboratories to national accreditation 
standards and assisted manufacturers by providing NIST calibration and 
standard reference services.


                 Restoration of the President's Request

  Fortunately, we have achieved funding for the Advanced Technology 
Program at the level of $225 million, although short of the Presidents 
request of $365 million. Restrictions regarding new competitions have 
also been removed. And the TIIAP program is funded at $21.5 million, 
short of the request of $59 million. These programs remain at a viable, 
although not fully supported level.
  Unfortunately, we did not realize the same success with the request 
to fund construction of the NIST Advanced Technology Laboratory, which 
is critical to the modernization of the NIST measurement activities. It 
remains unfunded.
  We will need to return to this important debate next session.
  Mr. President, America is a nation of competitors and innovators. We 
do our best when faced with competition. Well, we are facing increasing 
international competition. This is the time for the Federal Government 
to crank

[[Page S11925]]

up our engine of economic competitiveness, to build partnerships with 
industry, universities and the States.
  West Virginia is doing its part to prepare for the 21st century, by 
helping manufacturers compete, and wiring our schools and libraries to 
the information superhighway. We need the Federal Government to 
maintain its part, to provide national leadership in science and 
technology, and to boost our ability to compete.
  I ask this Congress to continue the progress, to maintain Commerce's 
technology programs, and to help achieve the progress that will be 
needed to ensure a prosperous future for all Americans in the 21st 
century.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
immigration provisions that are now included in the continuing 
resolution.
  It should come as no surprise that it took nearly 5 months after the 
Senate passed this bill for the House and Senate conferees to finally 
be appointed. It should not surprise us that our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle initially drafted this conference report 
amongst themselves, and refused to allow a single democratic amendment 
to be offered during the conference committee. Some changes were made 
when the conference report was merged with the omnibus continuing 
resolution, but the basic provisions were developed in a very partisan 
process.
  And finally, it should come as no surprise that the Senate is 
considering this legislation in the middle of the campaign season. 
Rather than offering any surprises, the circumstances surrounding us is 
a clear confirmation that this legislation is less about combating 
illegal immigration than it is about trying to score political points.
  Let me begin by observing that there is clearly no demonstrable 
support in this Congress, nor in this country, for reducing levels of 
legal immigration.
  Such reductions were stripped from the House bill and omitted from 
the Senate bill. I have said repeatedly that there is some abuse of our 
legal immigration system and we should take appropriate steps to repair 
this process.
  But it is clear that a large majority of this body and the other 
house believes in continuing our longstanding national policy of 
allowing families to reunite, of continuing to allow foreign skilled 
workers to be sponsored by businesses, universities and research 
facilities, and ensuring that the United States continues to be a safe 
haven for those fleeing persecution from around the world.
  Mr. President, for anyone who has witnessed the evolution of this 
legislation, from its inception last spring to the conference report 
language included in the continuing resolution that is before us today, 
it is obvious that the commitment of those of us opposing this 
conference report to combating illegal immigration is just as strong as 
those who are supporting this legislation.
  As virtually every expert on this issue agrees, combating illegal 
immigration must be a two-pronged strategy. The first part of that 
strategy is border enforcement, particularly along the southwestern 
border where tens of thousands of illegal immigrants cross into the 
United States each year.
  I have supported President Clinton's increases in the U.S. border 
patrol and I support the further increases contained in this 
legislation.

  But a comprehensive strategy must also account for those illegal 
immigrants who enter the United States legally, usually on a student or 
a tourist visa, and then remain here unlawfully. This, we know, 
represents up to one-half--one-half Mr. President--of our illegal 
immigration problem.
  So how do you address this problem, known as the visa overstayer 
problem. Some of my colleagues advocate installing a worker 
verification system, where employers would have to verify the 
eligibility status of each worker they hire with the Federal 
Government.
  I have long opposed this approach for a variety of reasons. I think 
it will be a costly burden for our Nation's employers. I think it will 
lead to an inordinate amount of mistakes resulting in too many law-
abiding Americans being denied job opportunities for the wrong reasons. 
I have concerns that the privacy protections for these workers are 
inadequate.
  And that is why the worker verification proposal in this conference 
report causes me serious concern.
  It has been pointed out that the verification pilot programs in this 
bill are purely voluntary. Voluntary for whom, Mr. President? It is 
voluntary for the employers, sure. But not the employees.
  Workers do not get a choice of whether or not their name is fed into 
some Federal Government computer to verify whether or not they are 
eligible to work in the United States.
  Interestingly, both in the Judiciary Committee and here on the Senate 
floor, concern was expressed that these verification proposals could 
lead to some sort of national identification document. The sponsors of 
this bill scoffed at such a notion. They said there was nothing in this 
bill that would create such a document nor require Americans to carry 
one.
  Well, let's just take a look at the final agreement. The legislation 
before us requires that one of the worker verification pilot programs, 
which must involve millions of United States citizens in at least 5 
States, include the use of (quote) ``machine readable documents.''
  Now keep in mind that this conference report already imposes a 
massive Federal mandate on the States by requiring them to only issue 
birth certificates and driver's licenses that conform to Federal 
standards.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Under this legislation, the State 
of Wisconsin will have to issue drivers licenses based on guidelines 
set forth by the Department of Transportation.
  If the DOT tells Wisconsin to add a costly new security feature to 
their licenses, Wisconsin will have to comply. It does not matter how 
much it costs. It does not matter what sort of burden that places on 
the State agency. And it certainly does not matter if the State of 
Wisconsin concludes that such a security feature will cost far more 
than any benefit it will derive.

  I see that the conference report has added language that the Federal 
Government shall make grants available to the States to help pay for 
this new mandate. I am sure that is of little comfort to the states. It 
is clear that considering our fiscal constraint right now, the chances 
of these grants actually being made available through the 
appropriations process is an uphill battle to say the least.
  And that is why this provision continues to draw strong opposition 
from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National 
Association of Counties. So clearly all the talk we have heard over the 
last 2 years about taking power out of the hands of Washington 
bureaucrats and placing it back in the hands of the States and local 
governments was little more than political grandstanding.
  Those were empty words, Mr. President, pure and simple.
  The federalization of these documents was a part of the Senate-passed 
immigration bill. But now we have this new twist, that one of the 
verification programs is to utilize (quote) ``machine-readable 
documents.''
  That means that in those States that are included in this pilot 
program, the applicable State agency will also be responsible for 
ensuring that their drivers licenses or other such documents are 
embroidered with a machine-readable social security number.
  Mr. President, these verification and birth certificate provisions 
alone are enough to oppose this legislation. But there are a number of 
other provisions that were jammed into this conference report that make 
little if any sense.
  Let's look at the triple fence we are now going to build between 
Mexico and Southern California. This is to be a 14-mile-long fence with 
three separate tiers to make it as difficult and painful as possible 
for intruders to navigate. The conference report authorizes $12 million 
for the initial construction of this wall.
  But according to INS, the fence and roads in between the three tiers 
will likely have a final price tag of between $80 and $100 million by 
the time construction is completed.
  One hundred million dollars, Mr. President, for a 14-mile-long fence. 
That works out to be $4,100 a yard, Mr. President; $4,100 for one yard 
of fence and road. I'd like to know who's getting that Government 
contract.
  But it gets worse. During Senate consideration of this legislation, 
language

[[Page S11926]]

was added to the bill that made sure that INS had some input as to 
where these barriers were erected.

  That language has magically disappeared. Instead, the bill provides 
for the construction of the 14-mile long triple fence, (quote) 
``starting at the pacific ocean and extending eastward''.
  It doesn't matter if INS believes the fence would be more effective a 
half-mile away from the ocean. Of course, if I am an illegal immigrant 
and see a huge wall starting at the ocean and extending eastward, I 
might just throw a life preserver on and swim around it. I'm sure this 
triple fence will follow in the footsteps of the other great physical 
barriers, such as the Berlin Wall and the great Maginot Line.
  Mr. President, when this bill left the U.S. Senate last April, there 
was one provision that I thought would make a marked difference in 
terms of focusing in on the 50 percent of illegal immigrants who come 
here by legal means, the so-called visa overstayers.
  It was a provision authored by myself and the junior Senator from 
Michigan Senator Abraham. The Abraham-Feingold language, for the first 
time ever, imposed tough new penalties on those who come here on a 
legal visa and remain in the United States long after the visa has 
expired.
  It required the Attorney General to implement an automated system of 
tracking the arrival and departure of nonimmigrant aliens, permitting 
for the first time computer identification of nonimmigrants who 
overstay their visas. And finally, it authorized over 300 new 
investigators each year for 3 years dedicated solely to the purpose of 
identifying these visa overstayers.
  That bipartisan proposal represented the sort of sensible targeted 
approach to combating illegal immigration that could be supported by 
Senators of all partisan and ideological persuasions. Our strategy for 
combating illegal immigration should not be about building walls, or 
creating a national worker verification system, or placing a brigade of 
marines on the southwestern border, or telling an immigrant family that 
they cannot bring a parent, a child or a spouse into this country.
  It should be about identifying who is and who is not playing by the 
rules, and sending a strong message that there are severe penalties 
that will be enforced against those who choose to break our laws.
  Unfortunately, a change was made to the Abraham-Feingold language in 
the conference report that I believe greatly undermines the 
effectiveness of this provision.
  The Senator from Michigan and I very carefully crafted our language 
to provide a broad-based exception from these penalties for any 
individual who could demonstrate good cause for remaining in the United 
States without authorization. Why were we so careful to include this 
exception, Mr. President? Quite simply, there are many good reasons why 
an individual might not leave the United States immediately after their 
visa expires.

