[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8007-S8040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to S. 1022, the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1022) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
its immediate consideration.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that with 
respect to the Feinstein amendment regarding the ninth circuit court, 
there be 4 hours of debate on the amendment equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking member or their designees with no second-
degree amendments in order to the amendment. I further ask unanimous 
consent that following the expiration or yielding back of time, the 
Senate proceed to a vote on or in relationship to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
following Appropriations Committee staff members be granted floor 
privileges during the consideration of this bill: Jim Morhard, Paddy 
Link, Kevin Linskey, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, Josh Irwin, Scott Gudes, 
Emelie East, Karen Swanson-Wolf, Jay Kimmitt, Luke Nachbar, and Vas 
Alexopoulos.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. This request I just made also includes both majority and 
minority staff.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce this bill, S. 
1022, for the fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies. This 
year we have taken great strides to obtain bipartisan support for this 
bill and to be responsive to the needs of the people within the budget 
that we are provided. I think we have achieved this goal.
  I want to especially acknowledge and thank the ranking member of this 
committee who for many, many years has served on this committee and 
whose cooperation, effort, and knowledge has been a core element in 
developing this bill and achieving progress in making these agencies 
function effectively. And that, of course, is the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Hollings].
  The bill before us includes $31.6 billion for programs administered 
by the Commerce, State, and Justice Departments, the Judiciary, and 
related agencies. That is a lot of money, $31.6 billion, but I would 
note that it is a bill that is frugal. It is $4 billion less than what 
the President's budget request, and it is over $100 million less than 
what the House will have passed in its bill in this area.
  The essential thrust of this bill is to make sure the committee 
adequately funds the activities of our criminal justice system and to 
make sure that the States receive adequate funding to undertake an 
aggressive posture to control the spread of violence and crime in our 
Nation. As a result, we have increased funding for the Department of 
Justice by 5 percent over 1997 levels. This represents a fairly 
significant commitment to that Department, obviously.
  Within the Justice Department, top priorities include fighting crimes 
against children; providing assistance to State and local law 
enforcement; countering terrorism activities; bolstering drug control 
efforts; and pursuing new juvenile programs.
  As chairman, I directed the committee to take a close look at the 
needs of the juveniles in our country. In hearings this year, it was 
brought to my attention the threats our children face when surfing the 
Internet. While the Internet can be a place for the world to be at play 
and to be at the access of children's fingertips, that world can also 
have its shady side where predators lurk to exploit our children if 
given the opportunity.

  The Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], along with organizations 
like the Center for Missing and Exploited

[[Page S8008]]

Children, has worked to combat pedophile activity on the Internet. In 
our legislation we provide funding to continue these efforts: $10 
million for the FBI to apprehend the pedophiles who use the Internet in 
their criminal activities; $2.4 million to the local and State law 
enforcement agencies to form specialized cyber units to investigate and 
prevent child sexual exploitation; and $6.2 million for the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children to continue their efforts to 
educate and work with law enforcement officials in handing child 
exploitation cases.
  Also, the committee believes it is in the national interest to 
improve the skills of our law enforcement personnel on all levels and 
supports initiatives to do this. The Community Oriented Policing 
Services, or COPS Program, is funded at $1.4 billion so that 100,000 
extra police can be hired by our States and our communities. The 
President's request did not include any funding for the local law 
enforcement block grant. However, we have provided $503 million so that 
localities could obtain funding for initiatives to reduce crime and 
improve public safety.
  Also, in response to a number of requests from law enforcement 
officials, we have added $10.5 million to the President's request for a 
regional information sharing system so that law enforcement officers 
throughout the country can have increased access to national crime 
databases.
  This year the committee has taken a strong stance against the violent 
acts that are directed toward women and children.
  Our support includes a $67.3 million increase in the funding for the 
Violence Against Women Act grants. We recognize the need to enhance and 
expand current women's assistance programs as violent crimes against 
them continue. Violence Against Women Act grants will be given to the 
States to develop and implement effective arrest and prosecution 
policies to prevent, identify, and respond to violent crimes against 
women. This funding provides domestically abused women and children 
with additional support services. This includes access to specially 
trained prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Only 20 States 
received Violence Against Women grants in 1996. We believe there should 
be sufficient funding for more States to participate in this program. 
Consequently, we have appropriated funds for this effort. And while we 
have given significant funding to the Violence Against Women Program, 
other grant programs still receive funding--the Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Program, the State Prison Grant Program, and the Missing 
Alzheimer's Patient Program, just to name a few.
  The Counterterrorism Fund received $29.5 million so that the law 
enforcement officials can counter, investigate, and prosecute those 
people who are involved in terrorist activities. In addition, the funds 
will be used to conduct terrorism threat assessment against Federal 
agencies and their facilities. Additional funds have been provided in a 
classified portion of the bill, which is available to all Members.
  Like many Members of Congress, the committee is concerned about the 
proliferation of illegal drugs coming across our borders and its impact 
on our children. In an effort to support law enforcement efforts to 
combat the rampant spread of illegal drugs, the committee devoted $16.5 
million to combat the trade in methamphetamine and $10 million to the 
effort to reduce heroin trafficking. The committee also provided 
substantial funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration program to 
provide adequate equipment for its agents. It does no good to hire new 
agents--and we are hiring a large number of new agents in this bill--if 
they do not have the equipment needed to do the job. So this bill takes 
care of that issue.
  Over the last few years, the infrastructure needs of organizations 
funded by this bill have been neglected. We have made a point of 
providing funds to repair buildings throughout our agencies. Over $300 
million will go to the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and 
the Bureau of Prisons to make much-needed infrastructure improvements. 
This money covers the costs of a new FBI forensics lab at Quantico, 
State prison grants to help States build new prisons, and facilities 
for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents we have funded through the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.

  As last mentioned within the Justice portion of the bill, the 
committee sets aside funding for a Juvenile Block Grant Program, 
subject to the authorization of the Judiciary Committee. It is our 
understanding that the authorization may address such issues as the 
need for increased penalties for criminal street-gang activities and 
prosecuting violent youth offenders as adults at the discretion of the 
prosecutor. This funding should assist in undertaking that effort.
  This is just a brief summary of a wide range of Justice provisions 
that will help law enforcement combat the threats that Americans face 
in our daily lives.
  In the area of the Commerce Department, we have made some difficult 
decisions, but I think they are constructive ones. We have, for 
example, provided strong support for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which provides high-quality research 
and provides technical data to our economy. In particular, the bill 
increases funding for the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is 
important to all coastal and Great Lakes States and provides funding 
for estuarine research. Since 75 percent of our Nation's population 
lives near the coastline, placing a priority on preserving our 
estuarine areas is important. Equally important is the need to conserve 
the resources that live in our estuaries and oceans.
  The bill increases funding for protected species research. The Sea 
Grant Program, which conducts research of regional importance through 
colleges and universities, is strongly supported in this bill. While we 
believe NOAA is doing essential work for America, sometimes we disagree 
with our House colleagues on the level of funding. We intend to address 
this in conference, and we will go to conference with a strong bill.
  The committee provides increased funding for the National Weather 
Service, also. Many of us are concerned that this agency has the 
resources necessary to ensure timely warning of severe weather, 
especially hurricanes and tornadoes. The bill contains funding for 
satellite improvements which are critical to monitoring and predicting 
the weather. The committee supports the modernization of the Weather 
Service and looks forward to working with the Department of Commerce to 
ensure the orderly deployment of technology needed to improve 
forecasting and warnings.
  The largest increase in the Department of Commerce is the 
administration's request for additional funds to prepare for the 
decennial census. We have had previous discussions on the Senate floor 
about whether or not to use a sampling technique to conduct the census 
2000. The bill contains language on this issue developed on a 
bipartisan basis during the consideration of the Supplemental 
Appropriations bill earlier this year. The increase for fiscal year 
1998 does not require a decision on whether or not to employ sampling.
  The committee also funds the trade development and enforcement 
responsibilities of the Department of Commerce at or slightly above the 
administration's requests. The Bureau of Export Administration has two 
new requirements which deserve mention. First, the Department of 
State's encryption export control responsibilities have been 
transferred to the Export Administration.
  Second, with the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention 
(CWC), the Export Administration will have the primary responsibility 
for enforcing the convention. While funds are provided at the requested 
level to support the Export Administration's enforcement 
responsibilities, any additional funds which may be needed during 
fiscal year 1998 should be provided by the Department of Defense or the 
Department of State. There is some concern that the administration has 
underestimated the funds needed to enforce CWC. The Department of 
Commerce should not be required to shoulder all the costs of Chemical 
Weapons Convention enforcement.

  Many Senators will be glad to hear that the committee did not agree 
with the administration's request to zero out public telecommunication 
facility

[[Page S8009]]

grants. We went ahead and provided $25 million for this program based 
on the strong bipartisan support it enjoys.
  In the judiciary area of the bill, the committee had to confront some 
difficult issues, but I believe we have provided the American people 
with a better judiciary through our efforts. The appropriation is 
sufficient to maintain current judicial operation levels and takes into 
account the increase in bankruptcy caseloads and probation population. 
We are also providing the Justices and judges with a 2.8-percent cost-
of-living adjustment requested by the President.
  The largest change--and it is a change I think will be for the best--
is that the ninth circuit Federal court will be split into two 
circuits, reducing the caseload level in each to a manageable level. 
During the 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 96 percent--96 
percent--of the decisions reviewed by the ninth circuit. This high 
overturn rate is a beacon that the Ninth Circuit is not meeting the 
needs of the people it serves. Last Congress, Chief Judge Wallace 
stated in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that ``it 
takes about 4 months longer to complete an appeal in the ninth circuit 
as compared to the national median time.'' The caseload continues to 
increase yearly.
  Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court testified before our committee 
on April 17 that there are ``very dedicated judges on that circuit, 
very scholarly judges. * * * But, [he thinks] that institutionally, and 
from a collegial standpoint, that it is too large to have the 
discipline and the control that is necessary for an effective 
circuit.''
  While some of my colleagues may disagree, the facts lead me to 
believe it is past time for the ninth circuit to be split, and we are 
going to hear a considerable amount of debate on that issue later 
today.
  Lastly, for the judiciary, we are providing an additional $2.2 
million to the Supreme Court for renovations in an effort to comply 
with safety regulations and with the Americans With Disabilities Act at 
the Supreme Court building.
  Moving on to the State Department, we have fully funded to the best 
of our abilities, the operations carried out by this Department. We 
made sure that the day-to-day functions of the State Department are 
funded at an acceptable level, and we are going a long way toward 
updating their outdated technology systems.
  Maintaining infrastructure was a top priority of mine in funding this 
bill. To do this, we are providing $40.4 million above the President's 
request for the Capital Investment Fund so that desperately needed 
upgrades on information and communications systems can be done. It is 
quite alarming to hear that the State Department is still using Wang 
computers and that oversees, about 82 percent of the radio equipment, 
55 percent of the computer equipment, and 40 percent of the telephone 
systems are obsolete. These are the people who are representing us in 
foreign countries and they deserve to have up-to-date equipment.
  As a final noteworthy item, this bill covers the U.N. arrears as 
agreed to during the budget talks this year, in addition to supporting 
the bicameral U.N. reform package found in S. 903, the Foreign Affairs 
Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997. The international organization 
and peacekeeping efforts are also included in this appropriation.
  This is a very quick rundown of a very complicated and expansive 
piece of legislation. I believe it is an extremely strong bill, 
complying with the ideas that have been guiding the budget process over 
the last few months. As I mentioned earlier, it is under the 
President's request and under the House bill. Yet I believe it still 
represents a sound and strong commitment to the agencies which it has 
to cover.
  Before turning this over to my esteemed colleague and ranking member, 
I want to recognize the contributions of my staff, which have been 
extraordinary, the members of my staff that I outlined earlier, Kevin 
Linsky, Paddy Link, Vas Alexopoulos, Jim Morhard, Carl Truscott, Dana 
Quam, Josh Irwin, and Luke Nachbar; and I also want to acknowledge the 
ranking member's staff, who do such a super job--Scott Gudes, Emelie 
East, and Karen Swanson-Wolf. Their help has made a tremendous 
difference, and we would not have gotten to this point without their 
assistance.
  I yield to my ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished chairman.
  Mr. President, this Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill 
is probably the most complicated of the 13 appropriations bills. In it 
we fund programs ranging from the FBI to our embassies overseas, to 
fisheries research to the Small Business Administration. It requires a 
balancing act--considering the priorities of our President, our 
colleagues here in the Senate, and our Nation, in equitably 
distributing our subcommittee 602(b) allocation to the many programs in 
this bill. I think Chairman Gregg has done a masterful job in putting 
it together, and I support him in bringing this very solid bill before 
the Senate.
  I would especially like to recognize the majority staff who are all 
new to this bill--Jim Morhard, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Carl 
Truscott, and Dana Quam, and our Democratic staff--Scott Gudes, Emelie 
East, and Karen Swanson-Wolf. They have been working night and day to 
put together this bill. They have done a truly outstanding job, and 
have ensured a bipartisan spirit was maintained throughout this entire 
process.
  In total, this bill provides $31.623 billion in budget authority. 
That is about half-a-billion dollars below the President's budget 
request * * * and it is right at our section 602(b) allocation. The 
bill is $1.4 billion above this year's appropriated levels.


                                justice

  Once again, our bill makes it clear we're not fooling around with 
Justice and law enforcement priorities. The bill provides 
appropriations totaling $17.3 billion--an increase of $862 million 
above last year. Including fees we provide the Department, the total 
Justice budget comes to $19.3 billion.
  It might be well to note historically that some 10 years ago the bill 
was right at $4 billion. We in the Congress run around everywhere, 
``Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending.'' If you want to know where 
the increases in spending occur, you can look at the space program. I 
followed the thought, of course, of the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas--who has been up in space. They say the interest is trying to 
get Senator John Glenn back in space. My interest is trying to get the 
Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, out of space. He has been up 
there for 2 days. But he has been doing a masterful job, trying to save 
moneys there.
  Now, with respect to the Justice Department, the DEA, hundreds of 
more FBI agents, a new laboratory there, Cops on the Beat, 1,000 more 
Border Patrol, half a billion more in prisons--we are building prisons. 
If you haven't gotten a prison in your State, call us; we will be glad 
to build you one. Because we are not building schools in America, we 
are building prisons everywhere. So, everybody ought to understand, in 
the 10-year period under the leadership here of this Congress, trying 
to cut spending, we have veritably quintupled the Justice Department.
  Of this amount, our Federal Bureau of Investigations, the FBI, is 
provided $3.1 billion, and we have funded completion of its new 
laboratory at Quantico as well as $10 million to enhance efforts to 
combat child pornography on the Internet.
  As, I said, we've made sure the INS will keep our borders secure, by 
providing an additional, 1,000 Border Patrol agents in the Immigration 
and Naturalization service. Furthermore, the bill extends section 2451 
of the Immigration Act. These fees allow adjustment of status for legal 
immigrants in the United States and result in the Immigration Service 
getting almost $200 million per year for border enforcement and 
combating illegal immigration. This is important to both INS which 
needs the funding, and the State Department which no longer has the 
consular officers overseas to provide for adjustment of status in 
embassies.
  Within the Justice Department, we also provide $1,033 billion for our 
prosecutors, the U.S. attorneys. That is an increase of $55 million. 
I'm pleased to note that it provides for activation of

[[Page S8010]]

the National Advocacy Center to train our Federal and State 
prosecutors, and it continues State and local violent crime task forces 
which report to our U.S. attorneys.
  So, looking at the Justice grant programs: the COPS Program is 
provided $1.4 billion; the local law enforcement block grant is $503 
million; $590 million is recommended for State prison grants; $264 
million for violence against women grants; $580 million is provided in 
Byrne grants and; $380 million is provided for juvenile justice 
programs which is over twice the amount as this year.


                                commerce

  On the Commerce Department, the bill provides $4.169 billion for the 
Commerce Department. That is an increase of $368 million over this 
year. Within this Department, the bill provides $659 million for the 
Census, which is an increase of $314 million. This bill does not 
prohibit statistical sampling, though we will continue to monitor this 
issue closely.
  We have provided $25 million for the Public Broadcasting facilities 
grants and have rejected the administration's proposal to terminate 
this program which assists public television and radio.
  The recommendation includes $200 million for the NIST Advanced 
Technology Program and $111 million for the Manufacturing Extension 
Program. So this bill supports the bipartisan budget agreement which 
specifically made these technology programs a priority. Another program 
of interest, the International Trade Administration, has been provided 
with $280.7 million.
  The biggest account in the Department of Commerce, NOAA, has been 
provided with $2.1 billion. We have included $473 million for Weather 
Service operations, an increase of $23 million above the request. This 
ensures that we won't have a repeat of all the problems we have seen 
this year. LIke cutting the National Hurriance Center. And this bill 
continues support for the NOAA oceans programs and the NOAA fleet.
  I just attended the commissioning of the most modern research vessel 
in the fleet, the Ronald H. Brown. I am pleased to report that, rather 
than the interest up here--310 million miles away whether or not some 
little instrument ran into a rock--in contrast, the NOAA fleet is out 
researching seven-tenths of the Earth's surface, the oceans and 
atmosphere, mapping the ocean floor and harbors and conducting surveys 
of living marine resources so that the NOAA fleet is alive and well. 
And we are not going to scuttle it as has been proposed here 
previously.


                                 STATE

  In our title for the State Department and international programs, we 
have included some $4 billion for the Department of State, and have 
supported the consolidation of our international affairs agencies. We 
have assigned, again, a priority to the operations and facilities of 
the State Department, for example we included $105 million to modernize 
computer and telecommunications systems.
  We have included $100 million for United Nations and peacekeeping 
arrearages as part of the agreement that was reached with the 
Administration on the Foreign Relations authorization bill. The 
recommendation also includes $20 million for renovating housing and the 
U.S. Embassy in Beijing.
  I have just had a conversation with the Ambassador Designate to the 
Court of Saint James, which has a magnificent residence there. It was 
done over by Walter Annenberg. It looks like a beauty to me. It doesn't 
look like it's falling down. But they are going to close it and get 
into a multimillion-dollar renovation program over 2 years, while they 
are in squalor in Beijing.
  I can tell you here and now, we have to do something about the 
Property Division over in that Department of State, so that we can at 
least have decent housing for those who are willing to sacrifice and 
lead this Nation's foreign policy, particularly now in the most 
important nation with respect to foreign affairs, the People's Republic 
of China.
  There is almost $400 million in the bill for international 
broadcasting, $200 million for international exchanges. That is the 
first time, of course, Mr. President, that the Fulbright and other 
exchanges have gotten an increase. It should be noted that no funds are 
included for the National Endowments for Democracy, and the 
distinguished chairman and I are well able to defend that particular 
initiative now. I imagine we will be hearing from our colleagues with 
an amendment. But if they want to bring this up and talk about pork, I 
never heard of worse ones--although we have had it. This Senator at one 
time opposed it; at one time supported it at the request--at the fall 
of the wall. We didn't have an entity that could really bring 
newspapers and printing presses and election fliers for democratic 
elections where in countries they had never held a democratic election. 
It looked to me it might be an exception.
  The Department of State, we ought not to be embarrassed, the 
Department of State ought to be, really, about its front-line position, 
now, with the fall of the wall, in promoting democracy, individual 
rights, and the American way the world around. And we need not fund the 
chairman of the Democratic Party, the chairman of the Republican Party, 
the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL. I think that here we can make a 
savings of several million dollars.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. I support it. We have had to make 
some tough decisions, but under the leadership of Senator Gregg, I 
think we have made the proper decisions. It is nice to have worked on 
this State, Justice, Commerce bill, and I urge my colleagues to join in 
its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 979

    (Purpose: To authorize the Administrator of General Services to 
 transfer certain surplus property for use for law enforcement or fire 
                          and rescue purposes)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 979.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 65, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 119. Section 203(p)(1) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(p)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) The Administrator may exercise the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to such surplus real and 
     related property needed by the transferee or grantee for--
       ``(I) law enforcement purposes, as determined by the 
     Attorney General; or
       ``(II) emergency management response purposes, including 
     fire and rescue services, as determined by the Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       ``(ii) The authority provided under this subparagraph shall 
     terminate on December 31, 1999.''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that the previous amendment that 
has been proposed be set aside and I have an amendment that I will send 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 980

 (Purpose: To prohibit certain corporations from participating in the 
                      Advanced Technology Program)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.

[[Page S8011]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 980.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert the following:
       Sec. 6  . Section 28(d) of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n(d)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) For each fiscal year following fiscal year 1997, the 
     Secretary may not enter into a contract with, or make an 
     award to, a corporation under the Program, or otherwise 
     permit the participation of the corporation in the Program 
     (individually, or through a joint venture or consortium) if 
     that corporation, for the fiscal year immediately preceding 
     that fiscal year, has revenues that exceed $2,500,000,000.''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the Advanced 
Technology Program which was established to spur high-risk 
precompetitive research and development. It was intended to make U.S. 
businesses more competitive in the global marketplace by assisting them 
in developing technologies which they wouldn't fund on their own.
  It was not established to fund research and development which would 
have been funded in the marketplace anyway. No one believes that the 
Federal Government should be in the business of taxing American 
families to subsidize product development, research spending for rich 
corporations. I think this would be in anybody's definition what former 
Secretary of Labor Robert Reich qualified and stated was ``corporate 
welfare.''
  I have grave concern that the Advanced Technology Program has become 
just that, a corporate welfare program. While recognizing the 
importance of a strong Federal role in research and development, I am 
very concerned that the ATP program is providing too much money to 
companies that have clearly adequate resources of their own to fund any 
research that is worth their doing.
  My amendment is a simple one, and it should have broad bipartisan 
support. My amendment says that no company with revenues in excess of 
$2.5 billion--revenues in excess of $2.5 billion--can receive Federal 
funding through the Advanced Technology Program. We are talking about 
revenues. This is gross revenues of a company of $2.5 billion--so this 
is a pretty large company we are talking about--above which you can't 
receive funding from the Advanced Technology Program. I think if you 
are having revenues of $2.5 billion or more a year, you can afford to 
fund your own research and development program, and you don't need the 
Advanced Technology Program.
  We use the $2.5 billion revenue threshold because it would exclude 
the 500 largest companies in America, the so-called Fortune 500, from 
receiving welfare dollars.
  I think if you are a Fortune 500 company, you can do without 
corporate welfare dollars. In the word of one Silicon Valley 
executive--and there have been a number out there to support this 
provision; we have a letter signed by over 100 CEO's from startup 
companies in Silicon Valley which say terminate the entire ATP program, 
get rid of the whole thing. We are saying let's hold it to the largest 
corporations.
  One executive said this:

       If you were General Motors with annual sales of $160 
     billion and $20 billion in the bank, why don't you fund this 
     great idea yourself and patent it yourself?

  I think the answer to this question is pretty simple, and that is, if 
there is a Federal subsidy program which will fund corporate R&D for 
free, even if the company has enough corporate R&D resources, and if 
that company's competitors are taking the money from the Federal 
Government, why not take the money from the Federal Government 
yourself? Therefore, we need to close that loophole so their 
competitors can't get it and they be forced to take it as well.
  What may be most troublesome is that for every grant given to a huge 
company with a multibillion-dollar budget and CEO making tens of 
millions of dollars, there is a small company who may have a good idea 
but can't raise the capital and will do without Federal assistance. The 
small companies will do without, while the big corporations get it. 
What we are saying is let's keep it from going to the megacorporation 
and have more available to the small corporation, which is what we are 
trying to target in the first place.
  We are not talking about a program that gives money exclusively to 
small business, entrepreneurs or inventors working in their garages. 
Some ATP money goes to small companies and universities. This amendment 
would make it more available to them. But the top five companies that 
participate in the greatest dollar volume of grants from the ATP 
program are some pretty familiar names: IBM, General Motors, General 
Electric, Ford, Sun Microsystems. I think they can afford to fund these 
programs on their own. They don't need corporate welfare, and we should 
be making more of this available to small companies.
  Maybe they get it because they have a great idea or maybe they get it 
because they have a lobbyist in Washington that watches for these 
things. That may be part of it as well. Whereas, a small startup 
company is just busy in their garage, or wherever, trying to hustle 
enough to make this thing go. We want to make it more available to the 
small companies, the entrepreneurs and keep it out of the hands of the 
Fortune 500, all of which have large lobbying staffs to get hold of 
that here.
  According to the Department of Commerce, more than 40 percent of 
single-applicant grants currently go to large companies--40 percent. 
Other ATP recipients are AT&T, Black & Decker, 3M, DuPont, MCI, Xerox, 
Caterpillar, Kodak, United States Steel, Honeywell, Allied Signal, and 
the list goes on. These industrial giants have the time and the money 
to fill out ATP applications, but also have the money to fund these 
projects on their own.
  I also take this opportunity to commend Secretary Daley for 
initiating a review of the ATP program. As he and I have discussed, I 
believe this review is long, long overdue, and I appreciate that it was 
instigated very early on in his tenure. The Secretary recognized in his 
recent report on the program that the question of whether huge 
corporations should participate in ATP grants to the exclusion of some 
smaller ventures is a legitimate concern and one that he is concerned 
about as well. As a result of the Secretary's review, he has proposed 
changes in the match for single-applicant-large companies to a 60-40 
match from the current 50-50 and encourage joint ventures over single 
applicants.
  That is a laudable start, but, my goodness, that is just not far 
enough when we are talking about a company that has $2.5 billion in 
revenues, huge companies. They can afford to do this on their own. It 
just doesn't go far enough. At most, this would reduce the amount a 
large company will receive in grants by $65,000 a year, and that is not 
much of an incentive for companies like IBM with revenues of $76 
billion annually.
  To its credit, this year the Department of Commerce requested input 
from the public on the ATP. Among the public responses were, listen to 
this one:

       ATP awards large companies even though a smaller company, 
     as a single applicant, may have a better technical and 
     business proposal. In some cases, the large company tries to 
     get the award in a new research file just to shelf the idea 
     and prevent someone from doing the research because it will 
     compete with its existing markets.