  Perhaps they have become ill. Perhaps a family member has become ill. 
Maybe they need a short extension to raise the money to leave the 
country. There are a variety of reasons, some legitimate, some not. But 
our language would have put the burden on the nonimmigrant to 
demonstrate good cause to the INS. Instead, this conference report 
wipes out that important exception, and essentially only provides an 
exception to a nonimmigrant who has remained in the United States 
because they have a claim for readjustment of status pending at INS.
  That Mr. President, is troublesome,
  And I have serious concerns that this will result in countless 
nonimmigrants being subject to harsh penalties for no fault of their 
own. That is yet another example of sound policy being thrown to the 
wayside for no apparent legitimate reason.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to address the asylum provisions in 
this legislation that the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has so 
eloquently shown to be very troublesome.
  America has a proud history of representing a safe haven for those 
who believe in democracy and who have been tormented for embracing 
particular political and religious viewpoints. It should continue to do 
so.
  We have had, no doubt, serious problems and abuses with our asylum 
system. In the past, too many nonmeritorious claims have been filed, 
and the result has been a massive backlog of pending claims that has 
prevented or delayed more legitimate claims from being processed.
  I do not believe, however, that sort of abuse is adequate 
justification to place countless obstacles in front of those who have 
legitimate asylum claims. Moreover, before we consider passing any 
heavy-handed reforms, we should remember that the Clinton 
administration has made tremendous progress in reforming the asylum 
system in just the past year or so.
  As a result of these new reforms, in the past year alone, new asylum 
claims have been cut in half and INS has more then doubled their 
productivity in terms of processing new claims. Mr. President, these 
promising reforms are in their infancy and we should be very careful 
not to mandate any new restrictions that will impede the progress INS 
is now making and prevent legitimate claims from being considered in as 
expedited fashion as possible.
  The summary exclusion provisions in this legislation are 
unnecessarily harsh and make little sense. This provision states that 
if you are living in a country where you are being persecuted, if the 
regime you are living under is oppressive, and you are forced to 
falsify your papers in order to gain safe passage to the United 
States--this legislation says that you are unwelcome in the United 
States. It literally shuts the door on thousands of asylum seekers who 
find themselves in this position.

  Mr. President, I do not understand what the authors of this language 
could possibly be thinking. Often we hear the well-publicized cases of 
persons seeking asylum in this country, whether it is Fidel Castro's 
daughter or members of the Cuban national baseball team.
  But most people who are seeking asylum aren't relatives of 
celebrities, or famous national athletes. Often, they are working 
people, who are being imprisoned and often tortured for their religious 
or political views. How can we expect these people to walk into a 
government agency in their home country and obtain the necessary 
paperwork to leave that country? We can't Mr. President, and that is 
why I am afraid that this provision will have disastrous consequences 
for a great many individuals seeking political asylum in the United 
States.
  Mr. President, to conclude, the conference report before us has 
turned into little more than an incoherent and unjustifiable attack 
against immigrants and refugees. There are 100 senators in this body 
who are genuinely committed to reducing illegal immigration and 
punishing those who choose to break our laws.
  Unfortunately, I think it is clear that what some of our colleagues 
could not do directly in terms of reducing legal immigration is being 
accomplished indirectly. You can do it by cracking down on legal 
immigrants who use welfare. You can do it by cracking down on 
persecuted individuals seeking asylum. You can do it in a host of ways, 
and I am afraid that is exactly what this conference report has 
accomplished.
  Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I wish to engage my esteemed colleague 
Chairman D'Amato in a brief colloquy to clarify two items pertaining to 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA] amendments contained in the H.R. 
4278, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. First, the 
House of Representatives in negotiations over the weekend deleted a 
Senate-approved measure which would have codified the permissibility of 
direct marketing under the FCRA. The deletion leaves the law silent on 
this issue, retaining the status quo. The House action does not reflect 
any congressional intent regarding the extent to which direct marketing 
is permissible under FCRA.
  The second item relates to a requirement imposed under section 609 of 
the FCRA for personnel being accessible to consumers. The requirement 
that personnel be available under normal business hours is not intended 
in any manner to interfere with the use of automated menu telephone 
systems which provide the consumers with a range of options. The 
standard is satisfied as long as the system provides a consumer the 
option to speak to a live operator at some point in the audio menu.
  Does the chairman confirm these understandings?

[[Page S11927]]

  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes, Senator Bryan. I agree with your assessment on 
these points.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my 
disappointment that the banking provisions contained in H.R. 4278, the 
Omnibus Appropriations bill, do not contain common-sense requirements 
that bank employees who sell insurance be subject to the same State 
licensing requirements as insurance agents.
  There are many parts of the banking section with which I am pleased, 
particularly the final resolution of the financial crisis that was 
looming over both the Savings Association Insurance Fund [SAIF] and the 
Bank Insurance Fund [BIF]. However, while the House and Senate leaders 
went to great lengths to include regulatory relief legislation that 
benefits the banks, they failed to include any similar relief for tens 
of thousands of independent insurance agents across the country.
  In many respects, the story of most independent insurance agents is 
the story of the American dream. In cities, towns and villages 
throughout the Nation, these men and women are the small business 
people who provide the foundation for local economic success. In 
addition to providing economic opportunity in their community, 
independent agents are often the same people who lead the local Rotary 
Club or Lions Club, who chair the P.T.A. or who spend their weekends 
coaching little league.
  But these people are under great strain from a competitive 
environment that is increasingly favoring the banks over the agents. 
The banks' advantage is growing because recent court rulings have given 
great powers to the bank regulators to allow banks to sell insurance 
products. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not take issue with the way 
in which the regulators have been performing their duties. The problem 
stems from the fact that the regulators mandate requires them to make 
decisions based solely upon the impact those decisions will have on the 
banking industry. No regulator could--even if it wanted to--take into 
account how their rulings would impact on tens of thousands of hard-
working independent insurance agents.
  That is why I was so disappointed that this common-sense provision 
requiring State licensing was not included in the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill.
  In point of fact, Mr. President, this licensing provision was taken 
almost verbatim from the interim guidelines on insurance sales issued 
by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the main regulator of 
national banks.
  A consumer who is purchasing an insurance product should have the 
confidence to know that the person selling the insurance has the same 
education requirements, passed the same tests, is subject to the same 
rules of conduct--whether that individual sells insurance at a bank or 
at an independent agency. Yet for some inexplicable reason, this very 
modest, pro-consumer amendment was vehemently resisted by powerful 
forces within the banking industry.
  Mr. President, this is not an issue that will simply go away. 
Although there was not an appropriate opportunity to offer this 
amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations bill, neither I, nor many of my 
colleagues, will stand idly by and watch thousands of hard-working men 
and women lose their jobs because of a regulatory scheme that cannot, 
by statute, take their well-being into account. I can assure my 
colleagues, as well as those representing the financial industries, 
that when the next Congress considers legislation dealing with bank 
powers and financial restructuring, I will be a forceful advocate on 
behalf of the legitimate concerns of America's independent insurance 
agents.


             high intensity drug trafficking areas program

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to address my friend from Alabama 
regarding the issue of funding for new High Intensify Drug Trafficking 
Areas (HIDTAs) in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. 
I seek a clarification of the report language that accompanies the 
Treasury-Postal title of this bill, which earmarks specified amounts 
for new HIDTAs, including $3,000,000 for a newly designated HIDTA in 
the State of Colorado. I inquire as to whether my colleague from 
Alabama is aware that the HIDTA application originally submitted by the 
State of Colorado has been updated to include the States of Wyoming and 
Utah in a Rocky Mountain HIDTA?
  Mr. SHELBY. I would say to my friend that at the time this bill was 
drafted and I was not aware of that development.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would ask my friend from Alabama if he feels the 
existing report language could preclude those funds currently earmarked 
for the State of Colorado from being applied to all Members of the 
Rocky Mountain HIDTA.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would tell my friend that I have encouraged the Drug 
Czar to work in terms of regional cooperation rather than focusing on 
individual States, and I am pleased to learn that the Rocky Mountain 
States are pursuing such an association. To that end, I would agree 
with the Senator from Wyoming that this money should go to meeting the 
updated application's program objectives.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would further inquire if it is still possible for the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy to consider using some of their 
discretionary funds to provide additional funding for the Rocky 
Mountain HIDTA?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes. Although the bill sets out minimum amounts to be 
transferred to state and local entities for drug control activities, I 
would certainly encourage the Director to transfer additional funds 
where needed for appropriate state and regional efforts.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my friend for his courtesy, and for his many 
hours of tireless work on this bill.