  Another one:

       ATP should not be a time-consuming, expensive proposal 
     preparation contest which it is now.

  Another one:

       ATP does not provide much assistance for individuals or 
     shoestring startups which need assistance most.

  While I am not offering an amendment to kill this program today, I do 
have grave concerns about it primarily because I believe there is ample 
private capital for good ideas. Last year alone, the venture capital 
industry pumped more than $10 billion into new ventures. Last year, 
companies raised more than $50 billion from initial public stock 
offerings. The top four winners of ATP grants invested more than $20 
billion of their own corporate resources on research and development. 
We are talking about a total program, the total ATP program of right 
around or under $300 million.

[[Page S8012]]

  I don't think I have the support this year to eliminate this program 
on an appropriations bill. Many of my colleagues believe that would be 
more appropriate for the authorizing process, which I think would be as 
well and a good place to do it as well.
  So let me reiterate, today I am not offering a killer amendment. This 
isn't even an amendment to reduce the funding of this program. It does 
nothing to the funding of ATP. I am offering an amendment which will 
make a small change in the program to better enable it to meet its 
mission of providing funds for high-technology research without 
replacing private dollars.
  I want to note something else, Mr. President, if I can, about people 
applying for ATP grants and companies that are applying for ATP grants. 
This is according to a GAO report when they were looking at whether 
people try to find these first outside the Government. This is the GAO:

       When we asked if they had searched for funding from other 
     sources before applying to ATP, we found that 63 percent of 
     the applicants said they had not--

  Sixty-three percent--

     [and] 65 percent of the winners had not looked for funding 
     before applying to ATP.

  In other words, they are going first right to the Federal Government, 
to the ATP program. These are huge corporations with over $2.5 billion 
in revenues, the only ones we are targeting, and they are saying, ``Let 
us take it there first.''
  This is a simple amendment and will help the small entrepreneur. It 
will bring some sanity back to the process. It will start to address 
the issue of corporate welfare, and this is a perfect case.
  So, Mr. President, I think this is an appropriate amendment. At the 
appropriate time, I will urge its adoption and ask for the yeas and 
nays. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am reminded of a little ditty they 
used to have on the radio each Saturday morning for my children: ``All 
the way through life, make this your goal; keep your eye on the donut 
and not the hole.''
  The distinguished Senator from Kansas is really, with this amendment, 
trying to reduce it to a corporate welfare program. The goal, and the 
eye ought to be on it, was commercialization of our technology, not 
research. In fact, the research arm of the Defense Department, DARPA as 
we call it, which has billions of dollars that come over--Greg Fields, 
working with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology--this 
is now back in the late seventies because I authored this particular 
program--in the late seventies in talking with Mr. Fields and the 
authorities at the National Bureau of Standards, at the time we called 
it, found that we had all kinds of technology backed up in research at 
the National Bureau of Standards on the civilian side that was not 
being commercialized. In fact, what they call the rapid acquisition of 
manufacturing parts--it is a wonderful type program--was developed and 
came really out of the Bureau of Standards. A ship broke down in the 
Persian Gulf that was 25 years of age, and they weren't making the 
parts anymore, so the ship couldn't function. It took several months or 
a year to get the part back out to get the ship moving again and 
everything else.

  The computerization and manufacturing at the defense level of all 
parts are immediately on the board. Within days, they knew how to punch 
the computer, get the particular manufacturer, get the part back and 
going again. That came out of the Department of Commerce that my 
distinguished colleague has been bent on trying to abolish.
  Back to the commercialization. In the late 1970s, down in Houston, 
TX, they developed the superconductor, and right to the point, with the 
research initiative, these particular scientists won the Nobel Prize. 
But the actual commercialization was caused by our Japanese friends who 
correlated some 22 entities and immediately started developing and 
commercializing it. Oh, yes, the American scientists won the Nobel 
Prize; the Japanese entrepreneurs won the profits.
  We are going out of business in this country. This has nothing to do 
with small companies or large companies. The staff, of course, has 
provided me--but I do not want to get into that because I support DARPA 
very much. But if we had this particular amendment and it took, then we 
could put it to DARPA and all other research over in the Defense 
Department, and then we could grind research to a halt. Because the 
reality is that the larger companies do have the better research 
entities. And the larger research companies also have the stock-market-
turnaround, get-in-the-black, get-your-stock-increase kind of pressure.
  Talk to the CEO of AT&T, a multibillion dollar company. One of the 
largest corporations ever in the world is in trouble because the 
chairman that they had momentarily, barely a year, could not turn it 
around and get it into the black and get it going. He is gone.
  Now, Senator Danforth and I, working on this commercialization, said 
now we are not going to have welfare and we are not going to have pork. 
So we put in unusual safeguards which this Senator from South Carolina 
has had to fight personally to maintain.
  One safeguard coming with the particular research endeavor was that 
we had to have this particular request approved, bucked right over to 
the National Academy of Engineering, and saying, ``Wait a minute. Does 
this really contribute to the Nation's particular research?'' We did 
not just want company research to increase the profits of a particular 
company; we wanted a research endeavor that meant something to the 
basic research technology advancement of the United States of America. 
This is a national program; it is not a welfare program; it is not a 
corporate-profit program.
  So this is No. 1. The corporation has to come with at least 50 
percent of its money. They have to have upfront money they are willing 
to put in, then bucked over to the National Academy of Engineering for 
its approval on a national basis, then going back for a third 
particular test of competition of which were the most deserving because 
this has been very, very, very limited.
  Look at our agricultural boards. They have multimillions in there for 
California raisins and ``Don't drink the wine before its time,'' Gallo, 
and all of those other things. The farm boys around here know how to 
get things done, but the technology boys are out researching and making 
money and continuing to research. Then, like GE coming through my 
office and saying, ``We don't have time to turn this particular 
around,'' so go sell it to the Saudis because they have the money and 
they can develop it.
  Mr. President, 15 years ago, I put in a bill to cut out the quarterly 
reporting. That is one of the real bad devices--all this quarterly 
reporting. The market is going up; the market is going down. Greenspan 
says something, it goes up billions, it goes down billions, costs or 
whatever it is. We have to understand the global competition has to 
steady the boat in this land financially. One of the great initiatives 
to have it steadied is to do away with quarterly reports.
  We all fault the American entrepreneur and corporate leader 
in saying, oh, he won't invest in the long range. Our Japanese 
competition, they know how. In Korea, Japan, the competition in the 
Pacific rim, they get long-range planning. The American corporate head 
cannot do it under this structure. He has to get in and somehow take 
the best profits, the bigger profits, go for it. You might have a 
technology, but if it takes over 3 years, forget it, ``We don't have 
time. We don't have the money. Sell it to somebody else, get a joint 
venture with the Germans or the Brits or whatever it is.''

  We are exporting our technology. And the security of the United 
States of America depends on our superiority of technology. We do not 
have as many Americans as they do Chinese. Someday we are going to find 
that out, Mr. President.
  Running around with a little boat in the Taiwan Straits, I was on one 
of those aircraft carriers up in the Gulf of Tonkin 30 years ago. We 
did not stop 30 or 40 million little North Vietnamese coming down the 
Ho Chi Minh trail. I do not know how, with a couple of these boats in 
the Straits of Taiwan, that we are going to stop 1.2 billion

[[Page S8013]]

Chinese. So we better sober up in this land, emphasize our technology, 
get it developed. That is the thrust of the Advanced Technology 
Program.
  So we had all the tests. Like I had commented, I had personally taken 
it on over on the House side. We had a distinguished colleague over on 
the House side that every time we got to the State, Justice conference, 
he wanted to write up one of these particular programs for himself. I 
said, ``This is not corporate welfare. This is not pork. We're going to 
stand by.'' We held this bill up in conference for weeks on this one 
particular point, that it was not corporate welfare, it was not pork. 
It was a studied program to commercialize, develop, and commercialize 
the technology that we could get financed. It is a solid program with 
strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I remember when we had the particular--if you can 
remember. I can hardly remember when the Republicans were in a 
minority, but there was a day. It was just about 4 years ago. They had 
a Republican task force in the U.S. Senate at that time chaired by the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole. They had over a dozen 
Senators endorse this program as it is, which includes, of course, our 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott; the former Secretary of 
the Navy, Senator Warner; the chairman now of our Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Ted Stevens; the chairman of our Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Hatch--you can go right on down the list--the 
chairman of our Budget Committee, Senator Domenici; and others.
  I just want the distinguished colleague and friend that I have here 
from Kansas to understand coming over from the House side with that 
Walker disease--we had a fellow over there named Bob Walker from 
Pennsylvania who just took on a personal kind of vendetta against doing 
anything about commercialization or development of technology or 
research except in his district. He held up the authorization for this 
particular measure for several years. Now it has been passed over on 
the House side. I thank the distinguished Republican leadership for 
passing that authorization bill and do not want to stultify it now by 
resolving it into big-little, 2\1/2\ billion or whatever it is.
  I can tell you here how they move on these large entities here. They 
move on and do not put the money to it. They sell it. I can give you 
example after example where I have worked with them in this particular 
field, and they come by the office and say, ``I am headed to so and so 
just for a joint venture. I will just take it to Japan and get a 49-51 
deal. At least I can get my money back out to do some more research.'' 
But this has been draining, veritably, the security--not just the 
technology, but the security--of the United States of America.
  It is a well-conceived program, well-administered, just updated by 
our distinguished Secretary of Commerce. He has come along. I do not 
have the exact breakdown. I wish I had the Fortune 500 approach. We 
know about half of it goes to small companies. I have no objection to 
it going to small companies. I just have a distaste and would have to 
vote against that kind of division because if this kind of thing sells, 
then we are going to begin the big-little and it is really going to 
miss out on some very, very valued technological programs.

  I have example after example that we could get in. I see other 
Senators wanting to speak. But the point here is, big, little, small, 
or otherwise, you have to first put up some money, at least half of it. 
You have to have it reviewed nationally. Some of the smaller companies, 
they are engaged in research, but they are not engaged in basic 
research. The smaller companies, by their very nature, only have the 
moneys for their particular endeavor, their particular profits. 
Therefore, they do not come. We tried to get the small companies going 
because that is where jobs are created, trying to get small business. 
We have a specific program for that. We have in here the Small Business 
Administration program in Senator Gregg's bill right here and now. So 
we take care of that when it comes to small business.
  I know the administration, under Secretary Daley and his particular 
study here that we could put in the Record, says let us give even again 
more emphasis to it and require more than the 50 percent from the 
larger corporations. That particular guideline would be good. I would 
have hoped that the gentleman would have come with a sense of the 
Senate to confirm that guideline. But to actually put in law this 
initiative begins to develop in the minds of everyone that this is a 
welfare program and what we are trying to do is finance research.
  We are not trying to finance research at all. We are trying to 
finance the development and commercialization of already established 
research. That really comes for the more affluent larger corporations. 
They come in with the great innovations because they have basic 
research. The small company--incidentally, I do not know that I have 
any--of course, down in my home State it is not welfare. I do know 
this.
  In the debate, it ought to be understood that I had my textile folks 
come to me and they said that they had a technology program and they 
knew that I had been the father of the Advanced Technology Program, the 
ATP, and the manufacturing extension centers. So they said, ``We need 
your help over at Commerce to get this particular''--it had a 
computerization of the supplies coming in and going out so they would 
not end up with a warehouse full of bluejeans that they could not sell, 
whatever it was. Mind you me, I said, No. 1, ``I'll not call over 
there.'' I never have called over there to talk to a Secretary about 
it. ``This is not pork. It's not corporate welfare.'' I told that to my 
own textile leaders.
  Mr. President, you know what they did? They went out to Livermore 
Labs, through the Energy Department, and got started a $350 million 
program in textile research. You see, with the closedown, fall of the 
wall and the closedown of some of the defense research and what have 
you, to keep Energy's budget livable and alive, they said, ``Sooey, 
pig. You all come. We've got money. Anybody that can do it, we are 
ready to go.''
  That is what happened. They did not qualify at the National Academy 
of Engineering for this computerization. It was an advancement. It 
would have helped out my home industry and that kind of thing, but it 
had nothing to do with the overall commercialization of a national kind 
of research unique to the security of the United States itself. So it 
was turned down.
  So we ought to be looking now and do not start this particular kind 
of initiative for defense, because we have the large companies here 
that do all--we put this under research in the Defense Department. 
United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Texas Instruments, IBM, MIT, 
Hughes Aircraft, Carnegie Mellon, Northrop Grumman, Loral, Honeywell, 
GE. I can go down the list of millions and millions and millions. If 
this particular applied, I can tell you you would not get any defense 
research, you would not be getting the F-22, the advanced plane, and 
others of that kind that have come on now to maintain the national 
defense of the United States.
  So I hope that colleagues will understand the genesis of ATP, the 
practical reality of financing and developing and commercializing the 
research. The large corporations who developed the unique research in 
this land of ours can make more money elsewhere, and they have been 
doing it like gangbusters by exporting it right and left everywhere, 
and we have been losing out. And we are wondering why we still have a 
deficit in the balance of trade.
  We have gone and manufactured the actual production and 
commercialization. We have gone from 26 percent of our work force, 10 
years ago, and manufactured down to 13 percent. Oh, yes, we are getting 
the software, we are getting the wonderful jobs at McDonald's and the 
other hamburger places and the laundries. But the actual production and 
high-paying jobs are going elsewhere. We are exporting them as fast as 
we can. We ought not to toy around with the solid nature of the 
Advanced Technology Program. It is not pork. It is not corporate 
welfare. The distinguished Senator has come up with an arithmetic 
formula, and if we begin to apply that to research in America, we are 
gone goslings.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Wood, a 
fellow for Senator Frist's office be

[[Page S8014]]

given access to the floor during the debate of the Commerce, Justice, 
and State appropriations bill, and the same applies to Floyd DesChamps, 
a detailee from the Department of Energy with the Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from Kansas. The ATP issue has been one of the more contentious 
issues that we have dealt with within our committee. Last year, it was 
more contentious than this year because of an agreement reached between 
the White House and the leadership of the Senate and House. The House 
and Senate and the White House agreed that this program would be 
funded. I suspect that they agreed it would be funded because of the 
strength of the arguments made by the Senator from South Carolina, but 
I think most people appreciate the fact that I have, since my tenure on 
this committee, opposed funding for this program. It was over my strong 
objection that this decision was made. But it was made and I have 
agreed to live by the budget agreement and, therefore, the money for 
ATP is in there.
  But if you acknowledge ATP even as a program that should proceed 
forward because of whatever arguments we are inclined to accept, it is 
very hard to understand how we can justify using a program, the purpose 
of which is to encourage the development of technologies which might 
not otherwise evolve. That is the key here--they might not otherwise 
evolve. It is very hard to justify such a program being used to fund 
Fortune 500 companies' research initiatives. The fact is that Fortune 
500 companies, companies with over $2.5 billion in sales, have the 
capacity to pursue any technology they wish to pursue if they determine 
that it has some value, if it has some economic value and if it is 
going to produce some sort of worth to them. And it's very illogical to 
presume that those companies would not pursue those technologies if 
they felt there is a value and they have the wherewithal to do it. You 
have essentially created a piggy bank into which these companies can 
step or put their hands into if they desire to pursue a technology, 
which they probably would have pursued anyway if they had the financial 
wherewithal to do it. But in this instance, there are Federal dollars 
available, so they say let's use the Federal dollars instead.
  I think it is much more logical to focus this fund on those 
entrepreneurs and entities which do not have that sort of flexibility, 
do not have in-house the capital wherewithal to fund whatever research 
they desire. That is why I believe we should limit access to these 
dollars to the smaller companies. And smaller is a relative term here. 
We are talking about companies up to $2.5 billion of gross sales. That 
is a pretty big entity. I suspect there are a lot of major companies 
that fall into that category. In fact, within the State of New 
Hampshire, I am not sure how many companies would have more than 2.5 
billion dollars' worth of gross sales; it would not be many. We are 
retaining the availability of this program to the vast majority of 
corporate America and to all of the entrepreneurial world.

  It is not as if we were handicapping for purposes of this exercise. 
In fact, there isn't enough money to go around as far as applications 
are concerned. There are a lot of applications that are not approved. 
In fact, the Senator from South Carolina cited one in his own State. It 
just seems much more logical to me that we take this money and, rather 
than giving it to folks who have the capacity to pursue this research 
independently and on their own and are simply using the Federal dollars 
to replace dollars that they would spend anyway, that we give it to 
companies--or make this money available to entities that do not have 
the financial wherewithal to pursue these programs; or if they do have 
it, they would be under more stress than a company that has 2.5 billion 
dollars' worth of income.
  So the amendment of the Senator from Kansas makes an immense amount 
of sense. It is not a dagger in the heart of this program. In fact, I 
think it is a strengthening amendment for this program. It will 
significantly improve the nature of this program. And, really, I am a 
little bit surprised at the intensity of opposition to it because it 
appears to be an effort to logically and fairly approach this program, 
rather than just eliminate it, which would be something that many of us 
would support also.
  So I think the Senator from Kansas has brought forward an excellent 
amendment. I hope that we can pass it. I will certainly support it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to rise in response to some of 
the statements made by the Senator from South Carolina. I deeply 
appreciate his heart, of where it is about what we need to do to make 
America a stronger economy, to keep jobs, growth, high technology, and 
jobs growing and prospering in the United States. I think his heart is 
clearly in the right place and he wants to do the right thing.
  I just think in a nation this big, with an economy this size, with 
the dynamism that we have in this country, you can't control it out of 
Washington. That is why the President pronounced, over a year ago, that 
the era of big Government is over. It seems to me that was an admission 
that things have changed to the point that you just can't direct all 
things, and all wisdom doesn't come out of Washington.
  This program is one of those that we are talking about in that 
particular area. You are basically talking about a program here where 
you are going to pick winners and losers out of Washington. We have an 
application process that takes place here. You apply for this and give 
us your good idea, and we in Washington are going to think about it and 
see if we think you deserve to get this money or not. If your 
technology is one we are interested in and if we think this technology 
is good for our future, then we will decide to give it to you. We will 
decide those sort of issues from Washington.
  I am not even talking about the overall program here. As I mentioned, 
and as Senator Gregg has mentioned as well, this is actually a 
strengthening amendment. We are just saying, if you are a Fortune 500 
company and have revenues of over $2.5 billion a year, we are not going 
to make this program available to you. You are going to have to be, at 
least, a startup company, because the larger companies do have 
lobbyists here in Washington, as the Senator from South Carolina knows. 
They are always coming around looking for things for their companies, 
as they should be. Many of their companies take it because their 
competitor takes this. Let's remove that as an opportunity and remove 
this area of corporate welfare, which truly is corporate welfare.

  Now I would like to clear up a couple of other points on this, if we 
could. One is that I am afraid, too, that some of these programs 
qualify in the area--we put out a big press release saying this program 
is going to solve all the problems of technology drifting abroad, and 
we are going to solve all of the problems of not having good, high-
wage, high-skill jobs in the United States because we have the Advanced 
Technology Program. This will solve all of those problems. This will do 
it. I think we suffer here from a concept of having a big press release 
and a very small program to answer that.
  Listen once again to the figures. We are talking about a program of 
$200 million. That is a large sum of money, but if you look at what 
venture capital put into new startups last year alone, which was $10 
billion, this is 2 percent of what was put into this from just venture 
capital. And I add initial public offerings on to that, where people go 
to the marketplace to raise capital for a good idea, and that was $50 
billion. We are talking about less than 2 percent in this particular 
program.
  If we really want to help business in America--which I think the 
Senator from South Carolina clearly wants to do; he wants business to 
stay here in America, to grow in America, and he wants business to 
prosper--well, then let's do some things that would actually help 
business: cut taxation, regulation and litigation and manipulation out 
of Washington. Let's cut capital gains tax rates.
  I was just in the Silicon Valley, one of the key areas in this 
country where startup companies are flourishing with new ideas and 
products that are going

[[Page S8015]]

global rapidly. I was there and talking about the Advanced Technology 
Program. I have a letter, as I mentioned, signed by over 100 CEO's of 
startup companies saying, ``Do away with this corporate welfare.'' That 
is what they called it. These are the people who, arguably, this 
program started for. They said:

       We don't want you directing it because you move too slow; 
     Washington moves too slow in trying to figure out what is 
     taking place in the global marketplace. It can't react fast 
     enough; it can't figure these out. You are going back and 
     basically taking taxpayer dollars from the startup companies 
     to fund more stodgy, slower moving items, many of which end 
     up going to the private market. If you want to help us, cut 
     the capital gains rates; do something about the litigation; 
     as we try to raise capital in this marketplace, do something 
     about the regulatory regime where we have 50 different 
     entities regulating us. Much of that is needed, but can you 
     make it more simplified? What about all the manipulation 
     where you are trying to direct, by the Tax Code, everything 
     we do every day.

  Then they gave a great example which I thought was wonderful. There 
is a little startup company in the Silicon Valley that raised over $300 
million in capital. That is more than the Advanced Technology Program. 
We are talking about $200 million in this program. They raised that 
much. I was speaking to a group of people about 5 miles away from this 
startup company that raised $300 million. I was talking to a crowd of 
about 100 people there. I asked them, ``Have any of you heard of this 
company?'' I gave the name of the company. This was a group of 100 
people, 5 miles a way. This company has actually raised more money than 
is in the ATP Program. One person there out of the 100 had heard of it. 
That is a substantial amount of money, but it is not large compared to 
the amount of capital being raised and is needed.
  If we really want to do something, let's help the overall atmosphere 
and not try to direct it. As I want to point out yet again, look at 
what we are talking about with this amendment. We are saying that if 
you are a Fortune 500 company, if you have over $2.5 billion in 
revenues, we think you can find enough capital on your own to fund 
ideas you think are good. Let's target it for the startup companies. 
That is what we are supposed to be after with this. These large 
companies, when they have an idea they want to pursue, have the ability 
to be able to pursue it. That is how you deal with this issue. If we 
want to really help corporate America, we have a great chance coming up 
to cut capital gains and deal with litigation reform, and we can 
actually do something real.
  So those are my responses. I know the Senator from South Carolina has 
his heart in the right place and his concepts are clear in his mind. If 
we really want to help them--and I have been there and talked with 
them--target this and cut it away from the Fortune 500 companies.
  Mr. President, I do ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment, and 
I believe there is some discussion about holding this vote until 2:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  It appears there is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the 
Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Brownback amendment 
No. 980, with no amendments in order to the Brownback amendment prior 
to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, we tried to go to the 
fundamental that a $2.5 billion company does not have the ability to 
develop it or to pursue it or to commercialize it.
  Now, why doesn't it have that ability? I emphasize, of course, the 
way the market and the financing of projects works. You have to have a 
quick turnaround. A lot of good, fundamental research technology is not 
developed and not commercialized in the United States for the simple 
reason that the market financing infrastructure does not allow it.
  If you were chairman of the board, then we would see how long you 
last unless you turn around and get your stock up. And that is the name 
of the game in America. And they all have to play it. When they get a 
choice of anything beyond 2 or 3 years, then obviously the board 
members, everybody wants to look like good guys and making money and 
everything else for the stockholders. The pressure is there to go ahead 
and export it, get an arrangement, a split arrangement with any of the 
other countries that would want to try to develop it. That is our 
global competition.
  Specifically, right here, in Business Week:

       To stay in the game, Singapore is stepping up its 
     industrial subsidies.

  In September, the Government announced it will pump $2.85 billion 
over the next 5 years into science and technology development including 
research and development grants for multinationals.
  No small business. I am trying to get my friend from Kansas to 
understand we have got the Small Business Administration. We take care 
of small business. We favor small business. But what we are looking at, 
to keep the eye on the target, is the development and commercialization 
of technology. And small business, if they went with good research that 
could really be proven to the SBA, they would get total financing right 
now. They would get it underwritten under the SBA technology grants. We 
worked that program far more than the little $200 million in this 
particular endeavor. They have over $800 million in grant authorization 
for small business.
  Please, my gracious, let us go with it. Global competition is such 
that the smallest of the small competitor, Singapore, recently helped 
fund a $51 million research development facility for whom? For Sony, a 
$2.5 billion corporation:

       Last month Lucent Technologies received a grant for a new 
     communications research and development endeavor.

  I could go on down reading these articles. I wish everybody in the 
National Government would be given a book by Eamonn Fingleton entitled 
``Blind Side.'' We have all been running around and talking about the 
bank problems in Japan and, oh, Japan has all kinds of problems, and 
they really have their back up against the wall; they are not any 
competition any longer.
  The fact is, Mr. President, last year while we had a 2.5 percent 
growth with the market booming. A rebirth in America, we have the 
strongest economy, Greenspan says he's never seen such a thing, 2.5-
percent growth, Japan had 3.6 percent growth.
  The name of the game is market share, market share. They are copying 
it off right and left. And at this moment, this very moment, for 
example, the great big automaker, United States of America, exports 
less cars than Mexico. Mark it down. You are down there in that area, 
Mr. President. Mexico exports more automobiles than the United States 
of America.

  I just helped break ground for Honda in Timmonsville, SC. Who exports 
more cars than any other entity in America? Honda; the Japanese. Not 
General Motors, not Ford, not Chrysler. Honda.
  When are we going to wake up to what's going on? Market share. If you 
read Fingleton's book, you go to the Ministry of Finance. Don't worry 
about MITI, go to the Ministry of Finance and you get your financing, 
your large corporations.
  Now, please, my gracious, I am for the little man. I am a Democrat. 
Heavens above. We know the large corporate welfare crowd. But we have 
been for the little man against hunger. I just voted to take $5 million 
off administration in the Department of Agricultural budget to get more 
lunchroom programs. So don't talk about corporate welfare and try to 
identify. We are talking about global competition, which, frankly, the 
White House doesn't even understand.
  You know why I say that. We had a course on Tuesday on NAFTA, North 
American Free-Trade Agreement, where we brought in Mexico in 1994, and 
we were going to have a sort of update on how it was doing, whether it 
was a success or not. They wouldn't even send an administration witness 
to the senatorial committee, and that's why they called off the 
particular hearing. They are embarrassed that they said we would create 
200,000 jobs. We have lost 300,000. I will show you the Department of 
Labor statistics. We have lost in textiles and apparel 231,000 alone. 
So instead of increasing it in one direction, we have decreased it in 
the

[[Page S8016]]

other direction; we have been exporting fine, good-paying jobs in the 
particular industry that predominates my own State. They said, well, we 
are going to increase trade. We had a plus balance of trade of $5 
billion and we have gone to a $16 billion minus balance.
  And they say exports, exports. Well, exports are up. We are sending 
parts down there to be assembled into automobiles and the good 
automobile manufacturer is moving to Mexico. You would, too. I do not 
blame them. I blame us, you and me. This is the policy. In 
manufacturing, a third of your operating costs goes into labor, to 
payroll, and you can save as much as 20 percent by moving to an 
offshore, or down in Mexico, low wages and little or no worker or 
environmental protections.
  When I say no particular protections, colleagues are running around 
on this Senate floor saying you have to have a minimum wage, you have 
to have clean air and clean water and plant closing and parental leave, 
Social Security, Medicare, occupational safety from hazard, and up and 
down the list. Whoopee, yea, we are great. And then we put in a policy 
that says you don't have to do any of that. You can go offshore for 58 
cents an hour. Did you see the program on Mexico just last night on 
public television?
  Come on. We are losing the jobs right and left. We are losing our 
technology right and left. Eamonn Fingleton in his book--and I called 
him just the other day because he has updated it now with a paperback--
projected by 2000 we would be blind-sided. Today, Japan, a country as 
big as the State of California, manufactures more than the great United 
States of America. It has a greater manufacturing output. And otherwise 
by the year 2000 it will have a greater gross domestic product, a 
larger economy, and I will bet you on it. And I want them to come here 
and take the bets because I believe he is right. You can just see how 
the market share goes. You see how the GDP goes and everything else of 
that kind.
  We are going out of business the way of Great Britain. They told the 
Brits at the end of World War II, the empire was breaking up, they said 
don't worry about it. Instead of a nation of brawn, we will be a nation 
of brains; instead of producing products, provide services, a service 
economy. Instead of creating wealth with manufacturing we are going to 
become a financial center.
  And England today, Mr. President--I have the distinguished 
President's attention--England, the United Kingdom has less of an 
economy than little irrelevant Ireland. Mark it down. Read 
the Economist just a month ago. Yes, Ireland, now bigger, economically 
than the United Kingdom. All they have is a debating society. London is 
a downtown amusement park.

  Come on. Are we going to head that way as we go out of business, 
continue to appropriate again more and more moneys and finance our 
campaigns with these false promises of ``I am going to cut taxes.'' Oh, 
the Post is running around: ``Are you for cutting taxes? Yes, I'm for 
cutting taxes.'' You cannot cut your and my taxes today without 
increasing our children's taxes tomorrow. We have deficit financing.
  We will get into that debate again when they bring the reconciliation 
bill over. It is not the Chinese trying to get into our elections. If 
they want to get into our elections, do as the Japanese do. Pat Choate 
wrote the book, ``The Agents of Influence,'' 7 years ago. One hundred 
Japanese law firms, consultants here in Washington paid over $113 
million. Add up the pay of the Senators and Congressmen, the 535 
Members of Congress, and boy, oh, boy, you get, about $71.3 million. 
The Japanese in Washington by way of pay are better represented than 
the people of America.
  When are we going to wake up? Tell the Chinese, ``For Heaven's sake, 
to do the same thing as the Japanese. Give it to a lawyer. Tell them to 
come around and find some lawyers.
  But, no, we want to turn this into corporate welfare, show that we 
fought against corporate welfare. Absolute folly. There is no corporate 
welfare at all in this. It is, by gosh, trying to commercialize 
technology and we will not face up to the reality. We are going out of 
business and now we want to say to those who do the general research, 
the unique research, that there is no reason to try and get into 
anything marginal that is going to take over 3 years to develop. Sell 
it, move on to the next thing. Let us continue the outflow of business, 
the outflow of jobs, the outflow of technology, and the outflow of our 
security. And everybody comes around and says that's a good idea.
  I think, to the President's credit, it ought to be emphasized that he 
put this program down as a quid pro quo in the leadership agreement. 
Now, the agreement has been on both sides of the aisle, the Democratic 
and Republican agreement, the White House and the congressional 
agreement that the Advanced Technology Program would be funded at this 
particular level and in the manner in which it is currently funded. 
What we are being asked for in this particular amendment is to violate 
that agreement. We are running right into a veto situation on a small 
matter while trying to make it appear as corporate welfare. The 
opponents of this program don't tell you about the National Academy of 
Engineering. You show me another grant program that has to be reviewed 
that way.
  I wish we still had Senator Danforth here because he and I worked on 
this thing over the years to develop the bill's credibility, but now we 
are going to start tearing down its credibility, by changing it into a 
small business program for those small companies that can't afford to 
really commercialize their technology. They can't afford to engage in 
general research, or in unique research to begin with, on account of 
its small nature. They just don't have the labs and facilities that the 
large companies do. But we want to act as political animals up here, 
pollster politicians and so we are for tax cuts, when we go up and 
continue to increase the debt.
  We have been reducing the deficit each year for 5 years. Now we are 
going to use the public till to run around and say we are going to cut 
revenues while we increase, and we are going to have to go out and 
borrow the money to do it, because we are in the red. We are not in the 
black. So we will take that multitrillion-dollar debt and interest 
costs of $1 billion a day and increase that for nothing.

  In the last 16 years we have increased the debt from less than $1 
trillion to $5.4 trillion without the cost of a single war. Mr. 
President, in 200 years of history with the cost of all the wars we 
have not even reached a trillion. Now we jump to $5.4 trillion and 
instead of $75 billion--$74.8 billion, to be exact, we are going to up 
to $365 billion, $1 billion a day. That extra $285 billion, we are 
spending it for nothing. And there are all these fellows talking about 
pork and welfare and getting rid of the waste, and using that rhetoric 
for their reelection next year.
  ``I am against taxes, I am against the Government, get rid of the 
Government.'' That's the big hoopla they have going on, on the other 
side of the Hill. They are now tasking the leadership of the contract 
to get rid of the Department of Commerce, to get rid of the Advanced 
Technology Program, to get rid of all the Government that pays for 
itself and keeps us secure and keeps us superior as a nation. So now 
they are going against jobs, against the security of the land, and for 
corporate welfare, based on this amendment. They say, just on account 
of the $2.5 billion measure, that ``the corporation has the ability to 
pursue it,'' their exact words. Yet, everyone knows that the CEO's do 
not have the ability if they are going to be a good corporate head. 
They are going to put their moneys elsewhere because where the 
turnaround is, there also is the competition, and they also know that 
the other governments are financing not only the research but 
development and taking over the market share.
  We are going to holler, ``let market forces, let market forces''--
well, let's look at the market that we developed here in the National 
Government, through measures such as minimum wage, plant closings, 
clean air, clean water--which we all vote for, Republican and Democrat. 
But the companies say, ``You don't have any of that in global 
competition.'' In addition, they are financing it like we finance 
research for the aircraft industry.
  They have learned from the United States. We finance Boeing, we are 
proud of them. They produce and ship planes globally. Thank God we 
still have one industry. Now, however, we

[[Page S8017]]

have shipped the technology on the FSX to Japan, and Boeing has had to 
move the parts manufacturing into the People's Republic of China. We 
are beginning to lose that segment of manufacturing. We are losing the 
automobile industry. Now we are going to lose the aerospace industry.
  They told me years ago, ``Hollings, what's the matter with you? Let 
the developing nations, the Third World, make the textiles and the 
shoes and we will make the airplanes and the computers.'' Now our 
competition in the global competition is making the airplanes and the 
computers and the textiles and the shoes and we are running around here 
jabbering about, ``free trade, free trade, free trade, let market 
forces, let market forces, let market forces,'' and don't have any 
realization of the actual market forces that we, as politicians, 
created.
  I hope this amendment will be defeated in consonance with the overall 
agreement of the leadership in the Congress and the White House on the 
one hand--and defeated based on common sense and competition on the 
other hand.
  I know my distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle, the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Senator Frist, has been leading 
now, in our committee. He has been holding hearings, and has been 
providing leadership on addressing the issues relating to the Advanced 
Technology Program. I know the others that are interested in this 
program, including those that I have listed--trying to emphasize, by 
the way, that this effort is bipartisan. Senator Danforth and I worked 
this out 10 years ago, and the program is working. It is working well. 
We need more money. Thousands and thousands of qualified grants still 
don't receive funding.

  I asked, I say, does the Senator from Kansas have the documentation 
where small business really applied but the big companies got the 
award? If that occurred we would have it here. He said these little 
businesses are being denied. I know the Commerce Department, Secretary 
Daley. I know the administration of this particular program and they 
look for the small business in order to sustain the credibility and 
support of the program because since its beginnings, critics have been 
watching the Advanced Technology Program closely for the simple reason 
they don't understand. They think, ``Well, get rid of the Government. 
Find out where the pork is. Find out where the welfare is. Characterize 
it as welfare. Say you have these big Fortune 500 companies, they have 
$2.5 billion so they can do it.'' And they don't understand what they 
are talking about.
  It is a sad day when we even propose an amendment of this kind, 
because it shows that we really don't understand competition, although 
we keep running around like parrots, ``Competition, competition, 
competition.'' We are the ones with these kind of amendments that 
destroy competition.
  We are against welfare but we are the ones with these kind of 
amendments that create welfare.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are awaiting other Members bringing 
amendments to the floor. I appreciate the enthusiasm and energy of the 
Senator from South Carolina in his spirited defense of the ATP program, 
which he, as he has mentioned and which will be generally 
acknowledged--he is the father of.
  I would say we are going to have a vote on that at 2 o'clock, and at 
that time I hope Members would support the amendment of the Senator 
from Kansas because I believe it makes sense and it is a strengthening 
amendment to the ATP program.
  So, at this time I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, Senator 
Brownback, as I understand it.
  That amendment, if it were adopted, would essentially prohibit the 
Advanced Technology Program, which is administered through the 
Department of Commerce, from allowing participation of large companies.
  Let me give you my own understanding of how the Advanced Technology 
Program works. I think it has been an extremely useful program. It has 
helped to keep the United States at the forefront of technology 
development and high-technology industry development in the world, and, 
to a significant degree, our leadership in that arena, in that area of 
high technology, is the reason why we enjoy the strong economy we enjoy 
today.
  So I believe the Advanced Technology Program is useful. It has been a 
great help to many companies. It has been a great help in helping us, 
as a country, create jobs in the industries of the future.
  In order for that program to succeed, though, we need to be sure that 
taxpayer funds are provided, and they are only a very small portion of 
the total funds that go into these technology development activities, 
but they are a catalyst. They bring together companies. They bring 
together research institutions to do this important work. Those funds 
also provide a bridge between the Government-funded research and the 
private-sector research, so that we have national laboratories, such as 
the two in my State, Los Alamos and Sandia, and we have many large and 
small companies working together to make breakthroughs in technology.
  It is essential, if this program is going to succeed, that we allow 
the Advanced Technology Program to put the funds where the most good 
can be done and we not begin to structure this program as though it was 
some kind of a jobs program or as though it is a doling out of funds to 
different corporate interests. It is not that. It is an effort by the 
Federal Government to stimulate cooperative research in areas that show 
great promise.
  Sometimes the people doing that work are in large companies. 
Sometimes there are a few individuals in a large company who are doing 
very important work and can benefit from collaborating with researchers 
in small companies or researchers in national laboratories or 
researchers in universities around this country.
  I think it would be a great mistake for us to begin to limit the 
companies that can participate in the Advanced Technology Program. To 
do so would begin to move us down the road toward mediocrity in the 
technologies that are developed through use of these public funds, and 
I believe that is a very major mistake.
  I know that there have been criticisms over the past that any time 
the Federal Government invests dollars in research and development 
activities that private sector companies are engaged in, that somehow 
or another that is corporate welfare. I strongly disagree with that 
point of view. I think the taxpayers are well served if we can invest 
in developing technologies that will create jobs, will produce revenue, 
will produce additional tax revenue in the future and will keep our 
economy the strongest in the world.
  I very much hope that the Senate will reject the Brownback amendment 
when it is finally voted on, and I hope we will allow this Advanced 
Technology Program to continue to be the great engine of innovation and 
technology development that it has been in recent years.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to urge the Senate to reject 
the amendment offered by Senator Brownback that is designed to weaken a 
program absolutely critical to the country's technological strength. I 
thought that the fact that this bill contains the $200 million in funds 
needed for the Advanced Technology Program was a sign that we could 
finally get past a debate that is nothing but a distraction and a 
danger to our own economy.
  I stand here today just as I did last year and the year before to 
defend this program--this investment in America's economic 
competitiveness. As I, along with many others in this Chamber, have 
stated before, this program supports American industry's own efforts to 
develop new cutting edge, next-generation technologies--technologies 
that will create the new industries and jobs of the 21st century.
  Let me remind my colleagues that ATP does not, and I repeat, does not

[[Page S8018]]

fund the development of commercial products. Instead, this program 
provides matching funds to both individual companies and joint ventures 
for pre-product research on high risk, potentially high payoff 
technologies.
  The Senate should give credit to Secretary of Commerce Daley, and let 
us work with him through the authorization process to improve the 
program. Secretary Daley just met his pledge to conduct a 60-day review 
of the program to assess the ATP's performance and the criticisms that 
have been levied against it.
  Sure enough, his review took into account comments provided by both 
critics and supporters of ATP. The Department of Commerce notified more 
than 3,500 interested parties, soliciting comments about ATP. In fact, 
Senators Lieberman, Domenici, Frist, and I joined together and provided 
1 of the 80-plus comments the Department received.
  I commend Secretary Daley for the job he did in undertaking this 
review. As we all know, there is not a department or program that can't 
be improved. And as a long time and avid supporter of ATP, I believe 
that after 6 years of operation, experience shows us some areas that 
indeed can be improved. This review has done just that. I agree with 
his suggestion to place more emphasis on joint-ventures and consortia 
and more emphasis on small and medium-size single applicants. I also 
support his proposal to shift the cost-share ratio for large single 
applicants to 60 percent, and I will further review his suggestions to 
encourage state participation.

  As ranking Democrat on the Science and Technology Subcommittee, which 
has oversight of the ATP, I look forward to working with my colleague 
Senator Frist to review this report and to make any necessary 
legislative changes during consideration of legislation to reauthorize 
the Technology Administration.
  Secretary Daley's review could not have been done at a better time. 
As I stated, this program has been in existence for 6 years, and this 
review was conducted on those 6 years of experience. The proposals set 
forth in this review strengthen a very strong program that is one of 
the cornerstones to the Nation's long-term economic prosperity.
  Some of us in the Senate, Senator Hollings, Senator Burns, Senator 
Lieberman, and myself, to name just a few, have been fighting every 
year for the past 4 years to keep the ATP alive. We welcomed the 
Secretary's review because we knew that it would validate the arguments 
we've been making for the past 4 years. A new element also is emerging 
in this debate that is validating what we have been saying. That new 
element is the success stories that are finally emerging. The mere 
ideas receiving grant money 4, 5, and 6 years ago are now technologies 
entering the market place and enhancing our economy and our livelihood.
  Let me close with some success stories that are starting to emerge.
  In Michigan for example, there are already two success stories, the 
first relating to the auto industry and the second relating to bone 
marrow transplants.
  In September 1995, an ATP-funded project, the ``2 millimeter (2mm) 
program,'' was completed. As a result of this grant, new manufacturing 
technologies and practices that substantially improve the fit of auto 
body parts during automated assembly of metal parts was developed. This 
technology has substantially improved the fit of auto body parts during 
assembly, resulting in dimensional variation at or below the world 
benchmark of 2 millimeters, the thickness of a nickel. What does this 
mean for this Nation's economy? It means that U.S. auto manufacturers 
can make cars and trucks with less wind noise, tighter fitting doors 
and windshields, fewer rattles, and higher customer satisfaction. In 
addition, there is a cost savings between $10 and $25 per car to the 
consumer, and maintenance cost savings is estimated between $50 and 
$100 per car. In addition, this improved quality is estimated to give 
the U.S. auto manufacturers a 1- to 2-percent gain in market share. 
Equally important is that this newly developed technology is applicable 
in the sheet metal industry, and industries as diverse as aircraft, 
metal furniture fabrication, and appliance manufacturing. Quality 
improvement from this technology could result in an increase in total 
U.S. economic output of more than $3 billion annually.

  In 1992, Aastrom Biosciences, a 15-person firm in Ann Arbor, MI, 
proposed a bioreactor that would take bone marrow cells from a patient 
and within 12 days produce several billion stem, white, and other blood 
cells--cells that can be injected into the patient to rapidly boost the 
body's disease-fighting ability. The technology looked promising but 
was too risky and long-term at that point to obtain significant private 
funding.
  The national benefit of this program was that it provided a reliable 
device that would allow blood cells from a patient to be grown in large 
quantities would reduce health care costs, require fewer blood 
transfusions, and greatly improve the treatment of patients with 
cancer, AIDS, and genetic blood diseases. Aastrom submitted a proposal 
identifying the economic opportunity and technical promise, and in 1992 
the ATP co-funded a research project that developed a new prototype 
bioreactor. Today, after completing the ATP project and proving the 
technology, the company has over 60 employees, and another 30 providing 
contract services, a practical prototype, and over $36 million in 
private investment to develop their new blood cell bioreactor into a 
commercial product.
  In North Carolina, Cree Research of Durham, won an ATP award in April 
1992 to develop improved processing for growing large silicon-carbide 
crystals--a semiconductor material used for specialized electronic and 
optoelectronic devices such as the highly desired blue light-emitting 
diodes [LED's]. In 1992, this market was limited because of 
difficulties in growing large, high-quality single crystals. With ATP 
support, Cree Research was able to double the wafer size, with 
significant improvements in the quality of the larger wafers. Since 
1992, LED sales are up by over 850 percent as a result of the ATP-
funded technology.
  In Texas, a company has developed a cost-effective, microchip-based 
DNA diagnostic testing platform which contains both a family of 
diagnostic instruments and disposables. This successful prototype has 
demonstrated single molecule detection at a tenfold throughput 
advantage over conventional technologies. Numerous patented products 
will result from this technology in a market--molecular tools for 
diagnostics--which is expected to reach $2 billion by the year 2004.
  ATP funded projects from 5 and 6 years ago are becoming success 
stories all across the Nation.
  Mr. President, ATP is working, and the U.S. economy is benefitting; 
288 awards have been given thus far, including 104 joint ventures, and 
184 single applicants. Small businesses account for 106 awards and are 
the lead in 28 of the joint ventures. For the $989 million in ATP 
funding committed by the Federal Government, industry has committed 
$1.03 billion in cost sharing. The success stories, however, show us 
Mr. President, that the Federal funding and the cost sharing is just 
the seed money for enormous contributions to our national economy and 
our global competitiveness. Necessary seed money that bridges the 
innovation gap in this country between basic research and emerging 
technologies. I encourage my colleagues to continue their support of 
this worthy and successful program, and to reject this amendment that 
will take us backwards and help our foreign competitors while weakening 
our own economy.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in support of 
Senator Brownback's amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. This amendment prohibits the 
awarding of grants from the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] within 
the Department of Commerce to corporations with sales greater than $2.5 
billion.
  This amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas is a good amendment 
that should enjoy bipartisan support. After all, I hear my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle talking year after campaign year about 
eliminating corporate welfare. Therefore, I assume a vote to limit 
grants to the wealthiest corporations in the Nation should be an easy 
one. Let's be clear about what

[[Page S8019]]

firms we are talking about. The companies that have been awarded the 
largest grant amounts are IBM, General Motors, General Electric, Ford, 
and Sun Microsystems, among others. Do these sound like corporations in 
need of one, two or three million dollar grants? To me, these 
profitable firms sound like companies that could certainly find private 
sector funding. And this belief is not without basis. In fact, the 
General Accounting Office [GAO] surveyed 89 grant recipients and 34 
near-winners that applied for ATP funding between 1990 and 1993. Of the 
near-winners, half continued their research and development projects 
despite a lack of ATP funding. Among those who received grants, 42 
percent said they would have continued their R&D without the ATP money.
  The Federal Government should not be in the business of providing 
corporate subsidies. However, we should fund basic science projects 
that do not have short-term profit-making potential, and would 
otherwise not be funded by the private sector. The Senator's amendment 
is a step toward reversing this trend toward funding applied research 
that ultimately produces handsome profits for these companies. Under 
his reasonable proposal, the most profitable firms, companies that 
realize more than $2.5 billion in sales, would not be eligible for ATP 
subsidies. While I would prefer to see these corporate subsidies 
eliminated from our budget, I would be pleased to know that Federal 
funding is not going to enormously profitable corporations.
  Defenders of the ATP corporate welfare program argue that these 
grants allow research that otherwise would not go forward. How do we 
know, when many of the grant recipients did not even seek private 
sector money before coming to the Federal Government? In fact, GAO 
found that 63 percent of the ATP applicants surveyed had not sought 
private sector funding before applying for a grant. Other opponents of 
this amendment are the same Senators who oppose the efforts of the 
Republicans to ease the tax burden on Americans. At the same time these 
Members deny taxpayers the chance to keep some of their own money, they 
turn around and give the hard-earned tax dollar to billion dollar 
corporations.
  However, after hearing so many Senators speak out against corporate 
welfare, I am confident that this amendment will be approved by a wide 
margin. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Department of 
Commerce's Advanced Technology Program or ATP. This is an important 
program and I have long appreciated Senator Hollings' work in founding 
and continuing it. The amendment offered by Senator Brownback would 
prohibit ATP awards to companies with revenues that exceed $2.5 
billion. I oppose Senator Brownback's amendment and would like to thank 
Senator Frist for his floor statement explaining why he too has voted 
against the amendment. Like Senator Frist, I think there are several 
solid reasons as to why Senator Brownback's amendment should be 
opposed.
  My first concern is process--this is an attempt to legislate a very 
complex issue now being considered by the authorizing committee, on an 
appropriations bill. The Senate Commerce Committee, Science and 
Technology Subcommittee under Senator Frist, the Subcommittee Chair, 
and Senator Rockefeller, ranking Democrat, are planning legislation on 
ATP, including a careful look at this issue, later this session. I 
believe in this case that the Senate should vote to wait and see what 
action the authorizing committee takes.
  I would also highlight recent changes to the ATP proposed by Commerce 
Secretary William Daley that may assist in resolving this debate. The 
Secretary's action plan for changes is very responsive to 
recommendations I and other Members of Congress made. Specifically the 
evaluation criteria will be changed to put more emphasis on joint 
ventures or consortia. This will help ensure that the program funds 
only pre-competitive research and development; for if competitors in 
the development phase cooperate in research and development, they are 
very unlikely to allow access to each other's product development 
efforts.
  Secretary Daley has mandated that the cost-share ratio for large 
companies, applying as single applicants, will be increased to a 
minimum of 60 percent. Proposals will also be reviewed by venture 
capital experts to ensure that private sector financing would not be 
available and a government role is needed. When combined with changes 
in the evaluation criteria favoring small and medium sized businesses, 
these changes will result in virtually all ATP grants being awarded to 
either consortium or small and medium sized company single applicants.
  Finally, modifications to the ATP's rules and procedures would help 
facilitate cooperative ventures between industry and universities and 
national laboratories. To date, university and Federal laboratory 
participation has been hindered over concerns regarding intellectual 
property and project management.
  After studying the Secretary's report, I believe that the ATP will 
emerge both as a more effective program and one with a significantly 
reduced political profile. Its new structure appears to have answered 
criticisms raised and is consistent with the bipartisan ideas endorsed 
by the Senate Science and Technology Caucus of which I am a member.
  I believe that the changes introduced by Secretary Daley, now under 
review by the Commerce Committee, are a better way to ensure the 
continued effectiveness of the Advanced Technology Program than the 
pending amendment which would completely ban large companies from all 
participation in the ATP. Large companies play a key role in the 
innovation process through their organizational ability, resources and 
market experience. To entirely preclude their participation in the ATP 
would be a mistake. I will vote to oppose this amendment and look 
forward to Senator Frist's subcommittee review.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to speak on this bill.
  I thank Senator Gregg, our subcommittee chairman, and Senator 
Hollings, our ranking member, for help, for cooperation and commitment 
to the most important issue facing my State, and that is bolstering the 
front line of our Nation's defense in the war on drugs.
  The U.S. Border Patrol has been funded in this bill. It has been 
funded to the extent that we will be able to add 1,000 new Border 
Patrol agents during fiscal year 1998. This bill provides adequate 
funding for their training and supervision. Moreover, it reflects the 
ongoing commitment of Congress to put 5,000 new Border Patrol agents on 
the line and to regain control of our borders by the year 2002.
  Mr. President, I have to tell you that this was a hard-fought effort. 
The Immigration Reform Act passed last year directed the administration 
to submit a budget request to Congress which included funding for 1,000 
new agents. Regrettably, they only requested funding for 500. I and 
Senator Gramm have had many discussions with the Attorney General and 
the INS Commissioner. I am convinced of their commitment to secure our 
borders. I think they really are sincere. But now they must back that 
up with the requested resources in future years.
  Over the past several months, I have felt and expressed a sense of 
hopelessness in our Nation's war on drugs. I feel this hopelessness 
because no matter where I travel in Texas, I meet people who have lost 
loved ones to drug violence. I know ranchers and farmers along our 
border who have been intimidated by drug smugglers. They have had their 
homes shot at in broad daylight. I know of Customs agents of Mexican-
American heritage who have been told by drug smugglers to look the 
other way as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines are 
smuggled across the border because their families back in Mexico will 
be harmed if they do not.
  Just this morning, a friend of mine called me to tell me about his 
friend