        Commerce, State and Justice FY 1997 Appropriations Bill

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Department of 
Commerce technology programs that I believe were underfunded in the 
original Senate appropriations bill for Commerce State Justice as 
reported by committee, and are better funded in this Continuing 
Resolution. The programs that I am referring to are important to the 
future of the U.S. economy--to our economic security, global 
competitiveness and high-skilled jobs. Without these types of 
technology programs in place, I am concerned that America could lose 
the technological innovation race as it confronts our international 
competitors. These technology programs help America compete in the 
global marketplace and are helping to make our economy stronger. The 
irony is that by cutting technology programs we would be cutting 
programs that are already making our economy stronger. I am concerned 
that the cuts originally proposed in the Commerce Appropriations bill 
would have helped lead to an undermining of the foundation that links 
our support of scientific research to technologies which have the 
potential to continue to keep America at the forefront of global 
leadership. I am very pleased that many of these cuts have been 
corrected in the Continuing Resolution.
  The Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill as reported by 
Senate Committee provided inadequate funding to Commerce technology 
programs. If it had been left unchanged, this bill could have led to 
the unraveling of investments the Senate has long supported to advance 
our nation's civilian technological competitiveness. The late Secretary 
Ron Brown and other Administration leaders worked diligently with the 
ranking member on this Subcommittee, Senator Hollings, and others in 
Congress, to develop Federal programs that link up with the private 
sector to foster new ideas that may underpin the next generation of 
products. These provide some of the small number of information 
channels that assure that the ideas generated in our world class 
research institutions evolve in the marketplace. I commend the Commerce 
Department's hard work and foresight in recognizing that America has 
entered a new era, an era where economic battles are fought as fiercely 
as military actions. The Commerce technology programs that were 
initiated with bipartisan support arm us with the best equipment and 
strategies we have to surmount our international competitors' efforts.
  Our technology edge in the marketplace for the past half century has 
translated directly into high tech jobs for our workplace, new markets 
for American business, improvements in our balance of trade, and from 
this economic success, revenues for our treasury. The original Senate 
bill proposed

[[Page S11928]]

to deplete resources from one of the basic long-term building blocks of 
our economic growth: applied research and development.
  Our global competitors must be chuckling at our muddled vision. Japan 
has announced plans to double its R&D spending by the year 2000; it 
will surpass the United States in nondefense R&D in total dollars 
spent; it is already passing us in R&D expenditures as a share of GDP. 
This is an historic reversal. Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, China, South 
Korea and India are also aggressively promoting R&D investment. Our 
lead in R&D has been our historic competitive advantage. While our 
competitors are increasing their R&D investments, both public and 
private R&D investment is being cut in the U.S. If these global trends 
in R&D spending continue, America will rue the day it lost its R&D lead 
and therefore its technology lead. The leading ecocomic studies show 
that technology innovation has contributed to half or more of our 
economic growth for the past half century. By allowing our R&D lead to 
erode, we are jeopardizing our future economic growth.
  The technology programs at Commerce are not a large part of our total 
R&D investment. Why should we be particularly concerned about them? A 
number of the Commerce programs are the connectors, the infrastructure, 
between the basic research establishment and the evolution of 
technologies into practical use. They are highly efficient investments, 
leveraging Federal dollars with matching private investment to ensure 
risk sharing and therefore prudent investment and improved liklihood of 
investment results. The cuts in the original Senate version of this 
appropriations bill took aim at the new and evolving infrastructure of 
technology development, which is why they were so serious.
  The Technology Administration at the Department of Commerce houses 
many of the critical components of technology development and we need 
to ensure that its key functions are maintained. The technology 
programs I am particularly concerned about are the Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP), the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP), the 
completion of the Advanced Technology Laboratory construction and 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
Technology and Information Infrastructure Grants Program (TIIAP). In 
total, these programs ARE the tools I mentioned earlier that make up 
the comprehensive and efficient effort to retain our technology 
leadership.
  I will focus my attention on two programs that were hit hard by the 
original Senate Appropriations bill: ATP and the NIST Advanced 
Technology Laboratory construction. I will also note problems in 
cutting the NTIA grant program.
  I am pleased that the original Senate bill did recognize the 
importance of the Manufacturing Extension Program by providing it 
substantial funding, as does the Continuing Resolution, providing $95 
million for FY 1997. The MEP program is in the process of reaching 
small and mid-sized businesses in nearly every state with new advanced 
technology options.


                      Advanced Technology Program

  ATP was enacted during the Bush administration to address technical 
challenges facing U.S. industry. This program adeptly addresses the 
development of high-risk, long-term technologies by top-notch firms, 
including small-to-medium sized companies, in a way that respects the 
marketplace and avoids inappropriate government intrusion. In an 
independent study, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International 
(SEMI), an association comprised of 1,400 small companies that 
manufacture materials and equipment for semiconductor manufacturers, 
found that 100 per cent of the companies who participated in the ATP 
Program rated it very favorably. Likewise, nearly two-thirds of the 
modest sampling of ATP-award companies surveyed by the Industrial 
Research Institute, an association of over 260 research companies who 
account for 80 per cent of industrially-performed R&D, rated ATP with 
very high marks. The various reviews of ATP show that it has 
effectively acted as a catalyst to develop new technologies and to 
foster ongoing joint ventures within industrial R&D.

  In my view, we should continue to support this program and we should 
restore the President's fiscal year 1997 request of $345M. The original 
Senate bill proposed funding for the Advanced Technology Program at a 
level of only $60 million, slashing $285 million from the President's 
request. This bill provided inadequate funding to support current 
commitments and included language prohibiting new awards. Clearly, the 
ATP cuts in this bill would have severely handicapped and ultimately 
annihilated the ATP program. The Senate bill also disregarded the 
bipartisan agreement reached last year to stop the train wreck and to 
maintain funding for ATP. I am very pleased that the final Continuing 
Resolution restores significant authority to the ATP program, funding 
it at $225 million, including funding for new ATP awards as well as to 
continue existing awards. This is a major improvement and I thank the 
President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, and his staff; Senator 
Hollings and Scott Gudes and Pat Windham of his staff; Appropriations 
Chairman Hatfield, and the others involved who were able to negotiate 
this change. It's not full funding, and this is an investment program 
that should be expanding, but it is an important step back on track.
  The restrictions in the original bill that would have prohibited 
funding for awards to be made resulting from the ATP competition 
announced in May 1996, have been removed in the Continuing Resolution. 
I note that ATP has some carryover funds set aside for this purpose 
and, as noted, there is additional funding for new proposals in the 
final CR funding level. If this restrictive language had not been 
removed and we had cancelled the 1996 ATP competition, we would have 
had to face many justifiably upset entrepreneurs and medium-sized 
businesses who have invested major resources in forming consortia and 
in preparing grant proposals. The worst losers would have been the 
public which would miss out on some very promising technologies. I am 
very pleased we did not have to face that problem.


            NIST Advanced Technology Laboratory Construction

  U.S. industry's ability to produce high quality products ranging from 
semiconductor to CAT scanners depends on the accuracy of primary 
measurements conducted at NIST. Universities and industries depend on 
new NIST measurement methods to overcome experimental obstacles with 
regards to the study of a plethora of scientific research such as 
materials science, advanced manufacturing, enzyme structures, to name a 
few. NIST's laboratories in Gaithersburg are now 30 years old and must 
be updated to improve and automate controls for temperature, dust 
levels, vibrations, and humidity. The factors are critical to accurate 
measurement required for precision national measurement standards. 
Standard-setting, which reaches across a vast range of affected 
industries, and is conducted in close cooperation with those 
industries, is clearly an appropriate governmental role, and has been 
so for over a century. Extremely precise standard-setting is crucial 
for industrial efficiencies and advances in a host of interdependent 
industries.

  The administration requested $105 million for the construction of the 
NIST Advanced Technology Laboratory [ATL], which has been undergoing 
five years of extensive planning, research, design, and review. The 
Senate Appropriations Committee eliminated funding for building the 
urgently needed NIST ATL. Unfortunately, the Continuing Resolution did 
not correct this problem. I am concerned that unless this action is 
corrected next year, and this project moved ahead, there will be severe 
consequences for the future ability of NIST's laboratories to serve 
U.S. industry and science, halting in mid-stream a multi-year project 
that has garnered strong bipartisan and industrial support. If we allow 
this construction delay to prevail, the American taxpayer will 
ultimately pay a higher dollar, on the order of tens of millions of 
dollars, due to contract termination or suspension costs, costs for 
restarting the expert team, and inflation. These improvements cannot be 
delayed much longer and the price of delay is on the taxpayer.