[[Page S8020]]

who lives in Carrizo Springs. He described gangs of drug thugs and 
illegal immigrants who are terrorizing residents of this small Texas 
community. They are scared and they feel helpless. These Texans have 
the misfortune to live along the front lines of a business that 
provides $10 billion to the Mexican economy each year--the drug market.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that approximately 
12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs. Illegal drug use occurs among 
members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States. 
And 10.9 percent of all children between 12 and 17 use illegal drugs 
and 1 child in 4 claims to have been offered illegal drugs in the last 
year.
  Drug-related illness, death and crime cost the United States 
approximately $67 billion each year, including costs for lost 
productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
  I strongly believe and share the view that effective treatment and 
prevention is needed to break the cycle that links illegal drugs to 
violent crime. It is the only way to protect our children and save 
their future.
  Mr. President, our southern neighbor, Mexico, is the source of 
between 20 and 30 percent of the heroin, 70 percent of the marijuana, 
and 50 to 70 percent of the cocaine shipped into the United States. If 
the flow of drugs is going to stop, the front line of that war will be 
along our Nation's border with Mexico. The United States-Mexico border 
is 2,000 miles long, and Texas has 1,200 miles of that border.
  You can see how that border goes. You can see that, of the 2,000, 
1,200 miles is along Texas. Texas has been and will continue to be the 
key battleground in this war.
  I am pleased that we have been able to work with the Border Patrol 
and the committee to correct disparities in placing Border Patrol along 
the border. As you can see from this chart, Texas has 1.7 agents for 
every 1 of our 1,254 miles--1.7 for this 1,254-mile border. New Mexico 
and Arizona do not fare much better. California has 16.3 agents for 
every one mile of the border. I cannot go home and tell my constituents 
that we are doing all we can in the war on drugs if Congress and the 
administration fail to provide the funding for more Border Patrol 
agents.
  Two of Mexico's largest drug cartels, the Juarez cartel and the 
Matamoros cartel operate from El Paso here and Brownsville, 
respectively. You can see from this chart that from the Matamoros 
cartel, the gulf cartel, the drugs go in and over to the eastern 
seaboard. From the Juarez cartel, it goes into Colorado and Chicago, 
the Midwest. From the Tijuana cartel, it goes into California, goes to 
the Pacific Northwest. So you can see what is happening to our country 
and what not closing the border can do to the amount of illegal drugs 
that are coming into our country.

  As we work on this funding for fiscal year 1998, I will be asking 
many questions about deployment of resources from the DEA and from the 
Border Patrol because we must put the resources where the threat lies. 
Two-thirds of the illegal immigration and the illegal drugs flowing 
through Mexico and into our country go through Texas, through McAllen, 
through Eagle Pass, and through the Del Rio Border Patrol sectors. Two-
thirds of the illegal immigration and the illegal drugs go through 
these corridors. Yet as we have said, there are only 1.7 agents per 
mile in Texas, and we must do something about that, and that is what 
this bill is going to address today.
  The bill that we pass will fully fund 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. 
We need this help. It is the highest priority I have. As long as drugs 
are coming through Mexico into the United States through this border, 
it should be the highest priority for everyone.
  That is why I cannot say enough times how pleased I am that the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg; Senator Hollings, the 
ranking member of the subcommittee; as well as our chairman, Senator 
Stevens, all agreed that this was a crisis that affects all of us. It 
is not just the border States; it is all of the States that these drugs 
funnel into. Nothing is a greater priority than stopping the flow of 
illegal drugs into our country. When 1 child in every 4 has been 
offered illegal drugs, we cannot look them in the eye and say we are 
protecting their future if we do not stop those illegal drugs.
  So I want to work with the Attorney General and the Commissioner of 
INS and General McCaffrey, who is our drug czar, who is trying to 
grapple with this issue. I want to say to them, no resource is going to 
be withheld if it will stop the illegal drugs and the illegal 
immigration into our country that has criminalized our borders.
  This bill addresses that today, and I will ask the Attorney General 
and the Commissioner of INS to help us by deploying the full 1,000 and 
making sure that we stop the centers where these people are coming 
through Texas. If we can stop it right now, then our children will have 
a better future.
  Thank you, Mr. President. Once again I thank the subcommittee 
chairman. I think, if we can work together on a bipartisan basis, we 
can make a difference for the future of our country. And this is a 
major first step.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my judgment, there is an urgent need 
that independent counsel be appointed to investigate and prosecute 
campaign finance violations arising out of the 1996 Federal elections. 
The efforts to persuade Attorney General Reno to make that application 
for independent counsel have thus far failed. It is my view that it is 
important to consider alternatives in order to have independent counsel 
appointed.
  In my judgment, there are two possible alternatives available. One 
would be a lawsuit to ask the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, the appropriate panel on independent counsel, to 
appoint independent counsel, notwithstanding the refusal of the 
Attorney General to make that application.
  The general rule of law is that a public official may not be 
compelled to perform a discretionary function, an area of law which I 
had some experience with as district attorney of Philadelphia. However, 
there is a narrow ambit, even when considering a discretionary rule, 
where there may be an application for relief if there is an abuse of 
discretion by the public official. It is my legal judgment that there 
has been such an abuse of discretion by the Attorney General in this 
situation.

  Another alternative would be to legislate in the field, to make it 
abundantly plain that independent counsel should be appointed here, and 
that the circuit court would have the authority to do so. In my 
opinion, there is a realistic likelihood of success on litigation at 
the present time.
  Although the independent counsel statute poses certain problems which 
make it to some extent uncertain, I believe there is a legal basis for 
proceeding to have the court appoint independent counsel without any 
modification of pending law. There is the alternative of legislating on 
this bill which is before the Senate, to make certain modifications of 
the independent counsel law, which would remove any conceivable doubt 
about the authority of the circuit court to appoint independent 
counsel.
  Mr. President, on the issue of the exhausting of remedies on 
requesting that independent counsel be appointed by Attorney General 
Reno, the record is replete with a whole series of requests having been 
made by individual Members of Congress and then by the Judiciary 
Committee of the U.S. Senate. The issue was focused on very sharply 
with Attorney General Reno in oversight hearings which we had several 
months ago. I had an opportunity to question the Attorney General on 
this subject and pointed to two specific instances which, in my 
judgment, cried out for the appointment of independent counsel.
  President Clinton has publicly complained about having been denied 
national security information which he thought he should have and has 
complained that such information was denied to him by the FBI and the 
Department of Justice. In questioning Attorney General Reno on this 
subject in the Judiciary oversight hearing, she defended that denial of 
information on the ground that there was a pending criminal 
investigation and that as a matter of balance, it was her judgment as 
Attorney General that the information should not be turned over to the 
President.
  On the record in that Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, I 
disagreed

[[Page S8021]]

with her conclusion on the ground that the Attorney General did not 
have the authority to decide what the President should or should not 
see on national security matters; the President as Commander in Chief 
and Chief Executive Officer of the United States has an absolute right 
to that information. If there were to be a denial to the President, it 
was not the function of the Attorney General or the FBI to deny that 
information. However, if the Attorney General felt that a denial of 
information was warranted under the circumstances, that was a very 
powerful showing that independent counsel ought to be appointed. If the 
President of the United States is in any way suspected, that provides a 
very strong basis that his appointed Attorney General ought not be 
conducting that investigation. It ought to be handled by independent 
counsel.
  It was pointed out to Attorney General Reno in the course of that 
oversight hearing that this followed directly her testimony on 
confirmation where she strongly endorsed the concept of independent 
counsel both as a matter of avoiding conflict of interest and, as 
Attorney General Reno said at that time, avoiding the appearance of 
conflict of interest. Notwithstanding that, she has refused to make an 
application for the appointment of independent counsel.

  A second line of questioning which I pursued with the Attorney 
General involved the issue of violations of the campaign finance laws. 
On that subject, there has been substantial information in the public 
domain about the President's personal activities in preparing 
television commercials for the 1996 campaign. There is no doubt--and 
the Attorney General conceded this--there would be a violation of the 
Federal election law if, when the President prepared campaign 
commercials, they were advocacy commercials, contrasted with what is 
known as issue commercials. The activity of the President in 
undertaking that activity has been documented in a book by Dick Morris 
and also in public statements by his chief of staff, Leon Panetta.
  The Attorney General, during the course of the hearing, disputed my 
contention that the commercials were, in fact, advocacy commercials. I 
then wrote to the Attorney General the next day, on May 1, and set 
forth a series of commercials which President Clinton had edited, or 
prepared, and asked her if those were, in fact, advocacy commercials. 
In the letter, I cited the Federal Election Commission definition of 
express advocacy, which is as follows:

       Communications using phrases such as ``vote for 
     President,'' or ``reelect your Congressman,'' ``Smith for 
     Congress,'' or language which, when taken as a whole and with 
     limited reference to external events, can have no other 
     reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identifiable Federal candidate.

  Mr. President, it is my submission that reasonable people cannot 
differ on the conclusion that the commercials that President Clinton 
prepared were express advocacy commercials. This is an illustration of 
a commercial:

       Protecting families. For millions of working families, 
     President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried 
     to raise taxes on 8 million. The Dole-Gingrich budget would 
     have slashed Medicare $270 billion and cut college 
     scholarships. The President defended our values, protected 
     Medicare, and now a tax cut of almost $1,500 a year for the 
     first two years of college. Most community college is free. 
     Help adults go back to school. The President's plan protects 
     our values.

  It is hard to see how anyone could contend that that is not an 
express advocacy commercial. It certainly fits within the definition of 
the Federal Election Commission, which is that the language taken as a 
whole can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election 
and defeat of a clearly identified Federal candidate. That commercial 
refers to two Federal candidates, and one is President Clinton. It 
extols his virtues, obviously speaking in favor of the President. That 
commercial refers to another candidate, former Senator Dole, arguing 
about his failings.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
remarks, my letter dated May 1, 1997, be printed in the Congressional 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, can I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania 
what his intentions may be with respect to the floor, timewise?
  Mr. SPECTER. I expect to speak at some length, Senator Kerry, and to 
introduce an amendment to the present bill. There is a vote scheduled 
for 2 o'clock, and I will have a considerable amount to say, which will 
not all be said by the time the vote comes up.
  Mr. KERRY. Well, Mr. President, if I could inquire again of the 
Senator--and I appreciate his indulgence here. I did want to speak with 
respect to the amendment that is pending for the vote at 2 o'clock. It 
is my understanding that the amendment being submitted by the Senator 
will not be voted on at 2. So I ask the distinguished Senator if he 
might be willing to agree to permit some period of time--and I don't 
need a lot-- before 2 o'clock so that I might speak on the pending 
amendment.

  Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of the Senator from Massachusetts, how 
much time he would like to have?
  Mr. KERRY. I would be pleased to have 6 or 7 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
presentation be interrupted for 7 minutes so that Senator Kerry may 
speak and that I be entitled to regain the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak with respect to the 
amendment that seeks to make it more difficult for large companies to 
be able to participate in the Advanced Technology Program. As a matter 
of background, Mr. President, for years in this country, we had a 
structure where we had the Bell Laboratories, or IBM, and other very 
large entities who were engaged in major research and technology. And 
for years, this country's economy benefited enormously because of the 
remarkable amount of private sector and public sector research. The 
defense industry and other industries had an enormous amount of 
spinoff. If you look at something like the experience of Route 128 in 
Massachusetts, or the Silicon Valley, everybody understands that some 
of the great technology jobs of the present time come from the 1960's 
and 1970's spinoffs through that investment.
  The fact is that our economic structure has changed very 
significantly in the 1990's. We no longer have that kind of broad-based 
technology research fueled by the Federal Government. We have a much 
more specific and targeted kind of research that takes place. And as a 
result of that, both the Federal Government and the private sector have 
narrowed the kind of basic science and research that we do, which often 
results in those spinoffs, which has provided the remarkable foundation 
of the economic growth we are experiencing now in our Nation.
  It is also ironic that, at the very time that we are doing that, 
Japan and other countries are increasing their technology investment. I 
believe, last year, Japan committed to a 50-percent increase in their 
national commitment to science and basic technology research.
  So the truth is that, a number of years ago, the Commerce Committee, 
with the leadership of Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller, myself 
and others, created what is known as the Advanced Technology Program, 
which is a way to joint venture in the United States between our 
universities and our laboratories and various entities in the private 
sector, in order to maximize what was a diminishing ability to move 
science from the laboratory to the shelf, to the marketplace. It would 
be most regrettable to turn around now and reduce the capacity of a 
large company to be able to be part of a consortium, to be able to 
joint venture with smaller companies in an effort to fill that vacuum 
and make up for that scientific research.
  In point of fact, Mr. President, let me just share a couple of 
success stories from the Advanced Technology Program from 16 different 
States in our country. The Advanced Technology Program put together a 
device that would allow blood cells from a patient to be grown in large 
quantities, consequently reducing health care costs, requiring fewer 
blood transfusions and improving treatment possibilities for patients 
with cancer, AIDS, and genetic blood diseases. It developed 
manufacturing technologies and practices

[[Page S8022]]

that substantially improved the fit of auto body parts during automated 
assembly of metal parts, which resulted in United States auto 
manufacturers making cars and trucks with less wind noise, tighter 
fitting doors and windshields, fewer rattles, and higher customer 
satisfaction, and potentially increasing United States auto 
manufacturers' gain in the world market. Another example of success was 
a development of a new way to solder electronic circuit boards that 
uses less solder, and is more precise, more efficient, and 
environmentally benign than current technologies. In addition, there 
was a development of a process to develop ultrafine ceramic powders 
that can be heat pressed into parts such as piston heads and turbine 
blades, and those significantly impact parts manufacturing.

  Somebody might sit there and say, well, OK, Senator, these things are 
all well and good, why didn't these companies just go do it on their 
own? Why should the Federal Government be involved in supporting that? 
The answer to that is the reason that we ought to keep this program 
going: The reality is that the way money functions in the marketplace, 
it seems it's the best return on investment, fastest or safest, but it 
doesn't often commit to take some of the higher risks, particularly 
given the change within the marketplace today. It is a known fact--you 
can talk to any venture capitalist, and talk to anybody out there 
seeking the capital--that it is only because of programs like the 
Advanced Technology Program, where the Government is willing to share 
not only in the risk, but in the burden of trying to find the processes 
and the technologies, that we can advance in helping to bring together 
the special combinations, where we have been able to make things happen 
that simply would not happen otherwise.
  We have created jobs, we have advanced ourselves in the world 
marketplace. We have maintained our competitive edge as a consequence 
of this commitment. And to create this arbitrary, sort of means-tested, 
very precise process of eliminating a whole group of companies that 
have great technology, but may not be willing to share it with smaller 
companies absent this joint risk, would be an enormous loss to the 
American competitive edge. That is the reason that it is so important 
for the United States to continue this effort. It is also a fact that 
while large firms are able to pay for their own research and 
development, they are not always going to pay for the longer term, 
higher risk, broader applied technology principles that other nations 
or other companies might benefit from without paying for it.
  So, Mr. President, I strongly urge colleagues not to respond to the 
sort of simple view of this adopting a notion that a large company is 
automatically able to take care of itself and eliminate this program. 
We need large companies in combination with small, we need large 
companies lending expertise to our universities, we need large 
companies to be part of this combination. Without this combination, 
those companies, Mr. President, will not make this commitment and 
America will lose in the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the Brownback amendment. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania again 
for his courtesy.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I was in the process of my contention 
that the commercials prepared and/or edited by President Clinton 
constituted express advocacy, and I asked that my letter of May 1, 
1997, to Attorney General Reno be printed in the Record.
  I now ask that the reply from Attorney General Reno, dated June 19, 
1997, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I have received your letter of May 1, 
     1997, asking that I offer you my legal opinion as to whether 
     the text of certain television commercials constitutes 
     ``express advocacy'' within the meaning of regulations of the 
     Federal Election Commission (``FEC''). For the reasons set 
     forth below, I have referred your request to the FEC for its 
     consideration and response.
       Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the FEC has 
     statutory authority to ``administer, seek to obtain 
     compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to'' FECA, 
     and exclusive jurisdiction with respect to civil enforcement 
     of FECA. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437c(b)(1); see 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437d(e) 
     (FEC civil action is ``exclusive civil remedy'' for enforcing 
     FECA). The FEC has the power to issue rules and advisory 
     opinions interpreting the provisions of FECA. 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 437f, 438. The FEC may penalize violations of FECA 
     administratively or through bringing civil actions. 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 437g. In short, ``Congress has vested the Commission 
     with `primary and substantial responsibility for 
     administering and enforcing the Act.' '' FEC v. Democratic 
     Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981), quoting 
     Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 109 (1976).
       The legal opinion that you seek is one that is particularly 
     within the competence of the FEC, and not one which has 
     historically been made by the Department of Justice. 
     Determining whether these advertisements constitute ``express 
     advocacy'' under the FEC's rules will require consideration 
     not only of their content but also of the timing and 
     circumstances under which they were distributed. The FEC has 
     considerably more experience than the Department in making 
     such evaluations. Moreover, your request involves 
     interpretation of a rule promulgated by the FEC itself. 
     Indeed, it is the standard practice of the Department to 
     defer to the FEC in interpreting its regulations.
       There is particular reason to defer to the expertise of the 
     FEC in this matter, because the issue is not as clear-cut as 
     you suggest. In FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign 
     Comm., 839 F. Supp. 1448 (D. Colo. 1993), rev'd on other 
     grounds, 59 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 1995), vacated, 116 S.Ct. 
     2309 (1996), the United States District Court held that the 
     following advertisement, run in Colorado by the state 
     Republican Federal Campaign Committee, did not constitute 
     ``express advocacy'':
       ``Here in Colorado we're used to politicians who let you 
     know where they stand, and I thought we could count on Tim 
     Wirth to do the same. But the last few weeks have been a real 
     eye-opener. I just saw some ads where Tim Wirth said he's for 
     a strong defense and a balanced budget. But according to his 
     record, Tim Wirth voted against every new weapon system in 
     the last five years. And he voted against the balanced budget 
     amendment.
       ``Tim Wirth has a right to run for the Senate, but he 
     doesn't have a right to change the facts.''
       839 F. Supp. at 1451, 1455-56. The court held that the 
     ``express advocacy'' test requires that an advertisement ``in 
     express terms advocate the election or defeat of a 
     candidate.'' Id. at 1456. The Court of Appeals reversed the 
     District Court on other grounds, holding that ``express 
     advocacy'' was not the appropriate test, and the Supreme 
     Court did not reach the issue.
       Furthermore, a pending matter before the Supreme Court may 
     assist in the legal resolution of some of these issues; the 
     Solicitor General has recently filed a petition for 
     certiorari on behalf of the FEC in the case of Federal 
     Election Commission v. Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc., 
     No. 96-1818, filed May 15, 1997. I have enclosed a copy of 
     the petition for your information. It discusses at some 
     length the current state of the law with respect to the 
     definition and application of the ``express advocacy'' 
     standard in the course of petitioning the Court to review the 
     restrictive definition of the standard adopted by the lower 
     courts in that case.
       It appears, therefore, that the proper legal status of 
     these advertisements under the regulations issued by the FEC 
     is a question that is most appropriate for initial review by 
     the FEC. Accordingly, I have referred your letter to the FEC 
     for its consideration. Thank you for your inquiry on this 
     important matter, and do not hesitate to contract me if I can 
     be of any further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

  Mr. SPECTER. Further, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Federal Election Commission, dated June 26, 1997, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  Federal Election Commission,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: Your letter of May 1, 1997 to 
     Attorney General Reno has been referred by the Department of 
     Justice to the Federal Election Commission. Your letter asks 
     for a legal opinion on whether the text of certain 
     advertisements constitutes ``issue advocacy'' or ``express 
     advocacy.''
       As the Attorney General's June 19, 1997 letter to you 
     correctly notes, the Federal Election Commission has 
     statutory authority to ``administer, seek to obtain 
     compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to'' the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act (``FECA''). 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 437c(b)(1). The Commission's policymaking authority 
     includes the power to issue rules and advisory opinions 
     interpreting the FECA and Commission regulations. 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 437f and 438.
       Your May 1 letter notes that the Commission has promulgated 
     a regulatory definition of ``express advocacy'' at 11 CFR 
     100.22. While the Commission may issue advisory opinions 
     interpreting the application of that provision, the FECA 
     places certain limitations on the scope of the Commission's 
     advisory opinion authority. Specifically, the FEC

[[Page S8023]]

     may render an opinion only with respect to a specific 
     transaction or activity which the requesting person plans to 
     undertake in the future. See 2 U.S.C. 437f(a) and 11 CFR 
     112.1(b). Thus, the opinion which you seek regarding the text 
     of certain advertisements does not qualify for advisory 
     opinion treatment, since the ads appear to be ones previously 
     aired and do not appear to be communications that you intend 
     to air in the future. Moreover, ``[n]o opinion of an advisory 
     nature may be issued by the Commission or any of its 
     employees except in accordance with the provisions of 
     [section 437f].'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437f(b).
       While the FECA's confidentiality provision precludes the 
     Commission from making public any information relating to a 
     pending enforcement matter, I note that past activity such as 
     the advertisements you describe may be the subject of 
     compliance action. If you believe that the advertisements in 
     question involve a violation of the FECA, you may file a 
     complaint with the Commission pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 437g(a) noting who paid for the ads and any additional 
     information in your possession that would assist the 
     Commission's inquiry. The requirements for filing a complaint 
     are more fully described in the enclosed brochure.
       I hope that this information proves helpful to your 
     inquiry. Please feel free to contact my office (219-4104) or 
     the Office of General Counsel (219-3690) if you need further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              John Warren McGarry,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of the Attorney General's 
response to me was that she would not respond on the legal issue, 
notwithstanding she is the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. She 
passed the buck over to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal 
Election Commission passed the buck back, saying that these were 
matters that had already occurred, so they didn't come within advisory 
opinions. One way or another, Mr. President, we will have a 
determination as to what is involved there. The alternative of 
proceeding in court is one which we are currently examining, and as I 
have noted, there is an issue as to whether that can be done on the 
existing statute.
  I do believe there is a legal basis for so proceeding, but on a novel 
bit of litigation of this sort, no lawyer can be absolutely certain as 
to what the result would be. But in the context of what we have on the 
record with the Attorney General's refusal to appoint independent 
counsel, in a context where she is denying the President of the United 
States national security information, and her refusal to proceed to 
appoint independent counsel where the Attorney General concedes that 
there has been a coordinated effort by the President so that the only 
remaining issue is whether there is an advocacy commercial, which on 
their face, I submit, these commercials are. The problems have been 
compounded with the conduct of the Attorney General and the Justice 
Department in the course of the last several days where they have 
opposed applications for immunity requested for consideration by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee, as is well known, is currently 
investigating illegal or improper activities in the 1996 Federal 
elections. A modus operandi has been worked out there which would allow 
the Attorney General to come in and give the committee the Attorney 
General's opinion as to whether immunity should be withheld or granted.
  The law is plain that the committee has the jurisdiction to make that 
determination, where the statute gives the Attorney General a period of 
time to object and additional time for the purpose of putting the 
Department of Justice's case together. Due to the problems created by 
the decisions involving Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North go to a 
point where limited immunity is granted, the prosecutor must prove the 
case from independent sources and the prosecutor can put a case 
together, can, so to speak, bundle the case before immunity is granted.
  So when the request was made for applications for immunity for five 
individuals, the Attorney General responded, the Department of Justice 
responded that they objected to the grant of immunity. That was, so to 
speak, the straw which broke the camel's back and the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Thompson, made a very forceful public statement on 
Tuesday saying that he had lost confidence in the Department of Justice 
to conduct an impartial and appropriate investigation, and that the 
refusal to agree to those grants of immunity was just beyond the pale, 
a conclusion with which I agree.
  On the basis of the equities here, I believe a very, very strong case 
can be made out to have the Court, in its supervisory authority, 
appoint independent counsel notwithstanding the absence of an 
application by the Attorney General. However, in consultation with my 
colleagues, I have decided to introduce an amendment to the pending 
bill which would make certain modifications in the independent counsel 
statute. These modifications would create new authority for the 
Congress to seek judicial appointment of an independent counsel where 
there is a determination that the Attorney General's failure to do so 
is an abuse of discretion. This authority would reside in the Judiciary 
Committee, where the full committee or a majority of the majority party 
members or a majority of the nonmajority party members could petition 
the Court to appoint an independent counsel where the full committee or 
a majority of either party's committee members determines that the 
Attorney General's failure to appoint an independent counsel is an 
abuse of discretion. This carefully crafts a procedure so that there is 
a limit of standing as to who may come in and ask for the appointment 
of independent counsel.
  The amendment, which I propose to introduce, would further provide 
for a judicial determination on independent counsel with a 
specification that upon receipt of a congressional application, the 
Court shall appoint independent counsel where the Court has determined 
that the Attorney General's failure to appoint an independent counsel 
is an abuse of discretion.
  There are considerations on constitutional issues here, but I believe 
that other relevant issues must also be considered. Regarding the 
context of the current factual situation and carefully limiting the 
petitioning authority to the Congress, and in the context where the 
Attorney General herself has emphasized the importance of the 
independent counsel provision, including the avoidance of appearance of 
impropriety, it is my judgment that this law would pass constitutional 
muster and would provide an important addition in the interest of 
justice to solve the problem which we now confront, where the 
overwhelming weight of evidence--and I don't use that term lightly. It 
is evidence. It has evidentiary value--calls for the appointment of 
independent counsel.

  There is pending at the present time an amendment so I cannot 
introduce my amendment now. A subsequent amendment is pending. But it 
is my intention, as I say, Mr. President, to introduce this amendment. 
There have been some preliminary indications that the introduction of 
this amendment might tie up the bill, and I do not intend to tie up the 
bill. If that is the consequence of the introduction of an amendment, 
if a filibuster were to follow, I would not persist and subject this 
appropriations bill to a filibuster. I firmly believe that it is in the 
public interest in a very serious way to have independent counsel 
appointed, and it is obvious that all the entreaties to the Attorney 
General have thus far been unsuccessful and litigation is an option 
which may be pursued. However, this statutory change would make it 
certain that the Court would have the authority and that the 
petitioning parties would have appropriate standing to have independent 
counsel appointed.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General,
     Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: Following up on yesterday's 
     hearing, please respond for the record whether, in your legal 
     judgment, the text of the television commercials, set forth 
     below, constitutes ``issue advocacy'' or ``express 
     advocacy.''
       The Federal Election Commission defines ``express 
     advocacy'' as follows:
       ``Communications using phrases such as `vote for 
     President,' `reelect your Congressman,' `Smith for Congress,' 
     or language which, when taken as a whole and with limited 
     reference to external events, can have no other reasonable 
     meaning than to urge the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified federal candidate.'' 11 CFR 100.22
       The text of the television commercials follows:
       ``American values. Do our duty to our parents. President 
     Clinton protects Medicare.

[[Page S8024]]

     The Dole/Gingrich budget tried to cut Medicare $270 billion. 
     Protect families. President Clinton cut taxes for millions of 
     working families. The Dole/Gingrich budget tried to raise 
     taxes on eight million of them. Opportunity. President 
     Clinton proposes tax breaks for tuition. The Dole/Gringrich 
     budget tried to slash college scholarships. Only President 
     Clinton's plan meets our challenges, protects our values.
       ``60,000 felons and fugitives tried to buy handguns--but 
     couldn't--because President Clinton passed the Brady Bill--
     five-day waits, background checks. But Dole and Gingrich 
     voted no. One hundred thousand new police--because President 
     Clinton delivered. Dole and Gingrich? Vote no, want to repeal 
     'em. Strengthen school anti-drug programs. President Clinton 
     did it. Dole and Gingrich? No again. Their old ways don't 
     work. President Clinton's plan. The new way. Meeting our 
     challenges, protecting our values.
       ``America's values. Head Start. Student loans. Toxic 
     cleanup. Extra police. Protected in the budget agreement; the 
     president stood firm. Dole, Gingrich's latest plan includes 
     tax hikes on working families. Up to 18 million children face 
     healthcare cuts. Medicare slashed $167 billion. Then Dole 
     resigns, leaving behind gridlock he and Gingrich created. The 
     president's plan: Politics must wait. Balance the budget, 
     reform welfare, protect our values.
       ``Head Start. Student loans. Toxic cleanup. Extra police. 
     Anti-drug programs. Dole, Gingrich wanted them cut. Now 
     they're safe. Protected in the '96 budget--because the 
     President stood firm. Dole, Gingrich? Deadlock. Gridlock. 
     Shutdowns. The president's plan? Finish the job, balance the 
     budget. Reform welfare. Cut taxes. Protect Medicare. 
     President Clinton says get it done. Meet our challenges. 
     Protect our values.
       ``The president says give every child a chance for college 
     with a tax cut that gives $1,500 a year for two years, making 
     most community colleges free, all colleges more affordable . 
     . . And for adults, a chance to learn, find a better job. The 
     president's tuition tax cut plan.
       ``Protecting families. For millions of working families, 
     President Clinton cut taxes. The Dole-Gingrich budget tried 
     to raise taxes on eight million. The Dole-Gingrich budget 
     would have slashed Medicare $270 billion. Cut college 
     scholarships. The president defended our values. Protected 
     Medicare. And now, a tax cut of $1,500 a year for the first 
     two years of college. Most community colleges free. Help 
     adults go back to school. The president's plan protects our 
     values.''
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the underlying amendment 
briefly, the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas with regard 
to his efforts to really hone NIST's Advanced Technology Program to 
serve the public, the amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary appropriations bill.
  I do wish to thank my colleague, the Senator from Kansas, for his 
efforts to accomplish what we all want to do, and that is to have 
NIST's ATP serve in the best way possible the public, using taxpayer 
dollars. And I, too, am very optimistic and feel very confident that 
this can be done, yet I want to rise and speak against the amendment 
and stress that the approach is different than what I would like to 
take and therefore explain it.
  I am chairman of the Commerce Science, Technology and Space 
Subcommittee, the committee through which the reauthorization and the 
authorization for this ATP takes place. That subcommittee right now is 
looking at all of the information in a very systematic way to see how 
we best can evolve that program to provide absolutely the best return 
on our Nation's investment.
  I feel strongly that the proper place to effect such changes should 
be in a more comprehensive approach rather than a shotgun approach, and 
that is through the committee structure, through the committee that is 
charged with the reauthorization of NIST's ATP, and that is what we are 
doing.
  Just last week an excellent report was released by the Commerce 
Department. It is a 60-day report. It put forth recommendations, four 
reform efforts in place, suggestions, recommendations--conducted by the 
Commerce Department. And I dare say I bet there has not been a Senator 
in the room who has read through that report released just last week.
  I think the report is a good first step. We need to go much further 
than that, but I would rather do that on an authorizing bill rather 
than having it tagged on an appropriations bill in more of a shotgun 
fashion.
  Our subcommittee is right now working on a reauthorization bill that 
addresses the longstanding concerns which people have with the Advanced 
Technology Program so that it can be become a really more effective 
vehicle for stimulating innovation in this country, and that is what we 
want to do, stimulate innovation.
  I welcome the input to our subcommittee of all interested parties, 
including my colleagues from the Commerce Committee and the Senator 
from Kansas, who is also on the Commerce Committee, in order to craft 
this more comprehensive legislation. Therefore, I rise to express my 
opposition to this particular amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kansas and hope that we will begin the opportunity through the 
appropriate authorizing subcommittee to effect real change, more 
comprehensive change where we can consider all of the available data in 
order to accomplish the necessary change in the NIST's Advanced 
Technology Program through this reauthorization process. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in opposition to this amendment, recognizing 
that we will be addressing all of these issues through the appropriate 
reauthorizing committee, that of science, technology and space.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question now occurs on amendment No. 
980, offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced, yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Collins
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wyden

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 980) was rejected.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.

[[Page S8025]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 981

 (Purpose: To make appropriations for grants to the National Endowment 
                             for Democracy)

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for himself, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Roth, 
     Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Mack proposes an amendment numbered 981.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 113, line 7, after the word ``expended.'' insert 
     the following new heading and section:


                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment Democracy Act, $30,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.
       On page 100, line 24 strike ``$105,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$75,000,000''.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendment to my amendment be in order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Objection.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand while I was reserving the 
right to object somebody else actually lodged an objection.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I object to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of personal privilege, I would simply 
like to indulge the attention of the Chair. I do this in the most 
gentle, appropriate way as possible.
  I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Indiana. The rules of 
the Senate are, Senators are recognized as a right of first voice heard 
by the Chair. Three voices were raised on this side of the aisle. And 
while I have enormous respect and affection for the Senator from 
Indiana, I do not think his voice had even been expressed, but he was 
recognized.
  I think the Chair should proceed, if I may say, by the rules of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. His voice was expressed. I happened to be 
looking in his direction and recognized him.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment that I introduce comes to the 
floor because no funding for the National Endowment for Democracy is in 
this bill. It has been zeroed out. The bill as written proposes to 
eliminate the National Endowment for Democracy, a program that has been 
enthusiastically supported by every administration, Republican and 
Democratic, since President Ronald Reagan's first term, and by every 
Congress, Republican and Democratic, since 1983, when it was first 
launched.
  The amendment we are proposing would continue funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy at this year's level, namely $30 
million. It does not seek an increase in funding. But it proposes that 
the funding continue.
  The amendment would shift $30 million from the State Department 
Capital Investment Fund in the bill to the National Endowment for 
Democracy.
  I point out, Mr. President, that even with the $30 million shifted 
from the State Department Capital Investment Fund, that fund will still 
exceed by $11 million the administration's request.
  The capital investment fund is an important initiative. Many of us 
have written to Secretary Albright and the President about the 
importance of strengthening the State Department's technological and 
communications capability. They are significant and important 
deficiencies in the State Department. And this bill will go a long way 
to correct them.
  But, Mr. President, the administration requested a total of $64 
million for these purposes. The bill before us includes a funding level 
of $105 million, some $41 million over the President's request. 
Therefore, Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the administration 
favors our amendment, it favors support of the amendment because it 
provides for the National Endowment for Democracy and all that had been 
requested, and more, for the Capital Investment Fund of the State 
Department.
  Let me point out, Mr. President, an important editorial that appeared 
in the Wall Street Journal this morning that very succinctly sums up 
the case that we make.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial states--and I quote:

       A United States Senate accustomed to forking up 
     multibillions will debate the government's equivalent of the 
     widow's mite today, a $30 million appropriation to fund the 
     National Endowment for Democracy. An appropriations 
     subcommittee chaired by New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg 
     decided not long ago in a fit of austerity to defund the NED, 
     on grounds that it was a relic of the Cold War. The same 
     subcommittee awarded the State Department $100 million, $40 
     million more than it requested, just to buy computers.
       We don't think for minute that a title with the word 
     ``democracy'' in it imparts virtue to a federal enterprise in 
     and of itself, and we confess to having had some skepticism 
     of our own about the NED some years after it was founded in 
     1984. But a closer look at what the NED has been up to 
     produces some surprises.
       Its rather unusual design seems to have encouraged 
     considerably more initiative in its mission of spreading 
     democracy around the world than would be expected of the 
     usual federal agency. Maybe that's because it is not a 
     federal agency, but a free standing foundation with its own 
     board of directors supported by both federal and private 
     money. It channels its grants through four institutes, two of 
     which are operated by the two major U.S. political parties.
       One achievement of this Ronald Reagan brainchild was to 
     help Poland's Solidarity break the grip of the Soviet Union 
     in the Cold War days. But it is doing some rewarding work 
     today as well.
       Its Republican branch, the International Republican 
     Institute, help set up free elections in Mongolia last year, 
     turning that once-Communist country into a democratic, free 
     market paragon. IRI also is helping villages in China learn 
     how to conduct free and fair elections of local governing 
     committees something they are entitled to do under Chinese 
     law. The Democrats, through their National Democratic 
     Institute for International Affairs, are doing similar work. 
     American politicians are helping teach practical politics at 
     the very foundations of democracy, and doing it on a 
     shoestring.
       Is this of value to the U.S.? You only have to ask yourself 
     whether the world is safer with a democratic or an 
     authoritarian China to answer that question. The fact that 
     private corporations are willing to fund special NED projects 
     in non-sensitive situations offers evidence that enlightened 
     businesses value the stability that democracy and a rule of 
     law bring to the countries where they seek to operate. 
     Bulgaria is one such place where new democrats are being 
     offered such aid.
       Since news of the defunding became known, the NED has had 
     an outpouring of support from people around the world who 
     have direct knowledge of its contributions.
       Hong Kong democratic leader Martin Lee, who faces tough 
     battles ahead in coping with Hong Kong's new Beijing 
     landlords, penned a letter to Senator Connie Mack begging him 
     to help save the NED, Senator Bob Graham has heard from 
     Sergio Aguayo of the Civic Alliance, which has had a strong 
     hand in promoting the multiparty democracy now taking root in 
     Mexico. Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick and William Bennett, 
     along with such varied Senate personalities as Richard Lugar, 
     Chris Dodd, John Kyl and Ted Kennedy have weighed in one 
     behalf of NED.
       The NED recently sent out an invitation to kindred groups 
     in Germany, Britain, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands to a 
     meeting in Taiwan in October it will co-sponsor with Taiwan's 
     Institute for National Policy Research. The purpose of this 
     gathering in one of the world's newest democracies is to 
     foster NED-type groups in still more countries. What a shame 
     it would if the U.S. Senate collapsed with an attack of 
     parochialism on the eve of such a bold endeavor.

  That is the end of the Wall Street Journal editorial.
  Mr. President, I simply make the point that the NED is not a cold war 
relic. The President of the United States, currently, President Bill 
Clinton, just as Ronald Reagan at the inception of this, sees the value 
of this type of activity.
  President Clinton has said if we are going to make a difference in 
Chinese democracy, the National Endowment for Democracy and its 
International

[[Page S8026]]

Republican Institute is on the spur of what needs to happen by 
promoting the organization of elections in local villages. And this we 
are doing. These things do not happen by chance.
  The President has commended the idea that the National Endowment for 
Democracy has been involved in Mongolia, has commended the work that is 
occurring in situations where not only free and fair elections have 
occurred, but in its unique way the National Endowment for Democracy, 
by placing labor leaders in nations that have gained democracy, helps 
build labor unions.
  The Chamber of Commerce, by placing businesspeople under the National 
Endowment for Democracy's auspices, helps market economics get started. 
Are these important to the United States? You bet they are.
  The fact is, a free and fair election can occur, and the cold war may 
be over, but our Nation needs to relate to other nations that have 
ongoing sensitivity toward labor-management relationships, market 
economics, price finding in the markets, freedom of speech, and 
political dialog that our political parties have fostered.
  The suggestion, Mr. President, is this could be done by private 
enterprise all by itself. But that would have no particular legitimacy. 
The backing by the Congress, by the administration, by every living 
Secretary of State, every living National Security Adviser, every 
living President, of this idea ought to at least weigh in with this 
body.
  There may be Members second-guessing all of these people and saying 
they are simply out of it. But I would advise Members, they are very 
much with it. They understand the dynamics of what has to happen in the 
world and why it is important for these four groups in the National 
Endowment for Democracy to band together throughout several 
administrations and with a continuity of effort to make a substantial 
difference in the world.
  Mr. President, I cited a few moments ago letters that have been 
written. I want to mention specifically one from the Laogai Research 
Foundation, and a name that all will recognize in this body, Harry Wu, 
its executive director. He simply says:

       Tomorrow (Thursday), in a letter he wrote to me yesterday, 
     in a vote on the Senate floor, you will be presented with a 
     choice to either support the N.E.D. or [to] kill it. I 
     understand that particular . . . programs may, from time to 
     time, draw the ire of lawmakers. [But] may we suggest that 
     when this is the case, leaders such as yourself [must] 
     suggest . . . what internal changes need to be made.
       In other words, don't throw out the baby with the 
     bathwater.
       If the United States intends to maintain its leading role 
     in world affairs, continued Congressional support of the 
     National Endowment for Democracy is imperative.

  I have cited a letter that was written by Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jack 
Kemp, William Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Vin Weber, a 
whole galaxy of people involved in Empower America. They are important 
voices, living, active voices, not relics of the cold war. They 
understand the dynamics of what we ought to be doing in American 
politics.
  They are joined, as I have suggested earlier, by Sandy Berger, 
currently the National Security Adviser, and by all the National 
Security Advisers since the NED was created.
  Mr. President, I want to cite specifically a letter from Martin Lee, 
chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong. Not long ago, many in 
this Senate honored Martin Lee. Prior to the turnover in Hong Kong, 
most of us were worried about Martin Lee and democracy.
  I simply cite Martin's letter in which he says:

       My main purpose in writing now is to express my concern 
     about proposals I understand are before the Senate to 
     consider eliminating funding for the National Endowment for 
     Democracy. I know you have always been a strong supporter of 
     NED and the important work it does around the world, but I 
     wanted to write to express my conviction the National 
     Endowment for Democracy is indeed indispensable in a world 
     where democracy and freedom are not entrenched and where--to 
     cite the example of Hong Kong--all democratic institutions 
     can be wiped out by fiat.
       In Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia--

  Martin Lee says

     and around the world, the struggle to preserve democracy, 
     political freedom and the rule of law is far from being won.

  Let me just simply say, Mr. President, this is serious business. What 
is being proposed here in our amendment is that $30 million for 
computers and technological equipment the State Department did not seek 
be restored to the National Endowment for Democracy that they did ask 
for. The request of the President is for this money, leaving fully all 
of the requests that the administration made for the equipment.
  Mr. President, what we have before us we need to see very clearly. 
There are Members of the body who simply want to kill the National 
Endowment for Democracy. Now, I resist that idea, and for good reason. 
The experience of most of us in this Chamber, I hope, would be to say 
that we have to be active on the front lines, and we have to be active 
as Republicans, Democrats, labor union members, and business people in 
our own expertise and synergy and continuity; we have to be active not 
simply in setting up those activities our diplomacy can do--free and 
fair elections--but the centers of support of commerce, of labor, of 
freedom of speech and press and contract law and the details that, 
alone, make continuity possible and second and third elections in 
countries transitioning to democracy possible. Mr. President, I do hope 
that Members will support this amendment. I think it is very important 
for the foreign policy and security of this country. I thank the Chair.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 982 to Amendment No. 981

 (Purpose: To make appropriations for grants to the National Endowment 
                             for Democracy)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
     Dodd, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 982 to 
     amendment No. 981.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 113, line 7, after the word ``expended.'' insert 
     the following new heading and section:


                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment Democracy Act, $30,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended. This shall become effective one day 
     after enactment of this Act.
       On page 100, line 24 strike ``$105,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$75,000,000''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, independence is the first step toward 
democracy--hardly the last. As our own nation's history records, 87 
years after our revolution, President Lincoln stood at Gettysburg to 
remind a deeply wounded nation----

       It is for us, the living to be dedicated . . . to the 
     unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so 
     nobly advanced . . . the great task remaining before us--that 
     this nation, under God shall have a new birth both of 
     freedom--and that government of the people, by the people and 
     for the people shall not perish from the earth.

  We all, at one point or another in our school careers, memorized that 
famous address. Eighty seven years after our Nation's birth--when we 
had a strong, well established representative government--Lincoln spoke 
of our unfinished work--because we saw our democracy, our Government 
and Nation divided and devastated by civil war--a war which serves as a 
caution that even healthy, strong democracies suffer attack and 
setbacks.
  One hundred years after President Lincoln reminded us of our 
unfinished work, President Reagan stood before the British Parliament 
in 1982 and predicted the certain end of communism.
  But, in forecasting communism's imminent demise, President Reagan 
called upon his country, our allies and our American political parties 
to ``contribute as a nation to the global campaign for democracy 
gathering force.''
  This remarkable speech set in motion the people and events which 
established the National Endowment for Democracy.