                              NTIA GRANTS

  I also note that the original Senate bill cut all funding for the 
Commerce

[[Page S11929]]

National Telecommunications and Information Administration's [NTIA] 
Technology and Information Infrastructure Grants Program [TIIAP]. These 
programs serve an important purpose in connecting public schools, 
libraries and hospitals to state of the art telecommunication services 
and the Internet, through a highly competitive, cost-shared grant 
program. TIIAP programs demand high community involvement to be 
successful. The President's request of $59 million would have funded 
approximately 200 innovative telecommunication application projects and 
would leverage additional matching funds of over $100 million. To state 
it simply, an education system with out connections to the new 
information infrastructure is not a modern education system, and given 
the demands of a competitive global economy, we must make these 
connections. To end the NTIA grants would have been a serious error. I 
am pleased that the Continuing Resolution revisited this issue and 
restored $21.5 millon for this program.
  To conclude, now is not the time to drop out of the global R&D race 
and shift toward a path of technology bankruptcy. I was concerned that 
the cuts in key technology programs originally proposed in the Senate 
Appropriations bill moved in this direction. I am very pleased that the 
Continuing Resolution corrected some of the worst problems in the 
Senate bill. Sen. Hollings, who has long been an able leader in the 
Senate on technology issues, I know strongly shares these concerns. 
Again, I appreciate his efforts and the efforts of the administration 
and of Chairman Hatfield in negotiating the improvements in this 
Continuing Resolution. Had the corrections not been made, I would have 
been concerned that the original bill could have started a process of 
throwing away tools that are key to building a better future and 
stronger economy for our country.


  APPROPRIATIONS FOR DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR FISCAL 
                          YEARS 1997 AND 1998

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wish to express my disappointment that 
the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 does not include 
funding for research and development in the area of converting salt 
water to fresh water.
  Although, with the assistance of the Senator from Nevada Mr. [Reid], 
we did make a breakthrough in this Congress by passing legislation that 
authorizes funding for research and development into desalination, we 
failed to appropriate funds for this important research.
  The United States was the world leader in desalination research 
during the 1960's, but Federal Government support was eliminated during 
the 1970's. It is vital that the United States again take the lead in 
desalination research and technology.
  We are in a situation where, depending on whose estimates you 
believe, in the next 45 to 60 years we will double the world's 
population. Our water supply, however, is constant. Clearly, we are 
headed toward major problems. The reality is the cost of fresh water is 
gradually going up, the cost of desalinating water is gradually coming 
down, but there is a gap that remains. That gap is going to hurt us 
unless we move in the area of research.
  Converting salt water to fresh water is currently inexpensive enough 
for drinking purposes. Almost 90 percent of the water used in the 
world, however, is for industrial and agricultural purposes. Producing 
enough fresh water from saline water to grow crops and supply factories 
with water in arid parts of the world remains far too expensive.
  In a report on desalination authorizing legislation, the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works expressed the significance of 
desalination research and development, stating, ``The United States 
should renew its commitment to developing this key technology and once 
again move the United States to the forefront of desalination 
technology and development.''
  Mr. President, the ability to efficiently convert salt water to fresh 
water is vital to the future of our country. It is vital to the future 
of civilization. For this reason, I am pleased that the Senator from 
Nevada will be taking the lead in assuring that funding for 
desalination research and development is included in any supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997, and in specific appropriations for 
fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Illinois for his leadership on this important issue.
  I recognize the need for research and development and public 
investment in desalination technology. I am pleased to see that 
authorizing legislation was passed in this Congress for desalination 
research, and it was a pleasure to work with the Senator from Illinois 
as a cosponsor of his legislation. I will work to ensure that funds for 
desalination research and development are appropriated in the 105th 
Congress, through both supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 
1997, and in appropriations for fiscal year 1998.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am delighted the Senate is 
prepared to act on and approve the pending omnibus appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1997. I would like to commend the leaders of the 
Appropriations Committee, as well as the majority and minority leaders 
and the White House for their diligence in negotiating this compromise 
appropriations legislation. I am delighted that we have been able to 
put aside our differences and are prepared to pass a bill before the 
start of the next fiscal year.
  This compromise stands in stark contrast to the acrimony and bitter 
partisanship that dominated the fiscal year 1996 budget and 
appropriations debate. I know that every one of my colleagues remembers 
the numerous continuing resolutions--many of them crafted by the 
Congress specifically to draw a Presidential veto--and the multiple 
shutdowns that closed parts of the Government for 27 days last year.
  We have come a long way since last year's debate. We have come an 
especially long way in the area of education. The first budget 
documents considered by the 104th Congress contained unprecedented, 
extreme, and harmful cuts to education and job training programs.
  The first budget and appropriations bills considered by this Congress 
proposed an $18 billion reduction in the Pell Grant Program, and a 40-
percent reduction in the value of individual Pell grants. This Congress 
suggested $10.6 billion in student loan cuts, a tax on colleges and 
universities who participate in the student loan programs, and an 
interest-rate increase for parents who take out certain loans to help 
their children through college. This Congress tried to completely 
eliminate the successful and popular direct loan program, and the 6-
month grace period before students must begin to repay loans after 
graduation.
  Fortunately, none of these proposals became law. They would have 
increased the cost of higher education for nearly all of the millions 
of American students who are enrolled in colleges and universities with 
the help of financial assistance. This backtracking on the Federal 
Government's commitment to providing access to higher education would 
have come at exactly the time the cost of higher education was soaring 
to new heights. According to a study released by the General Accounting 
Office last month, the cost of public, 4-year colleges and universities 
has increased 234 percent over the last 15 years--nearly three times as 
much median household income.
  Mr. President, we have come a long way for higher education since 
those early proposals. Instead of slashing the program and cutting the 
size of individual Pell grants, the bill before us today increases 
funding for the program by $1.3 billion, and raises the size of 
individual awards to $2,700. This bill increases funding for work-study 
programs by $213 million, providing about 960,000 jobs for low- and 
middle-income college students. This bill fully funds the direct loan 
program, allowing colleges and universities that choose to do so, to 
enroll in the program at will.
  The first budget and appropriations bills considered by this Congress 
would have denied Head Start to 350,000 preschool children, cut 2 
million children off of title I reading and math support, and cut back 
programs to keep schools safe and drug free for 39 million students. 
This Congress suggested that it would be appropriate to zero out Goals 
2000, eliminate the National and Community Service Program, and 
eliminate summer jobs for millions of American students.
  Fortunately, none of these proposals became law either--and for the 
first

[[Page S11930]]

time since the start of the 104th Congress, the Senate is about to 
approve a measure that increases funding for Head Start, fully funds 
the title I program and fully funds Goals 2000. For the first time in 2 
years, this Congress is poised to make progress toward improving the 
quality of, and expanding access to, educational opportunities for all 
Americans.
  I am especially pleased with the increase in funding for education 
technology. This bill increases funding for education technology by 
nearly 400 percent over last year, to a record-high $305 million. These 
funds will help States leverage additional funding to wire schools, 
connect them to the Internet, train teachers, and provide all of our 
children with a 21st century education.
  We have indeed come a long way, and the legislation before us today 
represents a dramatic improvement over proposals initially considered 
by this Congress. There is still much work to be done.
  According to the General Accounting Office, decades of neglect of the 
facilities themselves has resulted in $112 billion worth of needed 
repair, maintenance, and construction, just to bring them up to good, 
overall condition. This price tag does not include the cost of wiring 
our schools for computers and other information technology that our 
children must learn in order to remain competitive in the 21st century.
  The $112 billion price tag does not include the cost of expanding 
facilities to meet the needs of climbing enrollment. The Department of 
Education reports that this year's enrollment is the highest ever, and 
the number of children enrolling in school will continue to climb for 
the next decade. Next year, I will introduce legislation that will help 
school districts leverage funds to repair, upgrade, and modernize their 
facilities so our schools may serve our children in the 21st century.
  I also intend to examine the increasing unaffordability of college 
next year when Congress reauthorizes many of the higher education 
programs. At precisely the time when college is more important to 
opportunity than ever before, we cannot afford to price an increasing 
number of middle-class Americans out of a higher education.
  Mr. President, the 104th Congress has not been friendly to education. 
Bill after bill has proposed slashing education funding and limiting 
opportunity for millions of American students. I am very pleased that 
for the first time the legislation before us today takes a different 
tact, expanding educational opportunities.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 105th Congress to 
continue to improve the quality of education for all Americans.


                         Privatizing Connie Lee

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of my 
legislation, included in the continuing resolution, to privatize the 
College Construction Loan Insurance Association, better known as Connie 
Lee.
  For 10 years now, I have focused a great deal of attention and effort 
on Connie Lee legislation. I was there at its birth in 1986 as the 
author of the legislation creating Connie Lee, which passed as a part 
of the Higher Education Act amendments. And, today, as this legislation 
privatizing Connie Lee passes, I feel like a parent watching a child 
graduate from college to head out on her own.
  Connie Lee was created with a vital and focused mission--to assist 
colleges in the repair, modernization and construction of their 
facilities. Like many institutions, colleges and universities need 
multi year financing to keep up with their construction and renovation 
needs. For institutions with strong financial backing and large 
endowments, issuing bonds and securing capital has not been a major 
problem. Institutions that are less secure and have a lower bond 
rating, however, face major obstacles in obtaining the necessary 
financing.
  It was clear to us in 1986 that we, as a nation, have a major stake 
in assuring that our higher education institutions sit on a strong 
foundation--both literally and figuratively. Connie Lee was created to 
address this need and, since its incorporation in 1987, it has provided 
increased access to the bond markets for more than 100 needy 
institutions through bond insurance. Connie Lee has insured bond issues 
totaling over $2.5 billion and has assisted institutions such as the 
University of Denver, the University of Massachusetts Medical School, 
community colleges, and numerous other institutions in nearly every 
State.
  With its significant record, Connie Lee has clearly proven its 
maturity and strength. Since its founding, Connie Lee has maintained 
its triple-A financial rating, and a recent Standard and Poor's report 
confirmed its strong financial position. The initial Federal investment 
of $19 million has clearly worked to form a strong and vibrant company, 
ready to sever its ties and fully privatize.
  The privatization language included in this bill is quite 
straightforward and very similar to the administration's privatization 
bill, which I introduced last June. It repeals the section of the 
Higher Education Act that authorized the creation of Connie Lee and 
governs its activities. In addition, it requires that the Secretary of 
the Treasury sell the Federal Government's 15-percent share in Connie 
Lee within the next few months.
  Mr. President, as simple as it sounds, this legislation is the 
product of a great deal of work. I would first like to thank my 
colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, who has been an incredible 
partner in this effort. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance 
of the Departments of Treasury and Education, the staff of Connie Lee, 
and those in the private sector, who with their broad experience 
provided invaluable assistance in putting this bill together.
  In an era when we hear so much about bad government, Connie Lee is an 
excellent example of how government can and does work well. With a 
modest Federal investment, Connie Lee has grown to be a dynamo in 
helping colleges repair their aging facility just as we had hoped in 
1986. Connie Lee will continue this work, but no longer needs our 
venture capital. With this legislation, the Federal Government will 
sell its shares and recoup a good cash return on its original 
investment.
  Mr. President, this is good legislation and I look forward to its 
passage as part of the larger continuing resolution.


                              Section 208

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the omnibus appropriations bill contains 
a provision in the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations area that 
needs clarification. Section 208 prevents the administration and 
councils from using funds to implement any individual fishing quota 
[IFQ] programs until fees are expressly authorized for such programs 
under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This fee 
authority recently passed both the House and Senate and will soon be 
signed into law by the President, but there is some confusion about the 
implication of this appropriations provision on a particular IFQ 
program designed to regulate bycatch.
  Section 118 of the Sustainable Fisheries Act amends section 313 of 
the Magnuson Act to provide authority for the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council to establish a Vessel Bycatch Accountability [VBA] 
program under section 313(g)(2). As Senator Stevens made clear during 
debate on the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the authority to collect a fee 
under section 304(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Magnuson Act for actual costs 
directly related to the management and enforcement of IFQ programs 
applies as well to any VBA program created under section 313(g)(2). 
Therefore, the express authorization of fees for a VBA program is 
contained within the express authorization of IFQ fees in section 
304(d)(2)(A)(i), except that, as Senator Stevens mentioned during the 
debate, the fees in the VBA fishery should not exceed one percent of 
the annual ex-vessel value of the target fish in the fishery.
  It is therefore clear that once the Sustainable Fisheries Act has 
been enacted, section 208 will no longer apply to the VBA program I 
have described. It will in no way prevent the Council from developing 
and the Secretary from approving and implementing a VBA program, 
consistent with the requirements of section 313(g)(2) and other 
provisions of the Magnuson Act.
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur with the Senator from Washington. The express 
authorization of fees in the Magnuson

[[Page S11931]]

Act to pay for the costs of administering plans, amendments and 
regulations that include IFQ programs results in the repeal of section 
208. Because the VBA program that Senator Murray has described fits 
within the definition of an IFQ, upon enactment of the Sustainable 
Fisheries Act, the moratorium in section 208 will no longer be 
applicable to the VBA program.
  As I mentioned in my discussion with Senator Murray about section 
208, the Sustainable Fisheries Act's express authorization of fees to 
pay for the costs of administering plans, amendments and regulations 
that create IFQ programs results in a repeal of section 208. Once the 
President signs the Sustainable Fisheries Act, section 208 will be 
completely repealed.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the chairman for 
reporting out a bill that provides funding for many important programs, 
while at the same time moving toward our goal of balancing the budget. 
Of particular interest to me, this bill funds the activities of the 
Federal Communications Commission which is currently undertaking the 
important task of implementing the historic Telecommunications Act of 
1996.
  Mr. President, I would like to raise a concern that many of us have 
relating to the FCC's implementation of the act, and I would therefore 
ask the indulgence of the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
to allow me to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the 
authorizing committee, the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the chairman. In addition to advocating a 
regulatory framework that encourages and promotes competition in the 
telecommunications industry, I have been particularly concerned that 
small and entrepreneurial firms are allowed to compete on a level 
playing field in all industry sectors in the United States and global 
economies. Indeed, with passage of the Telecommunications Act, Congress 
sought to provide opportunities for small businesses to participate in 
the telecommunications industry while also moving the entire industry 
toward a more competitive framework overall. Section 257 of the Act 
directs the FCC to ``identify and eliminate * * * market entry barriers 
for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and 
ownership of telecommunications services. * * *''
  Mr. President, this is very clear and precise language and should 
leave no question as to the intent of Congress on matters relating to 
small businesses. Nevertheless, it has come to my attention that the 
FCC, in two recent rulemaking decisions relating to new satellite 
services, has adopted stringent financial standards, the practical 
effect of which is to erect market entry barriers to telecommunications 
ownership by entrepreneurs, small businesses and similar entities.
  Under the Commission's strict financial standard, applicants are 
required to demonstrate financial qualifications either on the basis of 
a corporate balance sheet or alternatively, on the basis of fully 
negotiated, irrevocable funding commitments from outside sources. This 
standard unfairly favors large corporations who may submit a balance 
sheet as part of their licensing application, regardless of whether the 
funds reflected on paper are actually committed to the project and even 
though the corporate giant, like its smaller competitors, will likely 
turn to external financiers and investors to ultimately fund its 
system. In fact, the award of all satellite licenses in one of the 
proceedings I refer to have gone to large corporations. In contrast, 
applications from small entrepreneurial companies have been deferred 
because they have been held to the stricter test requiring proof that 
funds have been irrevocably committed by others on behalf of their 
entire project. This is a very high hurdle to clear.
  Although numerous small businesses, as well as the Small Business 
Administration and a number of U.S. Senators and Congressmen, have 
raised concerns about these strict financial standards with the FCC, we 
have received no adequate response from the FCC, nor has the Commission 
modified its policy in this area.
  To the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee I ask: Was it 
the intent of Congress with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 to encourage the FCC to ease the regulatory framework and 
encourage competition in the telecommunications industry? And, further, 
was it the intent of Congress that regulations that act as market entry 
barriers to small and entrepreneurial businesses be identified and 
eliminated as soon as possible?
  Mr. PRESSLER. The Senator is correct. The primary thrust of the 
historic act was to ensure increased competition in the 
telecommunications industry by scaling back regulations and allowing 
free market forces to operate in this area. The Senator is also correct 
in noting that section 257 of the act specifically directs the 
Commission to identify and dismantle impediments to small business 
ownership and provision of telecommunications services.
  Mr. SHELBY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Any may I then ask: Is 
it true that section 257 of the Telecommunications Act, which ensures 
that small businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged by Federal 
regulations, was supported by both parties?
  Mr. PRESSLER. The Senator is correct. This provision, which 
originated in the other body, was agreed to on a bipartisan basis. 
Section 257 directs the Commission to develop meaningful opportunities 
for small businesses to participate in the ownership and provision of 
telecommunications services. This language applies to all Commission 
activities in the area of telecommunications. It does not make 
exception for activities such as the application of financial 
qualification standards.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I have one final question for the chairman 
of the Commerce Committee for purposes of clarifying that the intent of 
Congress with the Telecommunications Act is to ensure that the 
marketplace, not the U.S. Government or a regulatory body, decides who 
the winners and losers in this industry will be. In the case of the 
strict financial standard imposed by the FCC for satellite system 
applicants, it seems to me that rather than making a judgment on what 
the FCC may feel is a company's financial ability to compete, perhaps 
the FCC should focus more on technical considerations for licenses, 
leaving the ultimate success or failure of an applicant to the 
marketplace where it appropriately belongs. Will the chairman continue 
to work with me and others to ensure that the FCC implements the law 
according to our intent, particularly as this relates to small and 
entrepreneurial ventures and financial standards applicable to these 
important participants?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I can assure my colleagues that the Commerce Committee 
will closely follow actions taken by the Commission in areas such as 
satellite licensing to ensure that the intent of Congress is carried 
out. Congress must ensure that the FCC's actions are complementary, not 
contrary, to the forces of the free market and open competition.
  Mr. SHELBY: I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee for all 
the work he has undertaken to ensure the American people have access to 
services which are developed in a free and open marketplace, and I 
thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for permitting our 
discussion of this most important and timely issue.


               whitefish point lighthouse land conveyance

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address the inadvertent 
omission of important report language relating to the transfer of the 
lighthouse at Whitefish Point, MI, from the Coast Guard Authorization 
Act of 1996.
  Built in 1849, the lighthouse at Whitefish Point was Lake Superior's 
first lighthouse. As I am sure my colleague from Michigan, and anyone 
else familiar with the perils of maritime transport on Lake Superior 
will tell you, in its 15 decades of operation the lighthouse has 
undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives.
  In response to the present need to justify budgets, the U.S. Coast 
Guard, working to meet its numerous national priorities, decided to 
permit the transfer of ownership to responsible parties. Several 
organizations stepped forward, and this legislation makes possible the 
transfer of this historical site to three interested parties: the Great 
Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and the Michigan Audubon Society.
  Disagreements arose between the interested parties over the ability 
to construct or expand facilities at the site.