[[Page S8027]]

  President Reagan's message was as simple and pure as it was powerful 
and enduring--the mission he defined was to create a world illuminated 
by individual liberty, representative government and the rule of law 
under God.
  Eighty-seven years after our revolution, we needed to recommit 
ourselves to that purpose at Gettysburg. President Reagan renewed the 
call and, now, we must rededicate and redouble our efforts to secure 
democracy around the globe.
  With the end of the cold war, this mission and our responsibilities 
have only just begun. It is not ending, it is the beginning.
  The National Endowment for Democracy--and especially its four core 
institutes--offer the best, most effective, and strongest tools we have 
available to consolidate the gains we have made in dismantling the 
structure of Communist and totalitarian governments.
  We need to remember that tearing down the weak practices and 
government architecture of communism is not the same thing as creating 
or sustaining strong, viable democratic principles, laws and 
institutions.
  Communism has indeed been cast on the ash heap of history. The 
question remains what will take its place.
  Virtually every nation which suffered behind the Iron Curtain has 
enjoyed some form of free and fair elections--but the first election is 
not as important as the second then third when there is a real test of 
democratic principle and practice--when those who have enjoyed elected 
office must relinquish power if the principle of self determination is 
to survive. In other words, only after an orderly transition of power 
from election to election occurs can democracy truly take root.
  The key to self-determination--the core of democracy--is the active 
engagement of citizens in their government. NED and its institutes, in 
turn are the key to building and encouraging this deep, informed 
involvement.
  These organizations carry out this important work in a number of 
ways.
  In Burma, NED funding is keeping the faint but fervent hopes for 
freedom and democracy alive. Let me explain why their work is so vital.
  Burma and North Korea have a lot in common with the Stalinist era in 
the Soviet Union. A ruthless 400,000 man military force, led by the 
State Law and Order Restoration Council--SLORC--have systematically 
destroyed the education system and detained, tortured, and executed 
anyone opposing their brutal rule.
  NED is a lifeline for the courageous opponents who resist SLORC 
inside Burma and the large, exiled community who struggle every day to 
restore the results of the 1990 elections and their leader Aung San Suu 
Kyi to office.
  With less than $200,000 NED has kept alive the only uncensored, 
independent newspaper circulated inside Burma. The New Era, a monthly 
newspaper, is vital to the effort to raise awareness of SLORC's 
violations of human rights and civil liberties, to assure independent 
reporting of events and to provide counterbalance to SLORC's daily 
campaign to smear and slander Aung San Suu Kyi.
  Let me point out that it's a crime in Burma to have a copy of this 
newspaper, yet in spite of threats of imprisonment and death, an 
extraordinary network of students and citizens take this risk to assure 
monthly delivery and circulation of the New Era.
  The NED also supports the Democratic Voice of Burma which produces 
and transmits a daily morning and evening broadcast of news, features 
and ethnic language programming as well as broadcasting recordings of 
Aung San Suu Kyi's speeches, the texts of U.N. decisions and other 
information of intense interest to Burma's citizens.
  Beyond sustaining the independent media, NED supports efforts to 
strengthen cooperation among the more than 15 ethnic groups which work 
in peaceful opposition to the military junta. This support has enabled 
the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma under the 
direction of elected Prime Minister Dr. Sein Win to continue to 
represent to the outside world the views and aspirations of the 
legitimately elected parliamentarians of Burma.
  Although they are victims of one of the world's most repressive 
regimes, Dr. Sein Win works with his colleagues inside and outside 
Burma, calling for peaceful dialog to restore democracy to his 
beleaguered nation.
  Burma is just one example of the Endowment's exceptional service to 
the cause of democracy.
  I have also observed the crucial role they have played in the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union.
  Each of these countries illustrate my earlier point that while 
trappings of communism have been dismantled, it is far too early to 
judge the transition to democracy a complete success.
  Communities across the region desperately need precisely the kind of 
training and support available through NED. One of the most compelling 
reasons why NED is so vital is illustrated by the work done through 
their core grantee in Russia.
  Although we are all concerned about the reactionary elements which 
continue to dominate the Russian Parliament, there is some reason to be 
hopeful. During the last election, in every community and town where 
the International Republican Institute ran training programs and 
supported efforts to strengthen local political parties, reformers were 
elected to office--reformers who shared our interests in free market 
economies and individual liberties.
  Obviously, reformers do not control a majority yet, but IRI's 
impressive record suggests we should be substantially expanding our 
support for endowment activities to secure the kinds of governments and 
societies which share our interests.
  The cold war may be over, but repression and authoritarian impulses 
are alive and well.
  NED nourishes the ambitions of all those who want to participate and 
shape their own great experiment in democracy--Muslim women in the 
Middle East, journalists under fire in Cambodia, trade unions in 
Belarus, political scientists in Azerbaijan, legal defense funds in 
Latin America--all benefit from NED's small grants--all contribute to 
building the foundation which sustains a healthy democracy.
  The National Endowment for Democracy and its core grantees work 
citizen by citizen and community by community to transform individual 
aspirations of self-determination into the governing nations which 
Ronald Reagan defined so well--nations which preserve and protect 
individual liberty, representative government and the rule of law under 
God.
  NED deserves our support. It does a good job and it does it in 
service to our national interests. Each democracy which grows is one 
more trading partner, one less crisis which may require our political 
or military intervention.
  We abandon this extraordinary campaign for democracy gathering force 
at our own peril.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to strongly support and 
cosponsor the McConnell amendment to restore modest funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy. I commend the distinguished chairman 
of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for his continued leadership on 
this important matter.
  The National Endowment for Democracy is a proven, cost-effective 
investment in democracy. It represents our national interests and our 
values.
  As a member of the Commerce, State, Justice Subcommittee, I am 
disappointed that no funds were provided for a program that so 
effectively strengthens democracy around the world. Today we seek to 
restore funding to continue this important tool of American foreign 
policy.
  The cold war may be over--but dictatorships and military juntas still 
exist. Democracy is still fragile in too many countries. Rigged 
elections still occur, and freedom of speech is not a universal right. 
The National Endowment for Democracy provides the tools of democracy. 
It encourages a free press, unions, and multiparty elections. It 
supports women's participation in the electoral process. It assists 
grassroots organizations that support democracy and human rights.
  The National Endowment for Democracy has a remarkable track record. 
It was one of the early supporters of the Solidarity movement in 
Poland. It helped to draft South Africa's constitution.
  But NED does not rest on it laurels. Today, in Albania, Burma, and 
Cuba--NED is supporting democracy. It provides assistance to the only 
independent newspaper in Bosnia. It is helping

[[Page S8028]]

to empower women in Turkey. It is helping Asian organizations to fight 
against the use of child labor.
  Mr. President, the cold war is over--but American leadership is still 
important. We are still the strongest voice for democracy. I urge my 
colleagues to join me is supporting the National Endowment for 
Democracy--one of our most important tools in supporting democracy 
around the world.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
pending amendment, which will restore $30 million of funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy.
  Mr. President, unless we reverse the decision that has been made by 
the Appropriations Committee, the Senate will be on record as 
eliminating this unique, flexible, low-cost, public-private 
partnership, an important foreign policy instrument, an instrument that 
has proven important today in furthering U.S. interests, as important 
today as it was in 1983 when established with the active support and 
leadership of President Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. President, the Senate has debated the future of the National 
Endowment for Democracy virtually every year in recent years. Every 
year, proponents of continuing the Endowment have prevailed, but the 
fight has taken a toll. NED's budget has been whittled down by almost 
15 percent over the last 3 years, and its authorization is now flat for 
the next 2 years. Any further cuts will severely hamper NED's ability 
to carry out its important programs. That is why so many of us are here 
today concerned that its current budget be sustained at the requested 
level of $30 million.
  Mr. President, although we once again are debating NED's future, this 
recurring debate has been, and continues to be, more about our future 
and our view of the world than it does this one Federal initiative for 
democracy. It is also about how the American people view America's role 
in the world. In examining that world view, several fundamental 
questions must be answered.
  First and foremost is the question of whether it is in the interest 
of the United States of America to remain actively engaged in world 
affairs.
  Second, is it in our interest to creatively promote peaceful 
democratic change? To put it another way, is it in our interest to stay 
one step ahead of tomorrow's costly conflicts by promoting peaceful 
democratic change today?
  Finally, does the National Endowment for Democracy make a positive 
contribution to advancing these interests?
  Mr. President, I submit that the answer to each of these questions is 
yes. I would briefly wish to cite two examples.
  First, in our own hemisphere, the United States has had a long and, I 
suggest, painful and destructive history of being involved in our 
hemisphere only when we faced an immediate security, political, or 
economic crisis. Once the crisis passed, our interests waned and then 
evaporated.
  Mr. President, in large part because of some of the things that the 
United States led in the last 50 years, we now have a period of 
democratic government within our hemisphere that we have never known 
since Christopher Columbus discovered the new world. Those democracies, 
from Guatemala to Argentina, are new. They are enthusiastic. But they 
lack the kinds of deep roots that will assure their longevity. It is 
exactly nations such as that and building those roots that will sustain 
democracy that the National Endowment for Democracy has exhibited, and 
it is in exactly those circumstances within Latin America and the 
Caribbean that the endowment has played such an important role, and I 
submit will play an even more important role in the future.
  Another prime example is China. Those who understand and care about 
the need for long-term democratic change in China strongly support the 
National Endowment for Democracy. That is because the National 
Endowment for Democracy is working with human rights activists to bring 
to life abuses by the current regime. The endowment is also creatively 
exploring openings at the local level to help officials establish 
independent elections.
  NED is on the ground working in China every day in ways that very 
directly further United States national interests. No other agency of 
this Government is equipped to carry out the kind of innovative 
grassroots work as is the National Endowment for Democracy.
  If we are to successfully engage China over the long term, if we are 
positively to influence United States-China relations, if we are to 
reverse our past history and demonstrate a sustained commitment to 
democratic institutions within our nearest neighbors in the Western 
Hemisphere, the National Endowment for Democracy must necessarily be an 
essential ingredient in that United States policy.
  Indeed, the long-term impact we are confident NED to have in China is 
on display today in Mexico, where the Endowment's support of the Civic 
Alliance, a coalition of non-governmental organizations in that 
country, paved the way for electoral reform that resulted in the freest 
elections in Mexico's history. The result has been a deepening of 
democracy, and a sense among the Mexican people that casting ballots 
can produce positive change in their lives. The result is a government 
which is far more stable and responsive to the people's needs. The 
Mexican people benefit, and so do we.
  Mr. President, China and Mexico are only two examples of NED's work. 
Indeed, the Endowment is helping dissidents in over 90 countries, 
including dissidents who are fighting for democratic change in Cuba, 
Burma, Nigeria, Belarus, Serbia, and Sudan. NED is working to 
strengthen democratic institutions in Russia, Ukraine, and South 
Africa. This is vitally important work. And there are many informed 
observers who see it the same way.
  Former Secretaries of State Baker, Eagleburger, Haig, Kissinger, 
Shultz, and Vance are on record in support of NED. According to them:

       During this period of international change and uncertainty, 
     the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan 
     but non-government contributor to democratic reform and 
     freedom. We consider the non-governmental character of the 
     NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding * 
     * *

  Former National Security Advisors Allen, Carlucci, Brzezinski, and 
Scowcroft also are on record in support. They have stated that:

       The endowment, a small bipartisan institution with its 
     roots in America's's private sector, operates in situations 
     where direct government involvement is not appropriate.
       It is an exceptionally effective instrument in today's 
     climate for reaching dedicated groups seeking to counter 
     extreme nationalist and autocratic forces that are 
     responsible for so much conflict and instability.
       Eliminating this program would be particularly unsettling 
     to our friends around the world, and could be interpreted as 
     sign of America's disengagement from the vital policy of 
     supporting democracy. The endowment remains a critical and 
     cost-effective investment in a more secure America.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous to have printed in the Record an 
exchange of correspondence I recently had with National Security 
Advisor Sandy Berger. He responded in a July 21 letter reaffirming 
strong administration support the NED and ``our opposition to any 
effort reduce or eliminate NED funding.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 21, 1997.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: Thank you for your letter of July 16 regarding 
     funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
       I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm strong Administration 
     support for the NED and our opposition to any effort to 
     reduce or eliminate NED funding. As you correctly note, the 
     President is a dedicated supporter of the NED, as it has been 
     in the forefront of U.S. efforts to promote democracy, civil 
     society and the rule of law around the world. Moreover, it 
     has done so at very little cost to the American public, 
     leveraging modest resources with great effectiveness.
       I should also note that the NED, established by President 
     Reagan and strongly supported by each of his successors, has 
     served as a model for democracy-promotion efforts by our 
     democratic friends and allies.
       For all of these reasons, we enthusiastically endorse your 
     efforts to restore funding for the NED, and we are prepared 
     to work closely with you to ensure that objective.
       Best regards.
           Sincerely,

                                             Samuel R. Berger,

         Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

[[Page S8029]]

     
                                  ____
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1997.
     Hon. Samuel R. Berger,
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, The 
         White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sandy: The Commerce-Justice-State Appropriation will 
     soon be debated on the Senate floor. As you may know, the 
     Appropriations Committee is recommending that all funding for 
     the National Endowment for Democracy be eliminated.
       NED's numerous Senate supporters, including myself, regard 
     this as a serious mistake, since it would cripple the ability 
     of our country to assist the various democratic networks 
     abroad whose continued sustenance is so critical to our 
     national security.
       The President has been a dedicated supporter of the 
     Endowment in the past. It would be helpful if he would commit 
     the Administration to reaffirming that support by backing the 
     efforts of the Endowment's friends in the Senate to restore 
     its funding.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bob Graham,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like now to take this opportunity 
to clarify some misconceptions that have arisen regarding NED and its 
work over the years. Two of those misconceptions are contained in the 
report accompanying the bill we are now debating.
  The report states that, because NED was created to support democratic 
movements behind the Iron Curtain, it is no longer needed. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. Indeed, NED was never intended to be a 
cold war institution.
  In Ronald Reagan's speech that helped launch the Endowment, he 
offered the following vision of NED:

       . . . To foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system 
     of a free press, unions, political parties, universities--
     which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop 
     their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through 
     peaceful means.

  He referred to the work of Western European parties assisting 
counterpart institutions and of the foundation looking into ``how the 
United States can best contribute as a nation to the global campaign 
for democracy now gathering force.''
  It is true that the Endowment supported Solidarity and other 
dissidents behind the Iron Curtain.
  But that represented a small percentage of its funding. In fact, in 
the early years of the Endowment, approximately half of its funds went 
to support the growing democratic movements in Latin America.
  This had nothing to do with the cold war and everything to do with 
the reason NED was created and the reason it exists today--because 
America believes that the spread of democracy is good for the people of 
these countries, and ultimately, for the people of the United States as 
well.
  NED's work in the Middle East, in East Asia, in Central Asia, in 
Africa, in Bosnia, in Mexico, demonstrates that in the post-cold-war 
world, efforts to foster civil society are even more relevant today 
than they were when the Endowment was created.
  The report accompanying this bill goes on to state that NED was never 
intended to be a ``private-public partnership.'' According to the 
Congressional Research Service, which carefully researched NED's 
legislative history, ``While NED was originally established as a 
private entity, private funding was not required. Neither the 
congressional debate in 1983, nor the National Endowment for Democracy 
Act--the law establishing NED--indicates private source funding would 
be required.''
  It is true that NED does raise some funds in the private sector, 
primarily to support its International Forum for Democratic Studies, 
which is a research center and clearinghouse for worldwide information 
about democracy. In addition, NED has calculated that its funding 
leverages over 70 cents for every program dollar it grants.
  The essential point, however, is that the founders of NED never 
imagined that this would be a privately funded effort. To the contrary, 
because NED serves the national interest, it is an entirely worthwhile 
expenditure of the Federal Government.
  Several other misperceptions have dominated this debate in the past. 
Let me address them as well.
  Opponents have suggested that the Endowment duplicates those of the 
Agency for International Development. AID Administrator Brian Atwood 
reported to the House Committee on International Relations in March 
1996, following an extensive review of hundreds of programs funded by 
his agency and those of the Endowment. His report stated:

       We found that USAID and NED do not duplicate, but rather 
     complement each other's efforts.

  In the same report, Atwood outlined a series of steps that AID and 
NED have taken together to make sure that this lack of duplication 
continues.
  NED and its supporters also have been accused of keeping a GAO report 
calling for a reassessment of NED's funding from being issued. This is 
a nonissue originally raised in print by a long time NED opponent. The 
facts are quite simple:
  The General Accounting Office, after an exhaustive study of U.S. 
Government programs to promote democracy, concluded that there was no 
significant overlap between those funded by NED and official agencies.
  Referring to the stops that have been taken between AID and NED to 
make sure the lack of duplication between their programs continues, a 
GAO official wrote to House International Relations Chairman Gilman and 
Ranking Member Hamilton that the Agency's concerns about potential 
overlap had been allayed.
  Another charge frequently made against NED is its funding is used 
disproportionately for travel. Some of the over 300 programs that are 
funded annually by the Endowment involve the use of experts from the 
United States and abroad who travel pro bono basis to share their 
knowledge and experiences with grassroots Democrats.
  Many of these trips are under adverse circumstances to places that 
can hardly be regarded as vacation spots and the trips are not only 
working trips but frequently quite rigorous for participants. The 
amount of free time that is donated by these experts is rather 
significant in dollar terms.
  Opponents also charge NED with funding meaningless conferences. NED 
funds in fact are used to assist organizations working inside 
countries. Occasionally NED funds gatherings of democrats in exile who 
cannot operate in their home countries. Countries such as China and 
Cuba fall in this category.
  An example of a conference pointed to as insignificant by some NED 
critics is a meeting held in 1995 in Zagreb, Croatia. In fact this 
particular conference brought together activists from all the countries 
of the former Yugoslavia at the height of the war to exchange 
information.
  The meeting succeeded in matching funders and civic groups in the 
region in desperate need of help. Apart from bringing together 
democrats in a war situation the meeting has led to a number of 
worthwhile projects in a region that desperately needs to build up its 
civil society.
  Mr. President, NED deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to 
support a restoration of this funding.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the 
pending amendment. I have long been a supporter of the National 
Endowment for Democracy because I believe that it serves to promote 
U.S. interests by fostering democracy throughout the world.
  NED was established by Congress in 1983 as a nonprofit, bipartisan 
organization designed to promote democratic values by encouraging the 
development of democracy in a manner consistent with U.S. interests, 
assisting pro-democracy groups abroad, and strengthening electoral 
processes and democratic institutions. NED accomplishes these goals by 
providing funding to a wide variety of grantees that operate programs 
in more than 90 countries throughout the world.
  Mr. President, many of my colleagues may be aware of the work that 
NED-funded grantees have done in Eastern Europe and the countries of 
the former Soviet Union. These Newly Independent States have benefited 
immensely from programs designed to help develop the rule of law, 
grassroots campaigns, party organization, and private sector 
enterprise. And while the development of truly democratic institutions 
is a slow process, I believe that over the long run it remains in the 
interest of the United States to continue our commitment to those who 
are struggling to build stable, democratic governments.
  While NED's work in the newly independent states is commendable, of

[[Page S8030]]

equal importance--and often with less publicity--NED grantees are also 
hard at work in countries like Nigeria, Burma, Cuba, and Mongolia where 
pro-democracy forces are most in need of assistance, and where the 
ability of the United States to make a positive impact is at its 
greatest.
  Mr. President, even though in the past decade the world has witnessed 
a remarkable transformation, and the forces of democracy are on an 
upswing throughout the world, it remains a fact that approximately two-
fifths of the world's population continues to live under authoritarian 
rule. There clearly remains a need for continued vigilance and support 
of those groups still striving to achieve democratic reforms. While 
Congress may have created the National Endowment for Democracy during 
the cold war, I firmly believe that fostering democracy remains as 
important today as it was 14 years ago.
  Because of the continued need for U.S. assistance to pro-democracy 
forces, I was disappointed that the Senate subcommittee did not fund 
the President's request of $30 million for NED. It is for this reason 
that I fully support the amendment before the Senate that will fund the 
National Endowment for Democracy for fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. President, there is a reason that four former National Security 
Advisers to the President have said that the elimination of NED funding 
would signal America's disengagement from the vital policy of 
supporting democracy. There is a reason that seven former Secretaries 
of State from both Republican and Democratic administrations have 
voiced their belief that NED funding is as vital today as when the 
program was created. And finally, there is a reason that brave, pro-
democracy activists like Harry Wu and Vaclav Havel tell us that NED 
funding is essential to advancing the cause of democracy. Mr. 
President, the reason is that they, like many of my colleagues here 
today, realize that America must maintain its commitment to the ideals 
and principles of democracy.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to support the restoration of funding 
for the National Endowment for Democracy in the Justice, State, 
Commerce appropriations bill. The amount is very modest--$30 million--
and the same level of funding as the NED currently receives for this 
fiscal year.
  What is the NED? It is a grant-making organization that is governed 
by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors. NED monies are 
utilized to fund the activities of the four independent institutes--the 
National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, 
the Free Trade Union Institute, and Center for International Private 
Enterprise.
  In addition to funding the programs of these institutes, NED also 
provides grants directly to support democratic activist groups 
throughout the world. This includes grass roots organizations in 
Nigeria and Zaire, women's groups in moderate Islamic countries, civic 
groups who worked to make the recently held Mexican elections open and 
transparent, pro-democracy groups in Cuba, China and Burma. These are 
just a small handful of the activities funded by NED.
  The endowment also sponsors the Journal of Democracy, a well known 
and highly regarded scholarly publication on global democracy issues. 
The journal is part of the work of the International Forum for 
Democratic Studies--NED's research center. In addition to the 
publication of the journal, the Forum holds important conferences on 
issues of particular relevance to democratic societies, such as civil-
military relations, economic reform, and the role of political parties.
  In other words, NED has become an important focal point for 
democracy-promotion activities around the globe.
  For those who say they don't know what NED or the grantee agencies 
have been doing with the funds they receive, I would urge them to take 
a long look at the annual report which NED issues every year. I have 
with me the latest report for 1996--that report goes into great detail 
where the monies are being spent. It is my view that if my colleagues 
would take a look at this publication they would be impressed with the 
extensive activities being undertaken with relatively small amounts of 
money.
  Mr. President, I strongly agree with President Clinton's assessment 
of the NED. Earlier this year he said of the NED, ``through its 
everyday efforts, the Endowment provides renewed evidence of the 
universality of the democratic ideal and of the benefits to our Nation 
of our continued international engagement.''
  I urge my colleagues to support the restoration of funding for the 
Endowment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to 
restore funding for the National Endowment for Democracy [NED].
  Last month the Senate expressed its overwhelming support for the NED 
when it passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 
1997--90 to 5. That legislation provided $30 million, full funding, for 
the NED.
  Even more recently we voted unanimously to congratulate Mexico on its 
elections. The NED provided critical support to the Civic Alliance in 
Mexico, a nonprofit election monitoring and civic education group that 
played a key role in that success story.
  When the Reagan administration proposed the NED, I thought it was a 
bad idea and voted against it. After seeing all of the good work they 
have done and are doing, I have been converted to a supporter.
  The NED continues to play a critical role in promoting democracy and 
democratic values, and is vital to U.S. national interests.
  Mr. President, let me make this clear--NED is not a foreign aid 
program. This is because it builds self-sufficiency by working with 
indigenous groups that demonstrate a real commitment to democratic 
principles.
  NED only receives $30 million, but is very cost-effective. It makes 
hundreds of grants annually in over 90 countries for civic education, 
media, human rights, and other organizations dedicated to supporting 
those who desire democracy.
  NED funds support political party training and the establishment of 
opposition newspapers, helping to promote an independent press. For 
example, NED has done important work in China through its support of 
Chinese human rights activists.
  Another well-known example is Burma, where the NED has strongly 
supported Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement there.
  Still another important aspect of the NED is that it is rooted in the 
U.S. private sector, and operates in situations where direct government 
involvement is not appropriate.
  It is particularly effective in reaching those groups seeking to 
counter nationalist and autocratic forces that are responsible for so 
much conflict and instability.
  The NED provides a successful and cost-effective mechanism for 
spreading our democratic values and enhancing American security.
  This point was made today in a Wall Street Journal editorial that 
highlights and praises the NED's effective and innovative approach to 
democracy promotion.
  Elimination of this program could be interpreted as a sign of 
America's disengagement from the vital policy of supporting democracy 
around the globe.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to support this critical democracy-
building organization.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, once more we are engaging in the 
increasingly repetitive argument over whether the U.S. Senate should 
support one of our country's most valuable tools of foreign policy--the 
National Endowment for Democracy. The Senate subcommittee zeroed out 
the administration request for $30 million for the Endowment, although 
the House of Representatives granted it full funding. Today, Senators 
Lugar and others are offering an amendment that will restore the 
Senate's support for full funding for the National Endowment for 
Democracy (NED), and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I've been in this body for the entire history of the 
National Endowment for Democracy, and I make no reservations about my 
wholehearted support for this organization. My colleagues know I was an 
original supporter of the NED, and I am a stronger supporter today than 
I was then.
  President Reagan clearly summarized the NED's mission when he stated 
at its inception:


[[Page S8031]]


       The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster 
     the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, 
     unions, political parties, universities--which allows a 
     people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, 
     to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.

  I believe that mission statement is as relevant to our goals today as 
it was in 1982, when the National Endowment for Democracy was founded. 
And I find it illogical and disingenuous that some argue that the 
Endowment is a cold war institution which, because we have won the cold 
war, is no longer relevant. Many appear to agree with me. In a 
September 1995 letter to our congressional leadership, seven former 
Secretaries of State said:

       During this period of international change and uncertainty, 
     the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan 
     but non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and 
     freedom.

  It appears that a few still believe, illogically, that because the 
NED was engaged in fighting for democracy during the cold war, it is no 
longer relevant. This reasoning is unsound, based on facts of the past, 
and realities of the present.
  First, the past. The NED did have some high-profile involvement 
with organizations such as Solidarity, which were critical in loosening 
Moscow's grip on its captive nations. I applaud the NED for that, as I 
applaud the many other organizations, such as the International Labor 
Office and other great anti-communists such as Irving Brown, who worked 
with us to undermine Soviet totalitarian control. But anyone who 
believes that the cold war was the central or only focus of the NED may 
not have all the facts.

  It is a fact, for example, that during the early days of the National 
Endowment for Democracy, approximately half of NED's funds were 
directed toward Latin America. The 1980's, you will recall, Mr. 
President, was the decade when democracy swept across the Latin 
American continent. The people of Latin America, and their brave 
democratic leaders, deserve the credit for this. But it was the wisdom 
of U.S. foreign policy--and the participation from the NED--that 
provided important diplomatic and practical support.
  Second, the present. The obvious fact is, Mr. President, that support 
for democracy remains a necessary goal of U.S. foreign policy. Students 
of history know that democracies are less likely to try to settle their 
internal and external conflicts with a resort to violence. Observers of 
current affairs recognize that, while democracy continues to spread, 
many parts of the world are in desperate need for further democratic 
development. It is no coincidence indeed that many of these areas are 
areas where U.S. foreign policy goals are and will be challenged.
  To believe that supporting democracy was a need solely of the cold 
war is a notion that ignores the basic reality that the world remains 
full of nations where democracy needs support. And where democracy 
advances, the risk of conflict that could require a U.S. response 
declines.
  That is why a number of my friends--Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Bill 
Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Vin Weber, and Lamar Alexander--have 
circulated a letter from their organization, Empower America, which I 
would like to quote:

       NED helps brave people around the world who are engaged in 
     difficult struggles for freedom. These are America's natural 
     friends. Resisting the enemies of freedom, they need our 
     continual solidarity.
       A case in point is China, where the Endowment supports 
     various pro-democracy networks as well as the democracy 
     movements in Tibet and Hong Kong . . .
       China is but one example of how NED, which works in over 90 
     countries, is as relevant to the post-Cold War world as it 
     was in the struggle against Soviet totalitarianism. Examples 
     could be cited from other difficult situations, from Burma to 
     Cuba, from the Balkans to the Middle East. The kind of 
     political assistance NED provides is not foreign aid. NED is 
     more than a program; it is an instrument for transmitting in 
     a peaceful way American democratic values to a world that 
     looks to us to maintain our leadership role.
       NED works to expand human freedom and helps people help 
     themselves. It promotes American values and interests. It is 
     realistic and idealistic at the same time. It 
     internationalist in the best sense of that term. It is truly 
     our kind of program.