[[Page S11932]]

As a conferee to the Coast Guard reauthorization, I developed a 
clarifying clause to be included in the conference report to accompany 
the bill to try and put this dispute to rest. This language represented 
an agreement between Representative Stupak and myself, and it struck a 
reasonable compromise between the concerned parties. Regrettably, this 
language was not included in the final report as we had come to expect. 
The aforementioned clause was as follows: ``Nothing in this section is 
to be interpreted as exempting development of the land conveyed under 
this section from applicable Federal, State or Local laws.''
  Mr. President, this is a matter that is important to many people in 
the State of Michigan. It troubles me this language did not make it 
into the conference report.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret that the language requested by 
the Senator from Michigan was not included in the report language. I 
wish to assure Senator Abraham and Senator Levin that this was due to 
an administrative oversight. It was the Senate's intent that this 
language be included in the conference report, and to my knowledge, 
there was no objection in the House.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman and the ranking member for their consideration and all their 
hard work. Their help will ensure that transfer of this property takes 
place smoothly and it will allow the concerned organizations to focus 
their attention and resources toward preserving this rich historical 
site.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also wish to thank the Senator from 
Alaska for his willingness to address this matter. And, I appreciate my 
colleague from Michigan's efforts to move these transfers and to 
clarify the intent of Congress regarding the Whitefish Point transfer. 
There are important historical preservation and environmental 
protection issues that must be carefully considered regarding this 
sensitive property and any development that occurs there.


                         pesticide data program

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Harkin, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, 
Mr. Bumpers, the chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Mr. Bond, and 
other Senators in a discussion relating to the Pesticide Data Program.
  It is my understanding that the new pesticide legislation requires 
more complete and thorough pesticide residue data collection. Because 
of the sequence of passage of the Agriculture Appropriations Act and 
the Food Quality Protection Act, the Pesticide Data Program, essential 
to collecting pesticide residue data, had been left without funding. 
Would the Senator from Iowa agree with this assessment?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Vermont is correct. The Pesticide Data 
Program, which has been carried out by the Department of Agriculture 
since 1991, has a proven record of collecting data that is critical to 
the proper functioning of our pesticide and food safety laws--from the 
perspectives of both consumers and agricultural producers. It should be 
noted that this program involves contractual agreements with the States 
that are separate from the existing cooperative agreements for 
pesticide enforcement and educational programs between EPA and the 
States.
  The program is specifically designed to collect reliable data 
regarding pesticide residues on food as those foods are consumed. This 
data benefits consumers--and particularly infants and children--because 
regulatory decisions can be based on more accurate assessments of the 
risks associated with pesticide residues in foods. The data is likewise 
beneficial to agricultural producers. Using reliable residue data, and 
more accurate assessments of risk associated with the use of products, 
may allow some pesticides to remain in use that would otherwise have to 
be withdrawn, since without the data EPA would have to assume a higher 
theoretical level of risk from use of a pesticide than is really the 
case.
  The Pesticide Data Program has taken on even more importance with 
enactment of the landmark Food Quality Protection Act, which mandates 
collection of the type of data collected in the Pesticide Data Program 
and depends upon accurate pesticide residue data to work as Congress 
intended. A critical problem arose, though, since no money had been 
appropriated for the Pesticide Data Program in the previously enacted 
agriculture appropriations measure for fiscal 1997.
  Fortunately, the lack of funding has been taken care of in this 
continuing resolution, but I am concerned about the implications of 
providing the money to EPA rather than to USDA, which has extensive 
experience and a solid record of success in carrying out the Pesticide 
Data Program.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to explain the 
events that have led to this program being transferred to the VA/HUD 
Subcommittee. This program was previously funded by the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies and administered 
by the Agricultural Marketing Service through contractual agreements to 
several States for residue testing and information collection in the 
field. Although the Senate bill for fiscal year 1997 USDA spending 
contained this funding, it was dropped in conference at the insistence 
of the House. It was the sense of the House conferees that since the 
program was largely designed to assist the Environmental Protection 
Agency in the reregistration of pesticides, the program would be more 
appropriately funded through EPA.
  Following passage of the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture, Rural 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, Congress enacted 
the Food Quality Protection Act. The Food Quality Protection Act 
modified the tolerance-setting process and made the availability of 
actual pesticide residue information more critical than before. During 
negotiations on the continuing resolution, the question was again 
raised as to the appropriate agency to implement this program. In an 
agreement reached with the House and Senate leadership, and the 
administration, it was decided to fund this program through the 
Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 1997.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Can the Senator from Missouri explain what effect this 
change will have on the collection of residue data?
  Mr. BOND. This change should have little effect on the collection of 
residue data. As the Senator from Arkansas explained, the collection of 
pesticide residue data is achieved through contractual agreements with 
a number of States. This process will continue. The only difference 
will be that the funding for fiscal year 1997 will flow through the 
Environmental Protection Agency rather than the Agricultural Marketing 
Service. This 1-year approach will allow a more timely distribution of 
funds to the States than would otherwise occur if they first had to be 
transferred to USDA.
  Mr. LUGAR. I notice the statement of managers also contends that 
while the program will be managed by the Environmental Protection 
Agency during the initial stages of implementing the Food Quality 
Protection Act, that future funding should be provided by a more 
appropriate Federal agency. I might point out that section 301(c) of 
the Food Quality Protection Act mandates that the Secretary of 
Agriculture ensure the residue data collection activities are carried 
out in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of health and Human Services. Would it be the understanding 
of the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Missouri that 
coordination should continue between the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Agricultural Marketing Service to determine how best to 
manage this program in the future in light of the recent passage of the 
Food Quality Protection Act?

  Mr. BUMPERS. While the Statement of Managers does indicate that 
transfers to other Federal agencies should not occur in fiscal year 
1997, I agree with the Senator from Missouri that this was in order to 
distribute funds more efficiently to the participant States. The Food 
Quality Protection Act has only been signed into law a few weeks and we 
do not yet fully know the extent to which it will enhance the need for 
the information provided by the Pesticide Data Program.
  I certainly expect the Department of Agriculture to explain fully its 
views of how best to proceed with this program in hearings before our 
subcommittee

[[Page S11933]]

next spring. With the expectation that Congress will determine the 
collection of this information is imperative due to the changes in the 
pesticide registration laws, I would hope that the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Agricultural Marketing Service continue to 
coordinate efforts and work together. I would further expect that 
fiscal year 1997 funds not be restricted in such a way as to make this 
coordination difficult. If, as suggested in the Statement of Managers, 
there is a more appropriate Federal agency than the Environmental 
Protection Agency to implement this program, that Federal agency should 
be allowed to work with the Environmental Protection Agency and leave 
the final decision for fiscal year 1998 to the Appropriations 
Committees of the House and Senate.
  Mr. BOND. I agree with the views of the Senator from Arkansas.


                       GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today we enact the Gun Free School Zones 
Act, a measure designed to undo the damage done by Supreme Court's 
decision in United States versus Lopez. In that 1995 decision, the 
Supreme Court by a slim 5 to 4 margin struck down an earlier version of 
this legislation, holding that it exceeded Congress' commerce clause 
power in the Constitution.
  Today we address the Supreme Court's concerns. We do not defy them. 
Yet we do not let their easily addressable concerns stop us from doing 
what is right--doing everything we can to stop the violence in our 
schools. The Gun-Free School Zones Act is a commonsense, bipartisan, 
constitutional approach to combating violence in our schools. It bars 
bringing a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, with a few commonsense 
exceptions. We also now require in this new version that in each 
prosecution the Government prove that the gun ``moved in or * * * 
otherwise affected interstate commerce.'' This is the only change 
between the prior law and this new law.
  We enact this measure under our commerce clause authority. We have 
held hearings on it, and we have heard from prosecutors, law 
professors, teachers, and policemen. They all tell us that interstate 
commerce is what is causing the problem of gun violence in schools. The 
problem of school violence is a national one that begs for national 
attention. Anyone who argues that the problem is an exclusively 
intrastate problem is not looking at the evidence. Interstate commerce 
is creating this problem.
  Sometimes these guns get into children's hands through the efforts of 
nationwide gangs. One 14-year-old Madison, WI gang member told the 
Wisconsin State Journal that the older leaders of his gang brought 
carloads of guns from Chicago to the younger gang members. The Boston 
police recently discovered that all of the handguns being bought by 
gang members in one neighborhood came from Mississippi. The young man 
who was running guns up to Boston was arrested and shootings in the 
neighborhood dropped more than 60 percent, from 91 to 20. And in New 
York, Federal agents traced 4,000 guns seized there to a single store 
in Alabama.