  Mr. President, among my friends at Empower America, you will not find 
one person who believes the United States should be the world's 
policeman. Most of these individuals are very skeptical--like me--about 
some of this country's recent unilateral as well as multilateral 
deployments.
  But none of these individuals believes that the $30 million spent on 
the National Endowment for Democracy is anything but a completely 
worthwhile expenditure that supports our national interests by 
supporting the spread of democracy around the world.
  The cold war is over, Mr. President, and we won it. We won it with a 
strong defense posture, with a policy of engagement in Latin America, 
Afghanistan, and central Europe. And we won it by standing with 
democrats around the world. Despite the end of the cold war, there are 
many democratic movements that need our support. As the Empower America 
letter said: ``. . . the brave people around the world who are engaged 
in difficult struggles for freedom . . . these are America's natural 
friends.''
  I wish that we could do more for these friends of America, Mr. 
President. But the reality of foreign affairs has always been limited 
by the need to prioritize limited resources. In my view, an expenditure 
of $30 million to support the many activities of the NED throughout the 
world may be one of the most cost-effective investments we make in the 
support of American's interests overseas.
  The critics of the NED should review the Endowment's materials. For 
example, this body has spent a large amount of time debating how we 
should relate to the rising power of authoritarian China. While we 
debate the value of sanctions or engagement, who in this body suggests 
that the support for local elections in China that is conducted by NED 
with the International Republican Institute is anything but an 
enormously positive development? Who suggests that NED-supported 
Chinese activists who monitor and report on the repression of 
dissidents must not be continued--so that lawmakers around the world 
can know the truth when we debate complicated issues of engaging China? 
Who believes that Harry Wu's research foundation--dedicated to 
monitoring the abhorrent use of prison labor--should not be supported, 
so that we know how China abuses our trade relations?
  Who believes, Mr. President, that the many programs promoting open 
press, reasoned democratic debate and the rule of law that NED supports 
throughout the Arab world are not supporting America's goals in that 
region? Can anyone who is aware of America's uncertain relations with 
the Islamic world declare that it is not in our interest to promote 
democratic values there?

  Mr. President, I've cited a few examples and endorsements from 
prominent U.S. foreign policymakers--Republican and Democrat--but I'd 
like to close my remarks by quoting Martin Lee, who my colleagues 
surely recognize as Hong Kong's voice of democracy. As we know, the 
reversion to the People's Republic of China opens a new--and 
uncertain--page in the recent history of democracy in Hong Kong.
  Martin Lee recently wrote a letter to my colleague, Senator Mack. 
Members of this body know that Senator Mack has devoted a large amount 
of his time to the difficult process of Hong Kong's reversion, and he 
is one of the leaders who will increase his attentions to the former 
British colony now that July 1 has past. Martin Lee wrote:

       In Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia and around the world, 
     the struggle to preserve democracy, political freedom and the 
     rule of law is far from being won. But by supporting key 
     human rights organizations which work for development of 
     democracy and the preservation of the rule of law and human 
     rights in Hong Kong, the Endowment's work in Hong Kong has 
     had profound effect at a critical time. During what I realize 
     is a time of shrinking budgets, I cannot think of better 
     value for money than the National Endowment for Democracy.

  Mr. President, Martin Lee is correct: ``The struggle to preserve 
democracy, political freedom and the rule of law is far from being 
won.'' What a sorry signal the United States would be giving democrats 
struggling around the world if we ended our support for the National 
Endowment for Democracy. What a shortsighted notion it would be to save 
$30 million by abandoning our support for an organization that promotes 
our political values around the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the National 
Endowment for Democracy.

[[Page S8032]]

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor, Mr. President, to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can't yield the floor. But I will 
recognize the Senator from Maryland.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the 
amendment now pending. The National Endowment for Democracy has done 
some extremely effective work around the world in strengthening and 
assisting in the development of democratic institutions and protecting 
individual rights and freedoms. Endowment programs have assisted 
grassroots organizations and individuals in more than 90 countries 
across the globe.
  A great number of distinguished individuals have walked through the 
Halls of the Capitol over the years whom we have recognized as fighters 
for human rights, freedom, and democracy. They are leaders from abroad 
who have come to visit the U.S. Congress as a sign of their respect for 
American democracy. They have led the way toward democracy and human 
rights, and freedom in their own countries. In expressing their support 
for the National Endowment for Democracy, they have underscored the 
critical assistance that they have received from it, which made it 
possible for them to pursue democratic efforts in their own countries.
  The National Endowment for Democracy has enjoyed broad bipartisan 
support since it was established in 1983 under the Presidency of Ronald 
Reagan. Seven former Secretaries of State--James Baker, Lawrence 
Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, Edmund Muskie, George 
Shultz, and Cyrus Vance--wrote to the leadership of the Congress in 
1995 to express their support for continuing funding of the National 
Endowment for Democracy. Their letter and stated, and I quote:

       During this period of international change and uncertainty, 
     the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan 
     but nongovernmental contributor to democratic reform and 
     freedom. We consider the nongovernmental character of the NED 
     even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding 12 
     years ago.

  The NED serves an important role because of the fact that it can 
operate as a nongovernmental entity. It can support nongovernmental 
organizations which, in turn, provide opportunities that would not 
otherwise be available if these activities were undertaken by a 
government or governmental agency. This is an extremely important 
dimension to the work of the National Endowment for Democracy.
  Former national security advisers of previous administrations and the 
President's current Adviser for National Security Affairs, Sandy 
Berger, have expressed their strong support for the NED. Mr. Berger 
noted in his letter to Members of Congress this week:

       I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm strong administration 
     support for the NED and our opposition to any effort to 
     reduce or eliminate NED funding . . . The President is a 
     dedicated supporter of the NED, as it has been in the 
     forefront of U.S. efforts to promote democracy, civil society 
     and the rule of law around the world. Moreover, it has done 
     so at very little cost to the American public, leveraging 
     modest resources with great effectiveness.

  The sweeping and profound changes resulting from the end of the cold 
war provide ample reason for why we continue to need institutions like 
the NED, which can operate in a cost-effective manner and at the same 
time promote our interests and values. Many of the new democracies that 
have emerged from the implosion of the Soviet Union and the collapse of 
the Iron Curtain have benefited from the assistance NED and its 
grantees have provided. Those who paved the way for freedom and 
democracy in their own countries have consistently testified as to the 
importance of NED support to the success of their efforts.
  In fact, President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic stated that 
``the National Democratic Institute was one of the first supporting 
actors in the democratic revolution in our country.''
  And others have made similar statements with respect to the 
activities of the two party organizations, the business groups, and the 
labor groups that are the core grantees of NED.
  This is a program that is working. It is producing significant 
results around the world.
  I strongly support this amendment, and urge my colleagues to adopt 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say to my 
very dear friend, Senator Feinstein from California, who is anxiously 
awaiting the floor so she can get into the ninth circuit debate, that I 
am going to object to moving to that amendment until this amendment is 
disposed of.
  Let me also say that I am prepared to enter into a time agreement, 
but not yet.
  Let me start off by saying that Rasputin was a piker compared to the 
National Endowment for Democracy. It took him a long time to die, and 
it has just taken forever for this boondoggle to die.
  I have heard so may people in this body lament the size of 
Government, the waste of Government, the terribleness of Government, 
and here is $30 million of wasteful Government spending. There was 
actually an effort to get NED's appropriation up to $50 million 3 years 
ago.
  I can tell you that, in this Senator's opinion, the National 
Endowment for Democracy is without question the biggest waste of money 
I can think of next to the space station. That is saying something.
  It is a cold war relic. Everybody in this body knows that the 
National Endowment for Democracy was started in 1983 as an answer to 
communism in the world. We were not only spending $250 to $300 billion 
a year on defense at that point--that was not enough to contain 
communism around the world--we decided to add $18 million to bring 
democracy to the world. We started this program with $18 million in 
1983, and a year after that, it soared up to about $23 million; the 
year after that, $27 million, then $35 million. Then, finally, I was 
able to get it back to $30 million 2 years ago. And this year, in this 
bill, thanks to the very good judgment of our chairman of this 
subcommittee, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, it was sacked as it 
richly deserved.
  Mr. President, we have been holding hearings in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. And the headlines in the paper since January have 
been in anticipation of those hearings about foreign influence in 
American elections. I want to say that if China had had any judgment at 
all they would have consulted with the NED before they started trying 
to influence American elections.
  The National Endowment for Democracy has as good a record of meddling 
in foreign elections as any organization the Earth has ever known. They 
tried to clean it up a little bit. They used to be very overt, and made 
no bones about who they were giving money to. But they are still giving 
out money to influence foreign elections.
  One of the things that is the most intriguing of all is: Who do they 
give this $30 million to?
  At the expense of sounding terribly arrogant, I would just like to 
say that on the debate on the space station which occurred day before 
yesterday, I daresay if that debate were held on national television 
before an American audience of every voter in America, the space 
station would be dead, dead, dead, at this moment, by an overwhelming 
vote. But, unhappily, all the people who might be watching that 
telecast wouldn't be interested in those few jobs that NASA has put in 
their State.
  But now when it comes to boondoggles and giving away money, I invite 
my colleagues' attention to this:

[[Page S8033]]

 What happens to this $30 million? It took me 2 or 3 years for the 
realization really to soak in that this actually is the case.
  Out of the $30 million, first of all, 15 percent of it, 15 percent of 
it, or $4.5 million, goes for NED Administration. And if you look at 
the way the money is spent, you will find a lot of it going for first 
class airfare to transport people all over the world, people who every 
year will write letters to the people who are engaged in this debate. 
They will write letters about what a wonderful program NED is.
  You think of it. If a food stamp program had a 15 percent 
administrative cost, we would kill it dead. We would not tolerate that 
for a moment. But we are willing to put aside $4.5 million, 15 percent 
of this $30 million, and allow NED to use that for administrative 
expense.
  But that is not the worst of it. We give the money out as follows. 
Listen to this, colleagues. CIPE--that's a nice acronym, isn't it. CIPE 
gets 13.75 percent of the money--$4.125 million. Who is CIPE? I bet you 
never heard of them. CIPE stands for Center for International Private 
Enterprise, but they are really the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is a 
little offspring of the chamber of commerce, CIPE. We give them a neat 
$4,125,000 out of this $30 million.
  Let me ask you this: how much of that do you think they spend on 
administration? Bear in mind, 15 percent comes off the top for NED 
administration. Then you give the chamber of commerce $4.125 million, 
and what do you think their administrative expense is?
  Then to even things up, we give an organization called FTUI, to make 
things even we give them 13.75 percent, also $4,125,000, the same 
amount we give the chamber of commerce. Who is FTUI? The Free Trade 
Union Institute. Why, that's the AFL-CIO. You cannot give money to the 
chamber of commerce unless you are willing to balance it out and give 
the AFL-CIO another $4,125,000. And what do you think their 
administrative expense is? Lord only knows. I cannot find out.
  So you have the administrative expense of the chamber; you have the 
administrative expense of the AFL-CIO; you have the 15 percent for NED 
right off the top.
  We are not finished. Now we go to the IRI. Whoever heard of the IRI? 
Now, this is going to be hard for you to believe. I will tell you who 
the IRI is. That is the International Republican Institute--the 
Republican Party. Can you believe this, another 13.75 percent, 
$4,125,000. We have to be evenhanded. We have to give the chamber 
$4.125 million, have to give the AFL-CIO $4.125 million, have to give 
the Republican Party $4.125 million.
  And then we get down to the fourth organization, NDI. Who do you 
think NDI is? Why, you guessed it. It is the National Democratic 
Institute--the Democratic Party. And we are going to give them 13.75 
percent. They get $4,125,000. I will say one thing. What do you think 
the administrative expense is for all those four organizations on top 
of the 15 percent administrative expense of NED? Who knows? The 
National Endowment for Democracy is an egalitarian group; they treat 
everybody the same. But some are more equal than others.
  Here is the portion for everybody else. After you get through giving 
it out most of the money to all these groups who we know will send 
members to the Senate every year to tell us how wonderful NED is so we 
will give them another $30 million the next year after they 
evenhandedly give everybody $4.125 million in exchange for writing 
Senators here saying how wonderful it is, they have $9 million left. 
That's what everybody else gets.
  Do you know what that amounts to? It comes to an average of $41,096 
for all the grantees who are not part of the chamber of commerce, the 
AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Everybody else, 
the other grantees--there are 218 of them for 1996, 218 grants made 
with the remaining $9 million, gets an average of $41,096. Now, ain't 
that something--218 grants. When you get past the big boys, the 
Republicans, Democrats, labor and the chamber, you have 218 grants, 
$41,096 each. What are they going to do with that? That will not even 
buy enough first class air tickets to get to the election in Cambodia 
or wherever. And what is the administrative expense for those 218 
grantees? You talk about money well spent and saving the world through 
democracy.

  Mr. President, we spend on the Agency for International Development 
about $4 billion a year. And did you know that I am a great champion of 
that program? And do you know what that is for? That is to help 
countries help themselves. That is to help them generate electricity so 
they can develop. That is to teach them how to plant crops so they can 
feed themselves. And it is also designed to make those people feel 
kindly toward the greatest democracy of all, the United States of 
America. And about $450 million of AID's budget is for democracy-
building projects.
  And then there is Public Law 480, popularly known as Food for Peace--
over $1 billion a year. Do you know who favors that? The Senator from 
Arkansas. We help feed people who cannot feed themselves. Mr. 
President, Public Law 480 has been around as long or longer than any 
Member of the Senate, with a couple of exceptions, and it is designed 
to help people keep from starving.
  Do you know what else it is designed to do? It is designed to help 
them feel kindly toward the United States, that great citadel of 
democracy.
  Then, Mr. President, there is that $13 to $14 billion a year we spend 
on that terrible thing that the American people have such 
misconceptions about called foreign aid. And you know something else? I 
vote for that. I vote for foreign aid. Never made any bones about it. 
No. 1, it helps farmers because that money also buys food. It helps 
industry because people buy American products with the aid we give 
them. It is money well spent.
  Do you know what else we expect to get out of it? We expect people to 
want to be like us. We expect them to want to be democratic. We expect 
them to want to be free and enjoy the same kinds of freedoms we enjoy 
here in the United States.
  I have just finished listing for you all those billions of dollars we 
spend for what? To try to build democracy around the world. What good 
do you think this $30 million will do in changing China from a 
Communist nation to a free democracy? None. It is utter waste, $30 
paltry million dollars that ought to be saved. It is nothing.
  You have the Voice of America. You have these radio programs to 
influence the rest of the world about the joys of democracy and how 
great the United States is. And $450 million for the Agency for 
International Development is for democracy building. This is nothing in 
the world, but in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was President and everybody 
thought the Communists were going to come up the Potomac River and get 
us any minute, we thought, well, we will just dump a little more money 
into this democracy-building business.
  You know something else. It was never intended--I want everybody to 
understand this. It was never intended that the National Endowment for 
Democracy would be a federally funded agency. We started it off with 
$18 million with the clear understanding that within a short period of 
time they were going to have to stand on their own feet with private 
contributions. We never intended for that to be another perpetual 
Government program. And so last year, 1996, do you know what their 
report shows? Out of $30 million, they collected from the private 
sector $541,000. And if I am not mistaken that is their high watermark.
  It is just like so many other Federal programs. It is a program that 
becomes self-perpetuating because a lot of people find it to their 
advantage. It is difficult when you think about how I was trying to 
save $100 billion, 2 days ago, on the space station. Here I find myself 
just as exercised, just as exercised about $30 million because it 
doesn't really matter. It is money that ought not to be spent. The 
taxpayers have a right to expect more of us. Can you imagine, Mr. 
President, can you imagine members of the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of 
Commerce sitting around the table with some people from a foreign 
country and trying to explain the joys of democracy, the Chamber member 
representing what democracy means to him, the head of the labor union 
telling what democracy means to him.

[[Page S8034]]

  Why, if those people on the other side were not confused beforehand--
--
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. I was wondering if the Senator would be willing to enter 
into a time agreement so that we could move on with the bill. The 
Senator mentioned that after he had spoken for a while he might be 
willing to consider that. He has spoken now for approximately 40 
minutes and the other side has taken approximately the same amount of 
time.
  I was wondering if we could enter an agreement which would limit 
debate to an additional hour with the time equally divided between the 
proponents and the opponents and have a vote here at 4:30.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say to my distinguished chairman, 
of course, I sit on this subcommittee and he is doing an excellent job. 
One of the greatest day's work he ever did in his life was when he 
torpedoed NED in the bill. But let me say, to accommodate the chairman, 
I will be delighted to agree to 1 hour equally divided, 30 minutes on a 
side, with a vote to occur at 4:30.
  Mr. GREGG. If there is no objection from the other side, I would ask 
unanimous consent that the vote on the pending amendment be at 4:30, 
with the hour equally divided.
  I would ask, additionally, after the vote on the second-degree 
amendment offered by Senator McConnell, if the next matter before the 
body could be the matter of the ninth circuit and the amendment of the 
Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would ask in that unanimous-consent agreement I be 
allowed 10 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may ask----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BUMPERS. There is objection--reserving the right to object, is 
the request of the Senator from New Hampshire on the McConnell 
amendment or on the Lugar amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. I believe the pending amendment is the second-degree. 
Whatever amendment is presently pending would be the intention of the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current amendment which is pending is 
Amendment 982 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. GREGG. And the yeas and nays have been asked on that, is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Arizona is asking for 10 minutes. I 
would suggest that neither myself nor the Senator from South Carolina, 
both of whom are involved in this issue, have had an opportunity to 
speak. So we may have to add a little bit more time. Why don't we add 
an additional--have the vote be at quarter of 5, add an additional 15 
minutes with the time, an hour and 15 minutes equally divided, and 10 
minutes to the Senator from Arizona. Is that acceptable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been on the floor for the 
substantial period of this debate. It is my intention to speak on this 
as well. I have no objection to a time agreement provided there is 
sufficient time.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time would the Senator need?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, 10 or 15 minutes. I guess I would like 15 
minutes. I may not use all of it, but I have waited for some while, and 
I intend to speak in support of it.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from North Dakota would like 15 minutes, the 
Senator from Arizona--does the Senator rise in support or opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. I rise in support of the Lugar amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, I represent we will get the Senator his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it would be my intention at the 
conclusion of that time to move to table the Lugar amendment. Of 
course, if that would prevail, it would take the McConnell amendment 
with it. When we talk about voting at 4:30, I want to reserve the right 
to make that motion to table at the expiration of that period of time. 
So the unanimous-consent agreement does not necessarily pertain to the 
McConnell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, or I will ask 
unanimous consent as a part of my assent to the idea before us, that I 
have the right to withdraw my amendment, and I would say, for clarity 
of all sides, my intent would be to send an amendment to the desk 
promptly thereafter. I simply want to make certain that all sides know 
this, so there is not any misunderstanding. But I reserve the right to 
object until I am certain I could withdraw my amendment and send an 
amendment to the desk.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I withdraw my request, and we will just 
proceed here and see what happens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas retains the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that 
is pending and in support of the underlying bill, obviously. I think 
the Senator from Arkansas had certainly outlined rather effectively the 
problems with NED, the expense of this program, and the fact that the 
program, for all intents and purposes, involves a passing of Federal 
tax dollars, hard-earned tax dollars, on to a number of groups for the 
purposes of exercises which are of questionable value in the post-cold-
war period: the Democratic National Committee, Republican National 
Committee, the AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of Commerce being the primary 
beneficiaries of this fund.
  I call this the club fund. You know, here in Washington there are a 
lot of folks who are sort of part of a club. The city has a bit of a 
clubby atmosphere. It is a you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-your-back 
club. This is sort of one of the funding mechanisms for the club. I am 
not too surprised that some community of the press supports the 
exercise because the club, regrettably, involves some of the press, 
too. But, as a practical matter, there is very little substance done 
here.
  Let's take China, for example. I suppose if there is an example of a 
nation where we have concerns about democracy and its impact on our 
future as a country, China is probably it. How valuable is NED in 
relationship to China? Well, last year NED sent a lot of people over 
there. A lot of people took airline flights over there. There were a 
lot of good trips, I am sure, to China. China is a nice place to visit. 
I am absolutely sure of that. A lot of people had an opportunity to go 
there, people who were members of the Republican National Committee, 
Democratic National Committee, AFL-CIO activists, Chamber of Commerce 
activists, people who are friends--a lot of people who were friends of 
members of these different organizations went on trips. All of them 
went to China for a variety of meetings, and NED committed $2 million 
for various programs. They had about, I think, about 20 or 30 different 
meetings in China to tell China how to become a democracy; $20 million 
for 1 billion people. That works out to about 2 cents a person. I think 
they must have distributed toothpicks that said ``vote'' on them for 2 
cents a person.

  The fact is, it had absolutely no impact. All it did was represent a 
nice trip for a bunch of folks from the United States who probably 
looked forward to going to China and meeting some folks in China.
  The inverse, of course, is that when China tried to influence our 
elections, I

[[Page S8035]]

think we generated a fair amount of outrage here in the United States 
about that. We are still looking for Charlie Trie. Maybe he is working 
for NED in China now. The fact is, the influence of elections in the 
United States by a foreign country tends to really antagonize a few 
people--as it should, in the post-cold-war period. And vice versa. You 
know? Vice versa.
  So what's the purpose of NED? The purpose of NED is to, for the most 
part, be a nice gathering of folks who find it is a very effective way 
to fund various trips, various get-togethers around the globe. What 
does this amendment suggest we do to pay for these trips, to pay for 
this club activity? What is the suggestion of the way they are going to 
fund this? They are going to take the money out of the State Department 
capital account.
  Yes, the White House did not ask for as much money in the capital 
account as we put into it, because the White House wanted to spend the 
money on the United Nations and on international operations, 
international organizations. So they raided that fund for that account. 
That is a little more legitimate than NED but not a whole lot more 
legitimate than NED when you are talking about the capital account of 
the State Department.
  I submit to the people who are supporting this amendment that maybe 
they should read a few of the reports from the State Department about 
the present status of the State Department's capital situation. Maybe 
the people who offered this amendment would like to call up the United 
States on a dial telephone from Lagos. Maybe the people who offered 
this amendment would like to be working on a Wang computer that cannot 
communicate with any other computer in the United States. That is what 
we subject our people to at the State Department.
  The present infrastructure of the State Department is a disaster. 
They can't call home. And the practical effect of this amendment is 
that a lot of them aren't going to be able to call home. Or maybe when 
you have a constituent who has a family member who has run into a 
serious problem in one of these Third World nations and you are out 
trying to help your constituent out, you are going to be really upset 
that the State Department can't communicate with its people in the 
field effectively because 82 percent of the State Department radio 
equipment, 55 percent of their computer equipment, and 40 percent of 
their telephone equipment is totally obsolete.
  So what does this amendment suggest? It suggests we keep it obsolete 
so we can fund a bunch of folks at the Republican National Committee, 
Democratic National Committee, the AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of 
Commerce--who happen to have the best computer equipment in the world, 
the best communication equipment in the world--so we can fund them for 
their trips. What an absolute outrage.
  I cannot believe that we would consider doing this to the people who 
work at the State Department. It is an absolute affront. This is 
important. Yes, somebody said, this is serious business. You are darned 
right this is serious business. This is very serious business. You go 
out to these embassies in some of these Third World countries and you 
see what we subject our people to, and it is not right. They take their 
families along with them. They take their families along with them, and 
they get into some of these countries where Americans aren't all that 
popular, and their families are driving to work some morning, or 
driving to school, and their lives are threatened and they have no 
secure vehicles to travel in because we can't fund it--because we can't 
fund it. But we can fund a first-class airline ticket to China for 
somebody here in the United States to go to a meeting to talk about 
stuff and come back and have a good time on the trip. But we can't fund 
the protection of an American family serving overseas. It's really 
incredible.

  I heard somebody on this floor citing an editorial from the Wall 
Street Journal, or some commentary in the Wall Street Journal. You tell 
me the last time a reporter at the Wall Street Journal used a Wang 
computer to file their story. You tell me when that happened. Wang was 
a great company. It started right down the road from where I live. We 
were very sad to see it go by the way. The fact is that it did. Yet we 
still ask our people in the field to use Wang computers.
  This amendment takes from the capacity of the guys and women who are 
in the field doing the job of presenting American policy, it takes out 
of their hands the capacity to do their job and gives it to a bunch of 
folks who may be well intentioned but who do not accomplish a whole 
lot.
  I just find it unbelievable that the account into which you would dip 
to pay for the NED is the account which is absolutely critical to 
upgrading the State Department and giving our people in the field an 
adequate opportunity to represent us. But that is the amendment, and I 
look forward to this vote with some enthusiasm because this is going to 
be a real test of who really cares about the future of our State 
Department.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you know now why, in my opening 
statement on this particular measure, I said I was so enthused about 
working with the distinguished chairman, the Senator from New 
Hampshire--he laid it on the line. Last December we had a NATO 
conference in Paris whereby we elected the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware the president of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Council. Senator Roth is now the president.
  Pamela Harriman, the distinguished Ambassador, was there, and she 
knew that I was ranking member and had been the chairman. The word had 
gotten around of our attempt to try to bring the State Department from 
the Third World into the first world. I am aghast here that those who 
chaired foreign relations would put in such an amendment, to tell you 
the truth. I feel just as strongly as the Senator from New Hampshire. 
Because Pamela Harriman came to me and said, ``Can I meet you in the 
morning?'' Then we met for the entire morning. We spent the morning 
together.
  Exactly what the Senator from New Hampshire said was pointed out. 
Although the Embassy in Paris was nice, their equipment was outdated. 
Their computers were totally obsolete. They couldn't even get 
replacement parts for it. Their communications had broken down. They 
had a premier facility, an embassy, with hundreds of Americans coming 
in daily--I don't know how you handle a post of that size--but I 
wouldn't even volunteer for it. It wouldn't be an honor; it would 
really be a drag, because trying to keep up with national policy while 
dealing with the visiting firemen and repairmen and all the other 
problems, the problems that ensue in a wonderful city like Paris. It is 
really hard work--she was doing an outstanding job. I said to her--the 
Assistant Secretary, Dick Moose, who used to head up our Foreign 
Relations Committee, and I have been trying to increase funding for the 
capital account to modernize telecommunications, to modernize 
computerization and other equipment in hopes of doing all the good 
things that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky says that NED does.
  Let's assume it is true, and I can tell you, I opposed this in the 
very beginning and then finally said, ``I'm wasting my breath.'' The 
one time I actually supported it was when the current Secretary of 
State, the distinguished Secretary Albright, came to me and said,

       We've got an election in Budapest, Hungary, and we can buy 
     some old printing presses out in Indiana and print up voting 
     bills to be handed out and ballots to help conduct an 
     election.

  Now everyone is bothered about foreign governments trying to 
influence our elections? Heavens above, the other day we had, I think, 
99 votes commending Mexico on its elections because it was the first 
time the United States stayed out.
  We have been funding activities through Wall Street or otherwise down 
there with the PRI. That is a big financial fix. Paying off the Mexican 
debt was just a refinancing. Nothing went to the Mexican people. It all 
went back up to the banks on Wall Street. It is time we sober up and 
understand. My colleagues should get the American Chamber of Commerce 
report in Mexico City 60 days ago and see what it says: Unemployment is 
down, the economy is down and the forecast is no recovery for several 
years to come. NAFTA

[[Page S8036]]

hasn't worked. It has worked for the financial crowd, and it has worked 
for those who want to export the industrial backbone of America.
  I reviewed, as a member of the Hoover Commission in the fifties, the 
Central Intelligence Agency. That was our primary function. I can see 
Sonny Purfoy in the Guatemala election. I can see him in the Greek 
election. His job was to run elections the world around.
  So the Chinese learned to do a little bit of that, and now we are 
going to have a big Federal program and spend millions of dollars, all 
to get on national TV to express our horror and surprise. Mature 
individuals ought to quit acting like children, and let's move on and 
let's get the work of the Government done. Now that is what I want to 
speak about, the work of the Government, namely the State Department.
  Assume everything said by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, 
everything said by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is 
absolutely true and ought to be done without apology by the Department 
of State. What is wrong with that? What is wrong is under communism, we 
said, ``Well, we couldn't do that.'' We always apologized because of 
our democracy and our freedom and our individual rights.
  The Department of State ought to be around as the foremost lead 
organization, not the Department of Defense, now with the fall of the 
wall. We ought to be selling democracy. To Secretary Christopher's 
credit, he finally got them doing business.
  I started back 37 years ago as Governor of South Carolina. I went 
down in Rio de Janeiro and, like the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, Chairman Helms, I thought of them in that same vein. Why? 
Because the United States Ambassador, standing up with the Governor of 
Guana Bera, in the Embassy in Rio in Brazil, reached over into my glass 
and pulled the ice out of it and threw it on the floor and said, 
``Don't drink that, Governor, the ice is dirty in this country.'' How 
do you think I felt? I said, ``That fellow doesn't have any manners.'' 
But a lot has happened in 37 years.
  Our Department of State has outstanding personnel the world around, 
and they are trying to work in the business field to help spread 
capitalism. In my opinion that is what really prevailed with the fall 
of the wall. It wasn't the CIA or anything else. It was capitalism. I 
served on the Intelligence Committee, and they never briefed us that 
the wall was about to fall.
  So be that as it may, let's bring our Department of State in and put 
in a billion more. They gave a billion more in foreign aid and less to 
the Department of State. The distinguished chairman, the Senator from 
New Hampshire, comes around and finds some money here, and we put it in 
the infrastructure to try to build up the Department of State. We come 
around and we have a crowd that says, ``No, the Republican Party, the 
Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO, the chamber of commerce''--now, by gosh, 
they have their minions all over this Capital City, and so they can fix 
the vote and tell what wonderful work it does. Well, if it is wonderful 
work, let's let the Department of State, without embarrassment or 
apology, perform it.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have on previous occasions come to the 
floor of the Senate to support amendments offered by the Senator from 
Arkansas to strike the funding for the National Endowment for 
Democracy. I must say that I was surprised and very pleased by the 
actions taken by the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
South Carolina and the subcommittee to strike the funding in the 
subcommittee and recommend to the full Senate there be no funding for 
the National Endowment for Democracy.
  The chairman and the ranking member say it very simply. They simply 
cut the $30 million out. In their report, they tell us that:

       The National Endowment for Democracy was originally 
     established in 1984 during the days of the cold war as a 
     public-private partnership to promote democratic movements 
     behind the Iron Curtain. Limited U.S. Government funds were 
     viewed as a way to help leverage private contributions and 
     were never envisioned as the sole or major source of 
     continuing funds for the National Endowment for Democracy.

  I might say parenthetically, it wasn't really a private-public 
partnership, it was public funding. There was never very much private 
money available. But the subcommittee says:

       Since the cold war is over, the committee believes the time 
     has come to eliminate Federal funding for this program.

  Once again, I am pleased by this recommendation. I think it is the 
right recommendation.
  We have a weed in North Dakota out in ranching and farming country 
called the leafy spurge. The leafy spurge is kind of an ugly weed. It 
grows anywhere, without moisture. You just can't get rid of it. You can 
cut it, you can spray it, you can mutilate it, you can dig it up, and 
you come back and it is still growing. We have some things in the 
Federal budget that remind me a little bit of leafy spurge. It doesn't 
matter what you do, you just can't kill it.
  The chairman and the ranking member bring a proposal to this floor 
from the committee that says this program is a program that is done, it 
ought not be funded. I think the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator 
from New Hampshire, the Senator from South Carolina, and others, have 
said it well. Most taxpayers, I think, would be surprised to discover 
that we were spending nearly $30 million and we were dividing it up and 
saying to groups, ``Take this and go around the world and promote 
democracy.'' We would give a pretty big chunk to the National 
Democratic Party. Then we would give an equivalent chunk to the 
Republican Party, because you can't give to one without the other. Then 
we would give a big chunk of money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 
then give an equivalent amount of money to the AFL-CIO, and we would 
say, ``With this, promote democracy, promote free enterprise, promote 
unionism.''
  It is 1997. The cold war is over. The Soviet Union doesn't exist. 
There is no Berlin Wall. There is no Warsaw Pact. Democracy has marched 
across the continents on this Earth, and yet, today, we face an 
amendment that says, ``Let us decide to continue to spend $30 million a 
year for the National Endowment for Democracy.''
  I must tell you that I sort of view these things also in the context 
of what else is necessary to be done. The Senator from New Hampshire 
talked about trying to make a telephone call from a U.S. embassy on 
foreign soil to the United States or to use a computer in an American 
embassy abroad to try and connect to the United States. He talked about 
the Department's equipment needs, and I understand that. I think most 
of us have seen that first hand. He is talking about the needs of the 
State Department.
  Those needs are great, and yet the funding to meet those needs is cut 
under this amendment, in order to pay for this $30 million for the 
National Endowment for Democracy.
  There are other needs that frustrate me from time to time, sufficient 
so that I sit and grit my teeth and wonder why, why can't you get 
something so small done that would help people who are so important? 
But you just can't. And yet $30 million is available for a National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  I think for 4 or 5 years, I have come to this floor to try to get, 
first, $1 million, then $2 million, to deal with the issue of child 
abuse on Indian reservations. I have been unsuccessful all these years 
to get that money.
  I held a hearing one day, and at the hearing, we heard the story of 
Tamara DeMaris, a young Indian girl 3 years old who was put in a foster 
home, and they didn't have enough time to check out the foster home. So 
this 3-year-old girl was in this foster home, and a drunken party 
ensued. The 3-year-old girl was beaten severely, her hair was torn out 
at the roots, her arm was broken and her nose was broken. Why? Because 
she was put in a foster home and no one checked to see that the foster 
home was safe. Why? Because one person had 150 cases of children who 
needed help and didn't have time to check the foster home.
  At a hearing on this issue of child abuse, I had a young woman sit at 
the table and begin to weep. She was in charge of child welfare. She 
said, ``I have stacks of folders on the floor alleging physical abuse 
and sexual abuse that haven't even been investigated because I don't 
have the money.'' She

[[Page S8037]]

began to weep. She said, ``I don't even have the ability to transport 
kids to a doctor.''
  I tried for 4 or 5 years to get money to start a pilot project to 
deal with those child abuse issues. The money is not available. But $30 
million for the National Endowment for Democracy? A big chunk to the 
AFL-CIO, to the chamber of commerce, to each political party, and then 
send some contracts around the world, fly around the world to meetings 
in the biggest cities in the world and talk about democracy?
  We are going to come to a portion of appropriations, as the Senator 
from Arkansas said, where we will spend $4 billion for something called 
the Agency for International Development. That is a program that 
promotes democracy abroad. That is a program that helps people around 
the rest of the world. Four billion dollars, I am told. The U.S. 
Information Agency is a program that helps people around the world; 
Food for Peace; the contribution we make to NATO.
  I was asking somebody today, if we contributed the same amount of our 
national income as all of our NATO partners do to the defense of 
Europe, what would it mean to us? I discovered something interesting: 
$100 billion a year of savings. If we were contributing the same 
average amount for defense as all of our allies are contributing, $100 
billion a year. Think of that.
  So we spend $100 billion extra a year to promote democracy, to help 
our allies, to help defend the free world, and then we spend money in 
AID, we spend money in USIA, we spend money in Food for Peace in a 
dozen other ways, and then we want to duplicate it in a minuscule 
program that doesn't have a reason for being, except that we fund it 
and it sets up a very well-connected board. The Senator from New 
Hampshire said, I guess he called it the club, I think that was the 
reference.
  I don't know much about this club. The names I see are some of the 
most distinguished Americans, no question about that, people for whom I 
have great respect. I would expect every single one of them associated 
with this organization would support the organization. I understand 
that.
  The point is, we spend billions and billions of dollars supporting 
democracy abroad through this Government's programs--the foreign aid 
program, the Food for Peace Program, USIA, AID, and dozens of others--
and there is not a need when the cold war is over, when there is no 
Soviet Union, when times have changed, to resurrect a $30 million 
program that this subcommittee decided it wanted to kill.
  It is unusual to see a bill come to the floor of the Senate with a 
recommendation that says, you know, this program has outlived its 
usefulness. This program is no longer needed. This money ought to be 
saved. It is very unusual to see that happen here in Congress. But it 
happened today when Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings brought a 
recommendation to the floor saying this organization that produces 
these slick annual reports is no longer necessary.
  That conclusion is contested by some who say, yes, it is. We want $30 
million more added to the bill to support the continued existence of 
this organization, the National Endowment for Democracy.
  We live in the greatest democracy on the face of this Earth. Half of 
the people in the last election said they did not want to go vote. If 
we want to endow a democracy, let us invest this $30 million here, let 
us continue an investment in this democracy.
  You know, I know some people look at, I suppose, some of the things I 
talk about on trade and other things I talk about and say, ``Well, it's 
some of the same old story, kind of isolationist, and don't understand 
things, can't see over the horizon. You just don't have the vision, the 
breadth of understanding that it takes to know why this is necessary.''
  I think I do understand this.
  I am not a foreign policy expert by any means, nor am I an 
isolationist, nor do I believe the world is growing larger--it is 
growing smaller--nor do I believe that we do not have to be involved in 
what is happening in the rest of the world. But this country can no 
longer afford to spend money it does not have on things it does not 
need. And it does not need the National Endowment for Democracy, an 
organization with a fancy title, that gives its money to the AFL-CIO, 
the chamber of commerce, the two national political parties, and then 
goes without much strain to promote democracy abroad.
  There is plenty of democracy to promote here at home, plenty of 
reasons to decide either to save this money or to invest it here in 
things we need to do in this country and use the promotion of democracy 
as it is effectively done in AID, in USIA, and Food For Peace, and so 
many other organizations, yes, including, as Senator Bumpers said, the 
foreign aid bill. That is where we promote the principles of democracy 
abroad. It is where it should be promoted.
  Finally, let me just say this. This organization was created on a 
recommendation offered in 1983, created in 1984 in the middle of the 
cold war, I assume for good purposes at that time, for people who felt 
it was a necessary organization. It is now no longer necessary.
  The subcommittee is dead right. This is a colossal waste of the 
taxpayers' money. If we cannot kill this organization, and end this 
funding, then in my judgment we have a very difficult time taking a 
look at other areas of questionable funding and making the right 
choice.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 981.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 981) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 984

   (Purpose: To make appropriations for grants through the National 
                        Endowment for Democracy)

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Graham, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
     Lieberman, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 984.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the last word in the bill and substitute 
     the following:

     ``1998

     ``SEC.   . NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY.

       ``For grants made by the United States Information Agency 
     to the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act, $30,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended. The language on page 100, line 24 
     to wit, `$105,000,000' is deemed to be `$75,000,000'.''

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 985 to Amendment No. 984

   (Purpose: To make appropriations for grants through the National 
                        Endowment for Democracy)

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a second-degree amendment to the Lugar 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Graham, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
     Lieberman, and Mr. Mack, proposes amendment numbered 985 to 
     amendment No. 984.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike all after the word ``1998'' on line 4 of the 
     underlying amendment and substitute the following:

     SEC.   . NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY.

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act, $30,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended. The language on page 100, line 24 
     to wit, ``$105,000,000'' is deemed to be ``$75,000,000''. 
     This shall become effective one day after enactment of this 
     Act.


[[Page S8038]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me just say very briefly--we are 
anxious to hear from Senator McCain, and move on to a vote--the capital 
investment account referred to by the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member will still be $105 million after 
the Lugar amendment is approved. That would exceed the President's 
request by $10 million and exceed the 1997 level of last year's bill by 
$80 million.
  The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee certainly raises a 
valid point with regard to the infrastructure at the State Department. 
But it will be substantially increased for all the purposes he alluded 
to even after the amendment restoring the National Endowment for 
Democracy is hopefully approved.
  Just one other point, Mr. President. I just want to mention a letter 
that was sent to the chairman and the ranking member in support of the 
National Endowment funding at $30 million signed by, in addition to 
Senator Lugar and myself, Senator Graham, Senator Mikulski, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Mack, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Cochran, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Hatch, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Inhofe, Senator 
Dodd, Senator Abraham, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murkowski, Senators 
Leahy, Roth, Kerry of Massachusetts, Robb, Levin, Breaux, Kyl, DeWine, 
Coverdell, Jeffords, Moynihan, Reed, Hagel, Torricelli, Thomas, Reid, 
Rockefeller, Frist, and of course the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona, who is about to speak who has been an enthusiastic supporter 
of this program over the years.
  The NED, many of us feel, has done wonderful work, has broad 
bipartisan support across both party and ideological lines.
  Mr. President, we hope the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Indiana will be approved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator 
from Indiana have made I think a strong and compelling case for this 
amendment. I am grateful for what they have said and their active 
involvement in the pursuit of democracy throughout the world.
  The Senator from Kentucky just recently completed action on an 
appropriations bill here that I think embodies frankly what the 
National Endowment for Democracy is all about. And of course the 
Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, is acknowledged throughout the 
world, not only in this body, but throughout the world as one of the 
foremost experts on national security issues and foreign affairs.
  Mr. President, I do not want to repeat a lot of the things that have 
already been said about this issue, except to try to define really what 
this debate is all about.
  The Senator from North Dakota just talked about the fact that there 
was no use for this kind of activity by our Government. I understand 
that. I less understand the Senator from New Hampshire who I have 
always known to be a person who supported efforts for freedom and 
democracy throughout the world.
  We have people, Mr. President, like Martin Lee, who everyone 
recognizes as the voice of human rights and freedom in Hong Kong. He 
says:

       In Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia and around the world, 
     the struggle to preserve democracy, political freedom and the 
     rule of law is far from being won [is far from being won]. 
     But by supporting key human rights organizations which work 
     for the development of democracy and the preservation of the 
     rule of law and human rights in Hong Kong, the Endowment's 
     work in Hong Kong has had a profound effect at a critical 
     time.

  I do not know if the Senator from Arkansas, who I have debated this 
issue for several years with, takes the time or the effort or the 
trouble to hear from people like Martin Lee and Harry Wu, and people 
who have suffered--who have suffered--on behalf of fighting for human 
rights and freedom in their countries.
  I wish the Senator from Arkansas would take some time and listen to 
these individuals, not me, not the Senator from Kentucky, not the 
Senator from Indiana, but why don't you, I would ask the Senator from 
Arkansas, listen to people like Martin Lee and Harry Wu, the Dali Lama, 
the Prime Minister of the National Coalition Government of Burma, the 
former chief of staff of the President of Chile, the President of 
Lithuania, the list goes on and on, names that are not known to some in 
America but are known throughout the world in their struggle for 
freedom in virtually every part of the world. That is why I am a bit 
puzzled and confused by the length of this debate and, frankly, the 
emotion associated with it.
  As has already been noted by the Senator from Indiana and the Senator 
from Kentucky, there is an editorial in the Wall Street Journal this 
morning. I quote:

       Hong Kong democratic leader Martin Lee, who faces tough 
     battles ahead in coping with Hong Kong's new Beijing 
     landlords, penned a letter to Senator Connie Mack begging 
     him--begging him--to help save the NED. Senator Bob Graham 
     has heard from Sergio Aguayo of the Civic Alliance, which 
     has a strong hand in promoting the multiparty democracy 
     now taking root in Mexico.

  The list goes on and on.

       One achievement of this Ronald Reagan brainchild was to 
     help Poland's Solidarity break the grip of the Soviet Union 
     in the Cold War days.

  It goes on and on.
  Mr. President, as I said, I am not going to take a lot of time. I 
just want to say as strongly as I can, in the end I think it is fair to 
say that the opponents of the National Endowment for Democracy are 
those who define this country only by what we are against and not by 
what we are for. It is enough for them that the United States opposed 
communism, and once the threat communism posed to our own security was 
defeated, they viewed America's role as the champion of liberal 
democracy to have become an expensive vanity which deserved to 
disappear with the Berlin wall.
  But such a cramped view of American purpose ignores the service and 
sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans who were ordered into 
innumerable battles, not just in defense of American security, but of 
American values.
  It ignores the aspirations of our Founding Fathers who conceived of 
this Nation as an inspiration for and friend to all peoples who sought 
their natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  It ignores the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln who knew that the outcome of 
our Civil War would affect the world as profoundly as it affected our 
own society. And it ignores the generous spirit of Ronald Reagan who 
believed that supporting the forces of democracy overseas was our 
abiding moral obligation, just as it was a practical necessity during 
the cold war.
  I am proud of America's long and successful opposition to communism, 
but being an anticommunist is not enough. It was never an end in 
itself. We are all small ``d'' democrats in our efforts to help secure 
the blessings of liberty of what truly distinguishes American history 
from all other nations on Earth. It was necessary to defeat communism 
to protect the well-being of Americans, but it was also necessary to 
defeat communism because it threatened America's best sense of itself 
and our sublime legacy to the world.
  Mr. President, $30 million is a small investment in preserving that 
legacy. And I ask all my colleagues to keep faith with the many revered 
Americans who paid a much higher price than that to keep America a 
beacon light of liberty.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am delighted I was here to hear the Senator from 
Arizona comment on the program. I will call attention to the fact that 
the bill in the other body has the same amount of money that is in the 
amendment as proposed here. This matter will be at conference. And it 
will be a long and sustained conference whether this amendment is 
adopted or not.
  I believe that we should keep on course. I am not an opponent of this 
matter. As a matter of fact, I have always voted for it. But I do not 
think it gains anything to have a prolonged discussion here at this 
time. I will assure Senators who support it, we will do everything in 
our power to assure the conference of their objectives at conference. 
But I move to table this

[[Page S8039]]

amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 984

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays are ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 72, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Kohl
     Lott
     Nickles
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--72

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 984) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is overwhelming opposition. But I 
do want to tell the Senate that we are spending time on an amendment 
that deals with a subject the House has always insisted on in 
conference. I don't know why we spend time debating here on the floor 
whether or not we are going to give this subject approval by the 
Senate, because it is one item that the House will not let us come out 
of conference on unless we approve it. So we have taken time to get 
negotiating room with the House, and the Senate won't let us have it. I 
am sorry to say that I think the Senate just made a mistake.


                           Amendment No. 985

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the pending 
business before the body is the second-degree amendment by the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
  The amendment (No. 985) was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.


                     Amendment No. 984, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the first-degree 
amendment, as amended. Is there any further debate? If not, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 984), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 986

(Purpose: To establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the 
                       Federal Courts of Appeals)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Bryan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 986.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 93, line 5, strike all through line 15 on page 97 
     and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 305. COMMISSION ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE 
                   FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS.

       (a) Establishment and Functions of Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a Commission on 
     Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Functions.--The functions of the Commission shall be 
     to--
       (A) study the present division of the United States into 
     the several judicial circuits;
       (B) study the structure and alignment of the Federal Court 
     of Appeals system, with particular reference to the Ninth 
     Circuit; and
       (C) report to the President and the Congress its 
     recommendations for such changes in circuit boundaries or 
     structure as may be appropriate for the expeditious and 
     effective disposition of the caseload of the Federal Courts 
     of Appeals, consistent with fundamental concepts of fairness 
     and due process.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 
     members appointed as follows:
       (A) One member appointed by the President of the United 
     States.
       (B) One member appointed by the Chief Justice of the United 
     States.
       (C) Two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (D) Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (E) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (F) Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Appointment.--The members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed within 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) Vacancy.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (4) Chair.--The Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice 
     Chair from among its members.
       (5) Quorum.--Six members of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum, but three may conduct hearings.
       (c) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Members of the Commission who are 
     officers, or full-time employees, of the United States shall 
     receive no additional compensation for their services, but 
     shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other 
     necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties 
     vested in the Commission, but not in excess of the maximum 
     amounts authorized under section 456 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Private members.--Members of the Commission from 
     private life shall receive $200 for each day (including 
     travel time) during which the member is engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties vested in the Commission, plus 
     reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary 
     expenses incurred in the performance of such duties, but not 
     in excess of the maximum amounts authorized under section 456 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (d) Personnel.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Commission may appoint an 
     Executive Director who shall receive compensation at a rate 
     not exceeding the rate prescribed for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Staff.--The Executive Director, with the approval of 
     the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of such 
     additional personnel as the Executive Director determines 
     necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service or the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and 
     General Schedule pay rates. Compensation under this paragraph 
     shall not exceed the annual maximum rate of basic pay for a 
     position above GS-15 of the General Schedule under section 
     5108 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--The Executive Director may 
     procure personal services of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, at 
     rates not to exceed the highest level payable under the 
     General Schedule pay rates under section 5332 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Services.--The Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts shall provide administrative services, 
     including financial and budgeting services, to the Commission 
     on a reimbursable basis. The Federal Judicial Center shall 
     provide necessary research services to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis.
       (e) Information.--The Commission is authorized to request 
     from any department, agency, or independent instrumentality 
     of

[[Page S8040]]

     the Government any information and assistance the Commission 
     determines necessary to carry out its functions under this 
     section. Each such department, agency, and independent 
     instrumentality is authorized to provide such information and 
     assistance to the extent permitted by law when requested by 
     the Chair of the Commission.
       (f) Report.--No later than 18 months following the date on 
     which its sixth member is appointed in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(2), the Commission shall submit its report to 
     the President and the Congress. The Commission shall 
     terminate 90 days after the date of the submission of its 
     report.
       (g) Congressional Consideration.--No later than 60 days 
     after the submission of the report, the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     shall act on the report.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Commission such sums, not to exceed 
     $900,000, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this section. Such sums as are appropriated shall remain 
     available until expended.

  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from New York 
has a question. I yield to him for a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

                          ____________________