  The unchecked proliferation of guns and their delivery into the hands 
of school-aged children is national in scope. The raw materials for 
guns are mined in one State, are turned into guns in another State, and 
are put into a child's hands in another State. The gangs that arm these 
children and encourage them to bring guns to school operate across 
State lines.
  These guns have infiltrated our school system and created a national 
crisis. A Lou Harris survey this year found that one in eight youths--
two in five in high-crime neighborhoods--reported having carried a gun 
for protection. One in nine said they had stayed away from school 
because of fear of violence. That number jumped to one in three in high 
crime neighborhoods.
  The effects of guns in schools stretches across this Nation. Schools 
and districts with particularly bad gun problems sink deeper and deeper 
into despair. They have difficulty procuring Federal aid or grants from 
national foundations. People will not move from out-of-state to that 
school area because they do not want their children in dangerous 
schools. Businesses will not relocate or establish themselves in areas 
with dangerous school zones.
  Finally, and perhaps most tragically, the children in those schools 
are prevented from learning their ABC's. All they learn is to live in 
terror. Children from Maine to Wisconsin to Alabama to Oregon go to 
school in fear--fear that they may be shot, that their school day will 
consist of nothing but dodging from one perilously dangerous situation 
to another. These children cannot learn and the educational system 
cannot teach. Our national economy is crippled.

  The Federal Government has a role to play in combating this national 
problem. We must put the full weight and investigative abilities of the 
Federal Government behind the drive to keep guns out of school. No 
State should be forced to stand alone in confronting this problem.
  Although many States have their own laws, we need a Federal law for 
two reasons: first, many of these State laws are inadequate; and 
second, a Federal law will serve as a critical support and backup 
system for state law enforcement officials.
  But before dealing with these reasons, I want to point out that the 
measure we pass today will not hamper, preempt, or harm the enforcement 
of those laws in any way whatsoever.
  Although State laws can help address this national problem, not every 
State has a law. And not every State law is adequately drafted to do 
the job. Moreover, in many of these States, people do not serve any 
time for violating the law. In Federal cases, they do. With a Federal 
law, we can fill in loopholes and put violators behind bars for up to 5 
years. In short, the Gun-Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors the 
flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or Federal 
statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher.
  Some States do not have laws which deal with guns in schoolyards. In 
addition, of the forty-plus States that have laws, almost half of them 
simply make it a misdemeanor to bring a gun into school. Unfortunately, 
that has almost no effect on a juvenile who knows that a juvenile 
misdemeanor record is virtually meaningless. A stiff Federal penalty 
means a lot more.
  Some of the States also have weak laws. Take, for example, Alabama. 
Alabama requires that the person charged have brought the gun to school 
with intent to do bodily harm. So you can bring a gun to school, 
disrupt and frighten all of the students but still get off because you 
did not intend to actually shoot anyone. That is unacceptable. 
Alabama's statute also only applies to guns on public school grounds. 
Private schools are uncovered, so anyone can walk into a parochial or 
private school with a gun and without a fear of prosecution.
  And there is still another reason why a Federal law is needed. We 
need Federal and State cooperation to deal with this problem. The 
States need our help. Sometimes they are overwhelmed and need backup. 
Other times, they want to use stiffer Federal penalties. This Gun-Free 
School Zones Act will not preempt a single state law. And after decades 
of dealing with complimentary Federal-State laws, good State and 
Federal prosecutors know how to coordinate their efforts--and Federal 
prosecutors know to step aside when the State has a stiffer law. Just 
ask Bob Wortham, the former Texas U.S. attorney nominated by Senator 
Gramm. Mr. Wortham prosecuted more people under the Gun-Free School 
Zones Act than anyone else. And he did it while getting rave reviews 
from State police, prosecutors, and teachers. This act is a modest but 
useful measure that surely cannot threaten our State governments.
  You will not hear State officials complaining about meddling Federal 
officials. Instead, State officials welcome Federal assistance in this 
area. The Gun-Free School Zones Act assures a Federal-State joint 
venture.
  Mr. President, our measure is clearly constitutional. The original 
Gun-Free School Zones Act was struck down in United States versus 
Lopez. But in drafting this proposal, we consulted with the Justice 
Department and a variety of legal experts who carefully scrutinized 
this bill and concluded it would easily pass the Lopez test.
  In fact, the very provision that has been inserted into the bill to 
make it constitutional was suggested by a section in the Chief 
Justice's opinion in Lopez. In a portion of that opinion, the

[[Page S11934]]

Chief Justice noted that if the law ``contain[ed] * * * [a] 
jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case 
inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate 
commerce,'' then the law would probably be constitutional.
  By requiring an explicit connection with or effect on interstate 
commerce, as our new law will require, Congress will be clearly 
regulating interstate commerce pursuant to its constitutional commerce 
clause power. There are many known instances of gangs traveling to 
other States to equip themselves with guns which they then bring into 
schools. That is what this bill seeks to regulate: the travel of guns 
through interstate commerce to our schoolhouse steps.
  This measure does not, as a few opponents have argued, pave the way 
to Federal regulation of State education. Education is first and last 
the business of the State governments, and so it will remain. This law 
does not get the Federal Government in the business of regulating 
schools. It simply keeps the Government in the business of controlling 
the interstate commerce in guns. Since this bill rests on the Federal 
Government's power to regulate interstate gun commerce, it cannot be 
used to justify Federal regulation of State education.
  It does not make much sense to treat a modest and sensible proposal 
as a major threat to the Federal-State balance. Our Founding Fathers 
were concerned with common sense, not with alarmist predictions about 
the fate of Federal-State relations.
  Mr. President, no one claims that our legislation is a panacea. No 
one claims that the violence will go away if we pass it, just as the 
violence did not go away when the original law was passed. But a 
Federal law can help. The Federal Government can step in and assist 
State prosecutors when they do not have the resources they need. The 
Federal Government can take on particularly bad offenders who will 
receive stiffer penalties in a Federal prosecution. Today, we have 
lived up to our obligation to help.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not want to delay the vote very much 
because I know there are a number of commitments involved. I am 
prepared to use some leader time to wrap up if the former chairman and 
the ranking member would like to go first.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have about 3 minutes. I wish to take just 
a few minutes to commend the work of several key people. I commend the 
House Democratic leader, Mr. Gephardt, who played a very important role 
in the negotiations that took place during last week. He led the House 
and Senate Democrats in that historic budget agreement in 1990, and 
proved himself to be very knowledgeable and capable in matters of the 
Federal budget and, again, confirmed my judgment of his capabilities.
  In addition, Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the Speaker of 
the House, Mr. Gingrich. Congressman Gingrich is one of the most 
interesting personalities that has appeared on the political stage in 
the last quarter century, and his participation in the negotiating 
process was key to the success of this agreement.
  On the Senate side, the tireless work of our two leaders is also to 
be commended. For the Democrats, Senator Daschle has proved to be a 
very effective minority leader. As a former leader, I know well the 
difficult tasks he faces in leading the Senate Democrats, but he has 
been diligent in his efforts to protect Senators' interests while at 
the same time trying to reach consensus as the Senate seeks to complete 
its work.
  The Republican leader, Senator Lott, since assuming his 
responsibilities upon the departure of Senator Dole, has carried out 
his responsibilities very capably.
  He has worked well with the minority leader and Senators on both 
sides of the aisle in moving the Senate's business, and particularly in 
relation to the resolution just agreed to, he was deeply involved and 
most helpful in reaching this agreement. Several thorny issues were 
presented to the Senate majority leader and to the other leaders for 
their final resolution. And they comported themselves admirably and 
well.
  I commend all of the staff who were involved in this very difficult 
negotiations on this omnibus appropriation bill. For the majority 
leader, David Hoppe, and for the minority leader, Larry Stein, were 
involved at every stage of the process and helped resolve many 
difficult issues as they arose. I also commend the full committee staff 
of the Appropriations Committee for their tireless efforts and 
dedicated work: Keith Kennedy, Mark Van de Water, and Dona Pate for the 
majority and Jim English, Terry Sauvain, Dick D'Amato, and Mary Dewald 
for the minority, as well as my chief of staff Barbara Videnieks. Most 
especially, Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the professional 
staff on both sides of the aisle of each subcommittee, without whom we 
would not have been able to have reached this agreement as successfully 
and effectively as we have. As I have said many times in the past, the 
staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee is one of the finest staff 
on Capitol Hill, and they have proved themselves so to be, once again, 
throughout this entire session and, in particular, during the last 
week.
  Last, Mr. President, I note with regret that this is the last 
appropriation bill to be managed by the very able and distinguished 
Senator from Oregon, my colleague and friend, Senator Hatfield. He is a 
most remarkable public servant, and a man of great integrity and 
independence, who has always striven throughout his public career to do 
what is right for the people of the State of Oregon and the Nation, 
rather than what may be politically popular at any given point in time. 
I compliment Mark Hatfield on an outstanding Senate career and, 
particularly, for his outstanding service on the Appropriations 
Committee and for the extraordinary manner in which he has led that 
committee during his 8 years as its chairman.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, want to take just a few moments to 
thank a few people who worked to achieve this final product.
  It is unlike any appropriations bill I ever saw. It may not be 
perfect, but this one is large. It has been involved in a long process.
  I think the result is good, and we are going to get our work done. 
There is not going to be the threat of having to go with the extra 
continuing resolutions, dragging it out, and the threats of potential 
Government shutdowns or any of that sort of thing. We got the work 
done. That is a very important feature.
  I want to say that it could not have happened without the 
extraordinary leadership, the calmness, the demeanor, and the knowledge 
of the chairman of the committee, Senator Mark Hatfield. This is, 
obviously, the last appropriations bill he will handle in his career. I 
have said this about him before, but I think it is certainly true here 
tonight. He has certainly fought the good fight, he has finished the 
race with this monumental achievement here, and he has kept the faith 
with himself, his constituents, and with the Senate. I thank you very 
much for the great work that you have done on this bill and some other 
bills, Mr. Chairman.
  Also, to the ranking member, Senator Byrd. I have found that he has 
always unfailingly been available, cooperative, and helpful in this and 
all matters. He is in many ways the conscience of the Senate. He 
reminds us of things we need to do and the way we should act, and he 
knows so much about what is in this bill, as in every bill. We 
appreciate the very fine cooperation from the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  And to the very fine staff--Keith Kennedy, Jim English. It just 
wouldn't have been possible without all the many long hours that they 
have put in. They have to be exhausted. I don't know how many nights 
they went without much sleep, or any sleep. I know that sort of thing 
has happened before, but I have never seen it to the degree that I have 
this time up close. They did great work, and we thank you very much for 
that work.
  I just have to mention the subcommittee chairman and ranking member 
who worked so hard. They have had to make compromises, and they are not 
very happy with some of it. But the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, and State, Senator Judd Gregg, and the

[[Page S11935]]

ranking member, Senator Fritz Hollings, and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense, Ted Stevens, did a great job.
  This is one of the best parts of this whole effort, in my opinion. 
The defense bill provides what is needed for the defense of our 
country. Ted Stevens really stayed with it, and, also, of course, his 
partner in managing this legislation, the Senator from Hawaii, Senator 
Inouye.
  Senator Mitch McConnell on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee had 
two of the thorniest issues of all to work out. Yet, we came to an 
agreement with regard to the funding and with regard to the language 
concerning the Mexico City issue. Without Senator McConnell's efforts 
and without the long hours, it would not have happened; and the ranking 
member there, Senator Pat Leahy.
  The Interior Committee, Senator Slade Gorton and the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia had a very important part in getting that 
package together. There was a lot of language that was controversial 
there.
  Senator Specter and Senator Harkin on the very large subcommittee 
portion--Labor, Health and Human Services.
  And, finally, the Treasury-Postal Service, Senator Shelby and Senator 
Kerrey. Senator Shelby was there with us at about 1 a.m. on Saturday 
morning because there were some unresolved issues.
  There are many members of my own staff that I would like to have 
their names put in the Record because of the long hours that they put 
into working with different sections of this bill: My chief of staff, 
David Hoppe, and Alison Carroll, my deputy chief of staff, who is here 
with me today. Also, Bill Gribbin, Susan Connell, Mike Solon, Susan 
Irby, Randy Scheunemann, Rolf Lundberg, and Kyle McSlarrow.
  I emphasize this point: We came to an agreement. We have a very large 
bill to keep the Government operating. We did add $6.5 billion more 
than what had come out of committees, but it was paid for.
  We had some very important additions that were put in because of 
disasters, particularly the effort that we made to provide assistance 
in the Western States and for the damage from Hurricane Fran. We added 
$350 million to amounts already appropriated, guaranteeing at least 
$500 million would be available for relief of victims of Hurricane 
Fran. That is thanks to Senator Helms, because he knew what the people 
of North Carolina needed and what would be necessary to repair the 
damage from that tremendous storm.
  When you go through the places where additions were made, many of 
them are the right things to do to stand up for what should be done for 
this country.
  For the National Institutes of Health, we provided a total of $12.7 
billion, which is over the President's request.
  A variety of education programs, including Head Start and the Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools program had increases.
  Title I is now at $7.7 billion.
  We added additional funding for college education, for loans and for 
grants.
  We added additional funding to the Justice Department to implement 
the Violence Against Women Act and programs to fight crime.
  When you go through this list, there are many, many programs where 
the additions will serve the American people well. It is the right 
thing to do. I am pleased to be able to support this legislation.
  I think it has the right mood about it, the right tone about it, and 
it has been bipartisan. It will, I think, serve us well as we go into 
the session next year.
  Mr. President, I am inclined to look upon this legislation, H.R. 
4278, the omnibus consolidated appropriations bill, like an expected 
father who is suddenly presented with quadruplets. It is an awful lot 
to take at one time.
  And yet, the more familiar you become with the enormous package, the 
more there is to like.
  First and most important, we accomplished what the American people 
wanted us to do: We avoided a fiscal crisis that would have led to a 
government shutdown at midnight tonight.
  For the record, I have to note that it would have been far preferable 
if we had passed the various appropriation bills one by one, instead of 
in this huge and unwieldy package. But what was not to be.
  We all know what happened to many of those bills here in the Senate, 
and why I had to take them down, and why it was pointless for me to 
even bring up some of them. All that we can leave to the historians of 
the Congress.
  What is now before us is a bipartisan package, worked out in long--
very long--face-to-face deliberations between the Republican leadership 
of the House and Senate and senior administration officials.
  If I attempted to individually name all those who played crucial 
roles in its development, I might be mistaken for a Senator 
filibustering the FAA bill. So I will note particularly Chairman Mark 
Hatfield's diligent pursuit of an acceptable outcome, knowing that he 
will share the credit with the other members of his committee who 
worked, sometimes through the night, to get this work done and well 
done.
  Enormous as this legislation is--it spends some $600 billion, 
including $6.5 billion more than congressional Republicans had 
originally planned to spend--it is deficit neutral. It is paid for. We 
refused to add to the Nation's debt.
  Working within that understanding, we managed to devote almost $1 
billion to the fight against terrorism. We came up with $8.8 billion to 
combat drug abuse and the drug traffic. We allotted $650 million for 
fire emergencies in our western States.
  And because of the relentless efforts of Senator Helms, we added $350 
million to amounts already appropriated, guaranteeing that at least 
$500 million will be available for relief of victims of hurricane Fran. 
Thanks to Senator Helms, the people of North Carolina will have to 
resources to rebuild from the storm, especially in the hard-hit city of 
Raleigh.
  For the National Institutes of Health, we provided a total of $12.7 
billion--almost $400 million over the President's request.
  A variety of education programs also fared well in this legislation. 
The Headstart program is now up to almost $4 billion. The Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools program is at $556 million. Title 1, our basic 
program of aid to schools with large numbers of poor children, now 
stands at $7.7 billion.
  Student aid at the college level has dramatically increased by $3.3 
billion to a total, in both grants and loans, of $41.6 billion. The 
annual Pell Grant will have its largest one-year increase ever, to a 
maximum of $2,700.
  This is more than just a spending bill, however. It is an important 
anticrime bill. That is why we directed resources to the Department of 
Justice, with special attention to implementing the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  Mr. President, the American people did not want us to adjourn for the 
year without tackling the problem of illegal immigration. This bill is 
our tough answer to that demand.
  It tightens border enforcement by doubling the border patrol and 
authorizing a triple fence barrier along our southern border. It cracks 
down on alien smuggling. It will speed up the exclusion and deportation 
of illegal aliens, and it funds 2,700 detention cells. By the way, 
that's 2,000 more than the President wanted.
  This bill includes our entire Defense appropriation, the foundation 
of our national security effort. And it includes funding for the 
international activities which are essential for the continuance of 
what we have won at such great cost: peace through strength.
  It is not a perfect bill. But in all my years in the House and 
Senate, I have never yet seen a perfect appropriation bill. It is, 
however, a good bill, thoughtfully constructed and prudently funded. It 
is a necessary bill, which the American people expect us to pass 
without delay.
  With pride in what we have accomplished, and with relief in what we 
have avoided, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  I yield the floor, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page S11936]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third 
time.
  The bill (H.R. 4278) was ordered to a third reading, and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] 
is absent due to illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--15

     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frahm
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     Specter
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Campbell
       
  The bill (H.R. 4278) was passed.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________